Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions

Article too long?

Is it just me, or does this page take a long time to load into a browser compared to a short page such as Canada's Food Guide? Maybe because it has so many references -- I think it takes time to process the footnotes. It might be a good idea to move some of the material into subpages. --Coppertwig 23:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to do that eventually, but for some reason it continues to be pushed off. Most likely due to the constant disputes. I'd really like to merge the Medical aspects with the medical article. Jake, is the latter ready? -- Avi 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To do so would be a blatant POV-fork. Why not create a "religious aspects of circumcision" page and merge all the religious aspects to that article? Blackworm 00:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article in itself should still be balanced, but it can be supported by other articles focussing on religious or medical aspects, and it can be shorter on the whole. Many of the references can be moved to those other articles, allowing this page to load more quickly. (I think there's too much about religion in this article anyway -- it would be good to move most of it to an article on religion and circumcision.) Alternatively, if the references are formatted a different way (not using the footnote feature) the page may load faster. They could look the same in the display but the wikitext would be more complicated. --Coppertwig 04:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Black, please read WP:SUMMARY for an explanation of what was suggested. Summary style article construction is not a POV fork. In our case, "Medical" aspects is SO large as to justify its own article (which it actually has!). Should we be able to work out an NPOV compliant (and remember what NPOV means; it does NOT mean NO point of view) section, THAT IS SUFFICIENTLY LARGE, it too would merit its own article. POV forks are something different. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. Thank you. -- Avi 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, you can't have it both ways. The pro-circumcision authors controlling this article want to define circumcision as "a surgical procedure" (surgical = legitimate, good, beneficial, sterile, performed by experts -- *all* debatable POV notions carried by the word) in the first sentence of the article, but relegate the ugly, grisly medical details of circumcision, as well as any mention of the *actual* debate and controversy surrounding circumcision in the medical community, to a subpage they know most people won't read. Meanwhile, they encourage having a *larger* religious section in the main article, emphasizing circumcision as a tradition to be honored and respected. I don't buy it. It's a POV-fork. Offload the negative material regarding circumcision into subpages (most of this work has already been done), and retain and slowly add more positive material. Intimidate dissenting voices with tag-teaming and administrative threats, and maintain control. Since the #1 hit on Google for "circumcision" is this article, you control the absolute truth for millions of people. Fork away all that nasty "medical" stuff -- except how great circumcision is for AIDS, of course; that, I'm sure, will take up half the exclusively pro-circumcision summary. Blackworm 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Blackworm, it would really be appreciated if you could assume good faith and avoid making incivil accusations. I think that somewhere in there you're making some points that are at least worthy of serious discussion, but frankly if you make them in such a hostile and accusatory manner then it only makes people (including myself) reluctant to do so. Jakew 12:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, what I suggest is this: That the article as a whole be shortened as follows That a separate article on "religion and circumcision" be created, and according to summary style the religion section here be shortened; and that the following sections also be shortened: the medical section, especially the part about benefits and most especially the part about HIV, to bring the section on benefits down to about the same length as the section on risks; medical aspects are covered in more length at Medical analysis of circumcision); and the history section, which is covered at History of male circumcision; and the "Prevalence of circumcision" section, which is covered at Circumcision worldwide. Note where it says at the beginnings of some sections in italics, "Main article: ..." Those are the links to the more in-depth articles for the Summary Style. Blackworm, it's not clear to me what proposed action exactly you would consider to be a POV-fork. How do you (and others) feel about this particular proposal? If you consider it a POV-fork, please explain exactly why. --Coppertwig 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a POV-fork because the medical aspects of circumcision are those most cited by those opposed to the controversial practice of male circumcision. The religious aspects are almost exclusively cited by persons who see circumcision in a positive light. The same editors who chose to define circumcision in the first sentence of the article in a positive light (i.e. "a surgical procedure") now wish to move the section of the article regarding the reality of the surgical procedure to a subpage. The emphasis of the article must remain consistent with the definition. Thus the admittedly large amount of information regarding the apparent benefits and harms of circumcision from a medical perspective would be reduced to the same meaningless summary as the lead paragraph, perhaps emphasizing protection from disease without properly interpreting the data, choosing weak, emotional phrases like "the [source] felt that X, Y, and Z" to describe conclusions of certain large medical organisations, and emphasizing the medical sources' mentioning "parental choice" and "tradition" -- ironically, two aspects which have very little to do with the health aspects of circumcision. Conversely, these same editors oppose an attempt to subpage the material concerning circumcision and religion. Ultimately, by specifically giving emphasis on the medical nature of circumcision in the first sentence of the article (aided by the truism that "surgery" is always something beneficial), but seeming to bury countering material in a subpage... Draw your own conclusions. Blackworm 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, may I suggest that you read Coppertwig's proposal (and table) at the end of this section? Jakew 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify something, Coppertwig? Are you suggesting that this article should be a kind of contents page (in summary style) for a family of sub-articles? Or are you suggesting it should be the main article for a few remaining topics?

Incidentally, there is already an article about circumcision and religion. It should probably be renamed and definitely revised, though, since among other things it is rather Christian-centric: Circumcision in the Bible. Jakew 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it an affront to you that an article on a subject like the Bible, for which the overwhelming majority of believers are Christian, is "Christian-centric?" Do you believe it should be revised because the largest Christian church, the Catholic Church, officially proscribes circumcision, and some other religions prescribe it? Is it a matter of NPOV? Discuss on my talk page if you wish. Blackworm 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that it be done as described in the Summary Style page, where it says in part "Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." The Circumcision article should not be just a table of contents, but should be an informative, balanced, (somewhat shorter than it is now, though) article that's useful to readers in itself, and which also has links (as it does now) to more in-depth articles on some subtopics. To be honest, I'm getting tired of waiting for the page to slowly load every time I try to look at a diff link or anything. So I suppose it wastes time for the ordinary reader, too. I hope that answers your question. It's fine with me to either rename the Bible page or make a new religion page. As far as the medical stuff is concerned: there's a tag on the medical article saying the HIV information is out-of-date. Maybe people added it to this article rather than keeping that one up-to-date. I think most of it needs to be moved there. (It's just too long in comparison to other topics here.) --Coppertwig 01:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I expressed my question poorly. When I referred to a 'contents' page, I did not mean for that to be taken literally, but as a metaphor for the logical structure. I am aware of WP:SUMMARY, and I understand the reasoning for wanting a change. However, I do not have a clear picture of what sections you propose to change and specifically, what sections you propose to leave as they are.

To put my question more clearly (I hope), could you go through each of the (top-level) sections and explain whether you see this section becoming a summary & link to a sub-article, or whether you see it holding the main content itself.

As an aside, the article formerly known as 'circumcision worldwide' is now prevalence of circumcision. Jakew 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's my proposal in more detail. Feel free to comment and suggest modifications. I propose to try to rename the Circumcision in the Bible page to a name like Circumcision and religion, and if that doesn't fly, then to create a new page "Circumcision and religion" (or else use "Circumcision and the Bible" with its current name). It would be listed as the "main article" for the religion section. The other sections which I propose to shorten already have "main articles" linked from this article.

In this table, I've listed each main section as one entry except the medical section, which I've divided into three for purposes of planning their length; I'm not proposing any changes to the subheading structure. I propose to first make sure that all information in the sections to be shortened exists in the corresponding "main article", then to shorten the religion section here to approximately 300 words; shorten sexual effects to approximately 200 words; shorten risks to approximately 300 words; shorten the medical aspects subsections 6.2 to 6.8, which are mostly about benefits, to a total of approximately 500 words; shorten the history section to about 500 words; and shorten the prevalence section to about 200 words.

Table 1

Table 1
Section title	Current word count	Proposed word count	Percent (proposed/current)	"Main article"
(Leadin)	185	185	100%
Circumcision procedures	261	261	100%	(None) Medical analysis of circumcision*
Cultures and religions	1365	300	22%	(Circumcision and religion)
Ethical issues	390	390	100%	Bioethics of neonatal circumcision
Pain and pain relief during circumcision	359	359	100%	(None) Medical analysis of circumcision*
Sexual effects	241	200	83%	Sexual effects of circumcision
Medical aspects: Risks of circumcision	394	300	75%	Medical analysis of circumcision*
Medical aspects: 6.2 to 6.8 (mostly benefits)	2689	500	19%	Medical analysis of circumcision*
Medical aspects: Policies of various national medical associations	364	364	100%	(None) Medical analysis of circumcision*
History of circumcision	1424	500	35%	History of male circumcision
Prevalence of circumcision	640	200	31%	Prevalence of circumcision

(*) (Some of the parts share the same "main article"). --Coppertwig 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The only problem I have with your proposal is that circumcision procedures, pain & pain relief, and policies of... should point to medical analysis. (I have some concerns about whether it could actually be made to work, but these are implementation problems.) Jakew 11:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. One step at a time! :-) I concur, and have modified the above table as per your suggestion. That way, all parts of the article will have expanded versions. (The article as a whole acts as the expanded version of the Leadin.) --Coppertwig 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well? What do other editors think? Is it a good idea to shorten the article as described above? --Coppertwig 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, thank you for taking the time to come here at my request and answer my question. However, I still don't understand exactly what proposal you are opposed to, or why. Are you opposed to moving content about religion off this page onto another page? Are you opposed to the proposal described in the table above? And why? I understand that the anti-circumcision material tends to be contained within the medical section and that the religion section tends to be pro-circumcision (that's inevitable, I think, due to the nature of the subject). What I don't understand is what proposal you oppose, and on what grounds. When you talk about a POV fork, do you mean that this page would become too biassed towards one view, or do you mean that another page (onto which some of the material would be moved) would become too biassed, or both? Please be more specific. --Coppertwig 16:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I put notices on the talk pages of the "main articles" to which content may need to be moved, directing discussion here. I'm thinking of adding a note at Talk:Circumcision in the Bible saying that discussion about renaming the page should take place there. Any comment? (I.e. should discussion of renaming that page take place here instead?) Thanks. --Coppertwig 13:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville said in another section of this talk page, "I do not think that the article should be shortened, since there will be no agreement as to what material is important and what isn't." Edwardsville, would you agree to the proposal that the article can be shortened, but only if there is consensus about how to shorten it (i.e. what to leave out)? --Coppertwig 13:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If I don't get more clarification from Blackworm and Edwardsville, I'll assume that Blackworm opposes moving anti-circumcision medical stuff off this page without also moving religious stuff, and that Edwardsville opposes moving stuff without agreement, but that neither opposes carrying out the above plan if it can be done with consensus. In any case, I'd like to move on to the next step: checking that the "main article" pages contain all the information that's on this page. (Some of those articles may need to be updated anyway.) (

Table 2

I encourage people to check and compare sections of this article with the corresponding "main article" and sign in the appropriate box in this table if in your opinion all the information from here is essentially contained there at the time you sign. More than one person can sign in each box if desired. Rows in the box may be added for sub- or sub-sub-sections if desired. (--Coppertwig 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Table 2
Checking that essentially all information here is also at "main article"s
Section title	"Main article"	Wording has been checked	References have been checked
Circumcision procedures	Medical analysis of circumcision	Coppertwig 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Cultures and religions	Circumcision in the Bible or Circumcision and religion
Introduction	""	Coppertwig 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Judaism	"" and Brit milah	Coppertwig 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Christianity	""	Coppertwig 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Islam	""	Coppertwig 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Other faiths and traditions	""	Coppertwig 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ethical issues	Bioethics of neonatal circumcision	Coppertwig 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sexual effects	Sexual effects of circumcision	Coppertwig 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Medical aspects	Medical analysis of circumcision
Risks	""	Coppertwig 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 23:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
HIV and Langerhans subsections	""	(roughly) Coppertwig 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hygiene	""	Coppertwig 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Infectious and Balanitis sections	""	Coppertwig 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Penile cancer	""	Coppertwig 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
HPV	""	Coppertwig 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Phimosis and paraphimosis	""	Coppertwig 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Urinary tract infections	""	Coppertwig 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Policies of various national medical associations	""	Coppertwig 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
History of circumcision	History of male circumcision	Coppertwig 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Prevalence of circumcision	Prevalence of circumcision	Coppertwig 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)	Coppertwig 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. --Coppertwig 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC) See instructions above re signing in boxes to indicate you've checked a section. --Coppertwig 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created a place for discussion of moving Circumcision in the Bible to Circumcision and religion.

I don't support moving the religious material to another article. It is too important not to be included here. If we want a long discussion of religion, that could be done in a separate article, but this article should list what the various faiths do regarding circumcision, and should quote in full all of the instructions in the Bible regarding circumcision.

Edwardsville 13:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville, please explain how your opinion on the placement of the religious material fits in with Wikipedia policy[policies and guidelines], particularly Wikipedia:Article size and WP:NPOV. Actually, Wikipedia:Article size seems to suggest an even more drastic shortening than suggested in the first table, above. --Coppertwig 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a temporary page be created named Talk:Circumcision/Summary style to contain draft shortened versions of the various sections of the article. Discussion of editing those drafts would take place on this talk page. --Coppertwig 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't support skipping the religious material either. If you want to shorten the article this isn't the place to shorten it since so much circumcision is done for religious reasons. If you have an argument as to why this section is less important than others, I'm interested in hearing it.

Just David 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I created the temporary page Talk:Circumcision/Summary style. People are welcome to put shortened versions of the sections to be shortened there. Discussion about it should be on this talk page. --Coppertwig 00:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Having thought about it, the section on religion could do with a fair amount of expansion, so it may warrant more space in its own article. What about an article linked from this one on genital cutting in religion? It seems odd to treat male genital cutting in isolation, since cultures that practice female genital cutting on religious grounds generally practice male genital cutting on religious grounds.

Edwardsville 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

HIV subsection: I'll have to re-check. I may have missed copying over some information. --Coppertwig 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC) OK, I re-checked probably as much as I'm going to. Still not word-for-word, but I think the essential ideas are there. --Coppertwig 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are the massive quote dumps in the references (e.g., [1], [2], [3]) necessary? Seems excessive to me. — 203.173.16.103 08:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I gather it was a compromise arrived at earlier. I don't much care one way or the other.

Ethics section: material from this section has been copied to Bioethics of neonatal circumcision, Circumcision and law and Medical analysis of circumcision. A small amount of the information may only exist on talk pages of those articles (at least for now). --Coppertwig 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note discussion at Talk:Bioethics of neonatal circumcision#FGC about where to put this sentence: "Another argument questions why the genital cutting of males is allowed while the genital cutting of females is prohibited.". Please discuss there. --Coppertwig 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Copying of information to subpages is now complete. The next step is writing draft shortened versions of the selected sections in Talk:Circumcision/Summary style, with discussion here. I welcome participation. --Coppertwig 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm late and out of touch (sorry, everyone in Italy takes the wholemonth of August off for vacation) but my opinion FWIW is that the article Circumcision should be replaced by a list of links to specifc articles as is done with other broad categories in wikipedia.Zandrous 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I've put draft shortened versions of the History and the Prevalence sections at Talk:Circumcision/Summary style. --Coppertwig 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Also the religion/culture section. After the 6 sections to be shortened all have draft shortened versions, blank footnotes have to be checked for before pasting them into this page. --Coppertwig 16:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've finished writing draft shortened versions of the sections to be shortened. I'm going to check for blank references, then if there's no objection I'll paste the short versions into the article. --Coppertwig 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked for blank references. There were only a few and I think I fixed them. By the way, I think the program I've been using to count the number of words counts a superscript as a word; and when I was remarking earlier that WP:SUMMARY seems to almost demand that we shorten the article, I had made some sort of arithmetic error and it isn't really as bad as I thought. Still, I think it will read better shortened. We should probably shorten the footnotes too, but that isn't quite in the current plan as outlined in table 1 (although I did copy the positions section to Medical analysis of circumcision thinking that it would be shortened here.) --Coppertwig 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've copied the shortened versions into the page. It now has only 113 references rather than 179, and apparently loads much faster into my browser. I don't think any significant information has been lost, since it had been copied into the subarticles. --Coppertwig 15:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The page Talk:Circumcision/Summary style is no longer needed and I'm planning to move it to userspace. --Coppertwig 17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethics subheadings

Let's try to find a phrase that covers ethics, emotional consequences and legality, use it as a section heading and put the ethics, emotional and legal parts as subheadings of it. Possibilities include "Ramifications of circumcision", "Societal considerations", "Ethical, emotional and legal considerations". --Coppertwig 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand including both ethical and legal issues together, but why emotional? Might a section on adult persepctives be appropriate since adults seek both circumcision and uncircumcision, i.e. men occur as both satisfied and dissatisfied with being both circumcised and uncircumcised in infancy?Zandrous 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) They seem to me to go together; they're all in a sense about effects of circumcision other than direct medical effects; or they're all about society's reaction to circumcision (or noncircumcision). (2) They're three short sections, so combining them together helps keep the article tidy. (3) They were together until recently. Why not put them together? --Coppertwig 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they should go together, but they also have to do with direct medical effects. Emotional considerations are the basis for ethical considerations; and when combined with scientific evidence ethical considerations are the basis for legal ones. Blackworm 00:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Zandrous, what you're talking about basically boils down to men regretting not having been circumcised in infancy. Are there such men in any significant numbers? How do they compare to the number of men who are upset at having been circumcised in infancy? What is the percentage of men who are unaware they were circumcised? What is the percentage of circumcised men who know what circumcision is? What is the percentage of all men worldwide who believe the practice immoral? Etc., etc. These are the questions we should be asking -- and the answers are nowhere in the article on circumcision. It's a sad state of affairs. Blackworm 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm: Could you come up with some sources that provide numbers like that? That would be interesting and probably usable in this article or at least in one of the subarticles. --Coppertwig 15:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Very little research has been done. The only peer-reviewed study with meaningful data that I can think of is Schlossberger et al. Jakew 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Should there not be a criticism section in this article?Bless sins 07:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by a "criticism section". --Coppertwig 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

o The practice of circumcision has come under criticism. Should we not have a section to reflect those views?Bless sins 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will see that every section contains elements of criticism. There is no need for a separate criticism section, just as there is no need for a separate advocacy section. Each subsection and corresponding child article has plenty of reference, and references, to both sides of the debate. Take a half an hour or so and read the entire article; it's rather interesting. -- Avi 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think every section does at all. Further, I think the ones that do, do so in such a way so seemingly calculated for minimum sympathy that they are a misrepresentation -- and thus a disgrace. Take this example: "One argument is that male circumcision is ethically identical to female genital cutting." The source is [4]. Read that page. Nowhere are the words "ethic" or "ethical" used, nor "identical" nor "equal." By presenting this apparent criticism of male circumcision (I believe the site is highly critical of the female form of GC as well, based on its name, "The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project"), the site is merely presenting facts, albeit in an emotional way; not drawing ethical conclusions. That the WP author interpreted this as "ethically identical" is his problem. It's not even clearly "criticism." YOU are drawing the conclusion that it is criticism, based on YOUR ethics and worldview. To those people who believe both forms of cutting are fine, and the arguments presented on that page on both sides make sense, would it be called "criticism of circumcision?" That is a contradiction.

The problem isn't not having a criticism section; the problem is that there is no fair and well-presented criticism in the article. This isn't the fault of the sources that present circumcision fairly with respect to female genital cutting (which I *do* believe is mutilation, irrelevant as that is here) -- it's not their place to advocate, just to present facts. Blackworm 03:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) Here is another example. The following phrase used to be in the article. It is a seemingly perfectly valid criticism (at least a debatable one), which anyone can find in different forms read again and again almost anywhere you find any criticism of circumcision. The phrase was, "Another argument is that as it's his body, any decision to circumcise should be only be made by the owner of the foreskin when he reaches adulthood." It is a seemingly very appealing argument; a valid argument to many if not most; certainly an argument used in criticism of both male and female genital cutting; and phrased in a balanced, non-fringe sounding way. Gone from the article. Why? Blackworm 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig has done excellent work implementing summary style So, while that exact sentence may no longer be in the article, the idea remains as "Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault." with a {{main}} tag to Bioethics of neonatal circumcision where the intro states "Because the tissues, once excised, cannot be entirely replaced, many question the appropriateness of their removal in childhood." Which is the same idea, and further fleshed out in the Bioethics article. Perhaps the sentence you list, with its sources, can find an appropriate place in the proper child article (referenced above). -- Avi 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't approve of Coppertwig's change. The first sentence you quote doesn't explain WHY "those opposing circumcision" take that stance, and thus is merely a statement of the existence of others' criticism, not criticism in itself. It is also presented as a liberal-fringe sounding legal issue, that if calculated could not have been written better in order to shock people into opposing the stance. It speaks exactly to those opposing change, without presenting any argument in favour of the change at all. "They want to make a law? No way, there are enough laws!" The second sentence is from a subarticle; I will not discuss it here. I've said in the past I believe all subarticles of this page are huge, rarely-read POV-forks and I don't wish to spend my time on them. Blackworm 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement is a better, more neutrally presented summary of several arguments, rather than one in particular. That it is a statement of criticism rather than criticism itself is a testimony to good NPOV editing. Jakew 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no. It is not a statement of criticism. It is a statement that criticism exists (from "those" kooks wanting to change the law). The article (now) does not present any arguments critical of circumcision. It contains many, many arguments in support of circumcision. This is not NPOV, this is keeping out the anti-circ kooks -- something which you have been praised for by several editors on your user page, in response to your stated goal of removing material you see as critical of circumcision. Good job, you have helped eliminate all criticism of circumcision from the article. Nice NPOV. Blackworm 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, the article shouldn't argue for or against. It should present facts and (to a lesser extent) viewpoints (which, when attributed properly, are facts themselves).

There are two statements here, both presented as viewpoints, and I have no idea where you're finding the claim of kookishness:

• Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, preventing infections, and slowing down the spread of AIDS.
• Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault.

I can't see it. There are simply two statements, one summarising certain viewpoints of those in favour, and one summarising certain viewpoints of those against. Jakew 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The statements you quote are a perfect example. The pro-circ one presents the REASONING behind the stance -- in the form of supposed facts (reinforced elsewhere in the article): circumcision prevents infections, circumcision slows AIDS. Where is the reasoning in the anti-circ statement? I would add "because they believe only the owner of the penis should decide whether a part of it should be amputated without medical reason, leading to intense pain, reduced sexual sensitivity, emotional harm, and risk of major injury and death." Of course, you would never allow that, citing NPOV, NOR, RS, and whatever other acronyms you like to drum up whenever you revert anything actually presenting any anti-circ argument. Blackworm 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this another way in case the ridiculous imbalance isn't already clear: the first sentence could be equivalently written as:

• Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, since it prevents infections, and slows the spread of AIDS.

The above sentence is an argument. Because of A, these people believe B, thus they advocate C ("as would any logical person" is implied). An argument advocating C, logically presented. Let's look again at the second sentence:

• Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault.

Can you rewrite this as an argument? No. It's merely a statement that some people exist who assert that infant circumcision is a human rights violation. Saying that they claim it is sexual assault is redundant, since sexual assault is also a human rights violation. However, by putting "sexual assault" in there, the article assures that people will be repulsed by the drawing of a comparison between a "procedure" they have seen all their lives as normal, and rape, which is seen as a crime more horrifying than murder. Obviously the desired reaction is, "I disagree." More importantly, however, notice that is no implied "since," or "because," or "as a result of," or any language which would signal that an argument is being presented. There are no supporting facts as to why these people believe it is a human rights violation. The sentence cannot be equivalently written as an argument, because it is not an argument. The article contains no arguments critical of circumcision. You have accomplished your stated goal. Blackworm 07:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording, but another wording of similar length could be Those opposing circumcision, however, question the imposition of an unnecessary procedure involving pain and risk on someone too young to consent. or Those opposing circumcision, however, mention pain, risks including death, loss of natural tissue and incompetence of infants to consent. Blackworm, perhaps you could come up with alternative wording of similar length, perhaps including the word "since". I think the current wording actually makes a stronger anti-circumcision case than these wordings I propose here. --Coppertwig 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your second sentence, although it is unclear why opposing views would need to be summarized in one sentence in a 100 kilobyte article on a controversial subject, which otherwise continuously extolls the benefits. But here, how about Those opposing circumcision, however, mention the pain inflicted by the procedure, risks of major injury and death, irreplaceable loss of erogenous skin leading to reduced sexual feeling, and the right of every human to decide for themselves how their body will be permanently modified. These arguments parallel those used in opposition to Female Genital Cutting. Never will that make it into the article, however. It's just too... true. Blackworm 18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Too long and too POV, actually. Jakew 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Too wrong-POV, you mean. Blackworm 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll expand on that. First, "too long" is a completely arbitrary objection, which could be applied to anything you don't like. If two lines are "too long" to summarize all possible arguments against a controversial subject, while at least 100 lines in the article are the presentation of pro-circumcision arguments, you can hardly call that balanced editing. (Note that one would never get the impression circumcision is controversial from the article, because editors controlling the article are all on one side of the controversy.)

Second, the statement is no more "POV" than the one talking about circumcision advocates. Your objection is simply that it presents an argument against circumcision -- something the article fails to do at the moment (and yet presents an argument for circumcision in practically every paragraph). Please explain to me how the above is "too POV," since it merely states fact -- the fact is, that those opposing circumcision do so because of reasons X, Y, and/or Z. It is exactly the same format as the myriad statements advocating circumcision in the article, which you support. The facts could easily be referenced. I can only conclude that you wish these facts to be omitted from the article because actually present an argument against circumcision for the first time in the history of the article (at least since you have accomplished your stated goal of remove anti-circ POV, and only anti-circ POV). When circumcision advocates control the presentation of the arguments of those opposed, what you get is the current WP article: a fraud, a disgrace, and a farce. Blackworm 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We're supposed to summarise, and we're presenting a minority viewpoint (hence we need to avoid undue weight. Both of which imply that we should try to get the text as short as possible.

The first problem is that beliefs are presented as fact. In the case of those advocating circumcision, we correctly note that they 'assert'. But here, instead, they 'mention', implying that these are uncontested statements. Worse, relatively factual statements such as 'risks of major injury' are lumped in with highly controversial claims such as 'reduced sexual feeling' and completely unprovable beliefs such as the 'right of every human'. Finally, there is a wild bit of POV about arguments against FGC.

Although it is still too long, and thus would be inappropriate to include, let me show you how a more neutral version might read: "Those opposing circumcision, however, argue that the procedure causes pain and carries risks of major injury and death. They claim that irreplaceable loss of erogenous skin leads to reduced sexual feeling, and assert that every human has a right to decide for themselves how their body will be permanently modified. They argue that the procedure is equivalent to Female Genital Cutting, and believe that similar arguments can be made in opposition to both procedures." Jakew 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[Unindenting.] First, you have yet to show it is a minority opinion. Second, two lines is not "too long" to summarize one side of a supposedly controversial subject. Third, the beliefs of the circumcision advocates (slowing HIV, e.g.) are presented in precisely the same way, when they are, in fact, also contested. It is clear from the text that the advocates/opposers share those opinions. That you personally believe the "facts" the advocates believe, but not the "facts" the opposers believe, is immaterial. Fourth, the "completely unprovable beliefs" are the ethical beliefs of those opposed, and should be presented as such. The "wild bit of POV" is again, the opinion of those opposed, and is presented as such -- since it is attributed to them, and not the opinion of Wikipedia, it is not POV.

YOUR version, on the other hand, again intentionally distorts the arguments of those opposed to circumcision by claiming that they believe female and male genital cutting are equivalent procedures -- in order to get the desired "No way! I disagree!" reaction from the average reader. Nice try, but it don't fly. Just like your whole argument. Blackworm 15:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. One source, quoted in the sub-article, remarks on "the emerging consensus" in favour of parental choice. Incidentally, the authors of the source in question disagree with this consensus, describing this viewpoint as indefensible.
2. We have one sentence for each viewpoint. We should not devote twice as much text to a minority opinion.
3. The views of those advocating circumcision are presented as views, not facts: "Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure" (emph added). I didn't state whether I agreed or disagreed with any views, and can only presume that you have misunderstood something.
4. Agree, ethical beliefs should be presented as beliefs. As I noted, your proposal failed in this respect.
5. "These arguments parallel those used in opposition to Female Genital Cutting" is Wikipedia arguing that there are similarities, not that opponents argue that there are similarities. If you can't see that, then have a look at this: "Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, preventing infections, and slowing down the spread of AIDS. These arguments parallel those used in favour of vaccination." Jakew 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The fact that the authors disagree with this supposed consensus is hidden and obscured from the main article because it casts circumcision in a negative light.
2. Again, you have yet to demonstrate that it is a minority opinion. The hundreds of lines making arguments in favour of circumcision, compared to ZERO lines making arguments against, indicates a severe imbalance and a lack of NPOV.
3. You intentionally truncate the part of the advocating quote which makes it an argument, i.e., the supposed facts which support the opinion. Again, if you include the entire sentence, you will see that it is asserting facts about the benefits of circumcision. The format is exactly the same as the sentence I proposed. If you do not believe Wikipedia should argue for circumcision, I will truncate the sentence in the article to read exactly as you have quoted it -- as well as any other argument in favour of circumcision in the article. This may take a while, since there are dozens.
4. The ethical beliefs are clearly stated as belonging to those opposing circumcision, despite your bizarre claim to the contrary.
5. If you prefer the phrasing "Those opposed claim that their arguments parallel..." I have no objection. Blackworm 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was not sufficiently obvious, but each numbered point is in response to your equivalent point above ('Firstly' -> 1, etc). I suggest you re-read the above, bearing that fact in mind, and I'm sure all will become clear. Jakew 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The only point you have that I have not destroyed is your claim of opposition to circumcision being a minority view. The source you quote mentions an "emerging consensus" in one particular, limited group which historically supports routine circumcision. It is not a worldwide view, nor a laymen's view. Please address the fact that this article on this controversial subject contains several presentations of the arguments of advocates for the procedure, but absolutely no presentation of any arguments of those opposing the procedure. Blackworm 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting. Do you have any argument, really? Is there any justification for inserting arguments for circumcision everywhere in the article while refusing to allow even the cited presentation of any argument against circumcision to be included in the article? And then claiming to be a defender of the Neutral Point of View? Seriously... How do you sleep at night? Blackworm 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for a real argument. Maybe the solution is, in fact, to have a "criticism section" since it seems all attempts to present the controversial nature of the subject, or present any criticism of circumcision anywhere in the article are met with the above inconsistent and illogical objections from the circumcision advocates who currently own this article. Blackworm 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this, then. Those opposing circumcision argue that since it is not routinely necessary, causes pain, carries the risk of death and major injury, and is an irreplaceable loss of erogenous tissue, men should have the choice to elect to circumcise in adulthood, or never. They point to strong similarities between their arguments and those used by prominent sources to oppose the mutilation of homologous parts of the female. I believe that the parts between the words "since" and "men," as well as the second sentence, can be sourced properly. But the above argument is written neutrally and is a factual summary of arguments opposing circumcision. It isn't a cited POV presented incorrectly by a critic of that POV, which is what how your version reads. The proposed section conveys multiple aspects of criticism of circumcision directly, concisely, and with no appeal to emotion, in 66 words. It could be the entire "criticism of circumcision" section, and that would be a huge improvement to this article, which, I reiterate, currently presents little if any criticism of this controversial subject. Blackworm 10:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, it is a mistake to have a 'criticism section' such as this, which presents a mixture of opinions and claimed facts, and fails to distinguish between the two. It is better to discuss facts in the body of the article, where they can be discussed neutrally, and to simply present an (appropriately attributed) example viewpoint or two. Jakew 12:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC re Judaism

I'm responding to the RFC asking if this article "should respect the Jewish tradition." The current version does fine at concisely summarizing the Jewish tradition without comment, and also at consisely summarizing arguments against circumcision without comment. The point of view is neutral and does not need a revision. VisitorTalk 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the RFC, but around this talk page, editors who are seen as critical of circumcision are openly painted with suspicion of anti-Semitism without any other supporting evidence or comment, and with the support of certain Wikipedia administrators. Something is definitely wrong indeed. Also, as discussed above, the summarizing arguments against circumcision are neither representative summaries nor arguments. They are as if crafted to present the weakest points in the least sympathetic terms, or to make those critical of circumcision appear to be a fringe minority. The article definitely needs a revision, but not for the reason the instigators of the RFC claim. Blackworm 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

About the pictures

I'd like to propose that a lot of the photographs be removed in favor of anatomical diagrams. Probably at most one photograph is appropriate. Not to be a prude but in principal Wikipedia is supposed to be a generally accessible resource and is not intended to be strictly for academics. The average person would tend to be uncomfortable with these pictures and I do not think they truly add that much value. Perhaps one photo to make the idea very clear is sufficient and then diagrams can be used wherever else illustration is required.

Again, this may sound prudish but mothers and their kids read this stuff and we should try to not be gratuitous about showing uncomfortable images.

--Mcorazao 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to replace them with diagrams, make sure they parallel the diagrams on the page on Female Genital Cutting by referring to the unmodified genitalia as "normal" instead of "uncircumcised," which means "heathen" in English [5]. We want NPOV. Blackworm 06:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree- the addition of the repugnant pictures removes the encyclopedic quality and generally degrades the entire article. Diagrams/illustrations should be added that are anatomically labeled. -Robert.starkey 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at its core, Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored. WP:CENSOR. The only reason they should be taken down is if they could be replaced by something more illustrative of the subject. Since a diagram obviously wouldn't be, there is no reason to remove them. Cheers, Rothery 06:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Of course, any attempt to post similar images to the Female Genital Cutting article would result in a massive outcry, followed by censorship, denial, and rationalization. There is plenty of censorship on Wikipedia; it's just that the norms are dictated differently, and double-standards are swiftly applied without a second thought. An unmodified vulva is called "normal," while an unmodified penis is called "uncircumcised" (meaning: unclean, heathen -- and emphasis on lack of circumcision, thus presenting the circumcised penis as "normal"). A Western-centric, sexist presentation with censorship on Wikipedia. With mass approval and smug self-satisfaction and claims of neutral point of view. All par for the course for WP. A big joke. Blackworm 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to generally respond, censorship is a very fuzzy line. I do agree, within reason, to avoid censorship. But I would not agree that choosing between two equally descriptive manners of presenting info based on which one is less objectionable to most people constitutes censorship. In other words, I would only call something censorship when you are actually preventing somebody from gaining knowledge. Although one might be able to argue some tiny grains of knowledge gained from each new phallic photograph I would say that the grains are minuscule at best.

In any event, I don't have any anatomical diagrams to contribute. Hopefully somebody out there does. --Mcorazao 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not made the case that the two manners under discussion are equally descriptive. The images in this article currently answer the questions: "What does an normal/circumcised man look like?" Diagrams would not. The images on the FGC page do not answer the questions: "What does a normal/circumcised woman look like?" Blackworm 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. Without having the diagrams in question how can you argue that they would be less descriptive? --Mcorazao 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since your offense seems derived from the photographic nature of the current images, I assume your proposed "diagram" would be non-photographic, and intentionally omitting detail -- similar to how the FGC diagrams on the FGC article completely obfuscate the real, true, aesthetic result of FGC. Again, would diagrams fully answer the question, "What does a normal/circumcised man look like?" If a photograph would answer that question better, then it is more descriptive. A diagram having the same descriptive quality would have to be so detailed and realistic that I suspect it would be just as offensive to you. Personally, I would go much further in describing circumcision through images and video of the actual procedure; but given that these images would be so horrifying to many, and would cause instant averse reaction to unneeded infant circumcision should they be seen by any substantial number of people, especially when combined with the information that circumcision is painful and usually performed without anaesthetic, such images are censored from this article. The normal penis shown is dark-skinned and hairy, eliciting one response -- the circumcised penis is white, clean and trimmed, eliciting another. "Uncircumcised" means "unclean." The power of images. Advocates control this article and thus the objective truth about this controversial subject, while hiding the fact that it is controversial. This article is a farce. Blackworm 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that photographs of erect penises are not usually displayed in a general encyclopedia. One way to deal with this would be to remove the pictures but provide links to them. That way, readers who want to look at the pictures could do so, and those who do not want to look at such pictures would not have to. Michael Glass 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion. I doubt it will fly, however. If we take that route, we lose much of the justification for not having links to images of the procedure. That will never happen on this page. Blackworm 09:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Avi's claim of "POV bias"

(Heading added by Blackworm -- Avi 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Heading should have been added by Avi.) Blackworm 08:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

the normal penis shown...the circumcised penis...

— Blackworm 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your POV bias is showing, Blackworm. -- Avi 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yours is, Avi. The unmodified genitalia of the female are described as "normal" on the FGC page; there is no reason not to call the unmodified genitalia of the male "normal," except if you have cultural bias or a particular POV to push. Also, since the word "uncircumcised" is also defined as "unclean," and "heathen," use of that word carries offense, as well as pushing a particular POV. This POV is continuously reinforced in popular culture (e.g. a scene in the Hollywood movie "The Ex" in which the antagonist's penis is ridiculed as a "giant, uncircumcised anteater"), thus I can understand if it may be difficult for you to look at it objectively. I hope this clarifies things. Blackworm 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm's definition of "normal"

(Heading added by Avi; should have been added by Blackworm) -- Avi 06:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (Why is that, Avi? I neither started this section nor went off on an irrelevant personal attack in an attempt to derail discussion.) Blackworm 00:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, if you refer to something as "normal" while contrasting it with another, you are implying that the other is "abnormal". That is the POV problem. And since both circumcised and uncircumcised penes are normal ('conforming to a norm'), one has to find another word.

While it is true that one sense of 'uncircumcised' does indeed mean 'heathen', this does not present POV problems since nobody in their right mind would think that meaning was intended here (similarly, there are no POV problems with using the word 'FAT' in the context of filesystems). It is quite blatantly obvious that, in the context of an article about circumcision, the word 'uncircumcised' is simply a neutral term that means 'not circumcised'. Jakew 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I use normal in these senses, "2 a: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern, 3: occurring naturally." The penis is normal at birth. All penises, whether eventually circumcised or not, begin as not circumcised. That is the standard, the regular pattern, the norm. Circumcision is a procedure done to normal penises (and also some abnormal ones), which causes the penis to deviate from this norm. Again, compare the use of "normal" to describe unmodified female genitalia on the FGC article. This is a correct usage of "normal," just as it is correct to describe the unmodified male genitalia as "normal." Using "normal" is not a value judgment on circumcision; things can be "normal" and then subsequently "improved," but that is up for debate. What isn't up for debate is what "normal" is. You can claim circumcision is normal for circumcised people, but then you lose the essence of what normality is. If we allow that claim, we must allow that women who have undergone FGC also have "normal" genitalia; normal for their particular culture. But we do not -- the Wikipedia FGC page makes it clear only unmodified female genitalia are "normal."

Whether I believe that meaning of "uncircumcised" is intended here comes down to my assuming good faith. I do not know the intent of the editor, therefore I prefer clearer, less offensive wording that does not carry the "unclean" and "heathen" definitions. The meaning is there, in the dictionary, documenting our cultural bias against the non-circumcised. This cultural bias is evident thoughout the article. Your "FAT" analogy is, as usual, ridiculous, since that is an acronym, and not a word derived from the word "fat." A better analogy would be the use of the word, "sinister," to describe left-handed people. "Sinister" does mean precisely that, but you could see how left-handed people might object to the word being applied to them, because of the other meaning ascribed to the word. This other meaning was applied to the word *because* being left-handed was associated with the devil, just like being normal rather than circumcised is associated with being unclean physically and spiritually (e.g. "heathen"). Blackworm 08:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, while you may choose to ignore the 'according to a norm' sense that you yourself quote, since you evidently prefer a chronological norm (in which, presumably, babies are normal and elderly people abnormal), but it is unreasonable to expect readers to intuitively understand that you're using this special sense. In ordinary usage, and in the absence of special definitions, circumcised and uncircumcised penes are normal, as are pierced ears, trimmed fingernails, and filled teeth. If the FGC page is using the word 'normal' as you describe, then it does not conform to NPOV. The correct approach is to fix the problem, rather than to spread it. Jakew 10:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Complete and utter bunkum, bursting with cultural bias. I don't prefer a "chronological norm," I'm using a near-universal norm: penises begin with a foreskin, and stay with a foreskin unless that foreskin is intentionally cut off. Same goes for having two arms or two legs. Having two legs is normal. Being an amputee is not. Again, it is not a value judgment.

And considering you hover over and enforce your POV on the FGC article too, don't pretend that you aren't well aware of what they call "normal" in that article. Blackworm 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't consider myself responsible for every word of that, or any other artice; I just do what I can in the spare time I have available. I'm just curious about your views: is it abnormal to have trimmed fingernails? To have hair that's shorter than it would have naturally grown? To have a beard (among men)? To have any dental work? Jakew 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying something is normal does not imply that everything else is abnormal. The word "abnormal" carries notions of being unusual, and even exceptional, and is not only used as the strict converse of "normal."[[6]] That is why your argument seems to make sense, when, in fact, it is using a loaded term. Similar to "uncircumcised," which is a loaded term meaning not circumcised, or unclean, or heathen. The beauty of this discussion is that you are forced to accept that I may perfectly logically and by the dictionary definition use "normal" to describe a penis that is not circumcised, and it appeals to you about as much as you logically and by the dictionary definition using "uncircumcised" to describe it appeals to me. Will you accept that we don't call certain ones "normal" if we also don't call them "uncircumcised?" Somehow, I doubt it. Blackworm 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem opposed to the use of the term, "normal" to describe female genitals which have not undergone FGC. That would surprise many people, I'm sure. Why don't you go make your case for improving Wikipedia in this way on the FGC page which you also edit? It would help you diversify your contributions. This should be good. Blackworm 08:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to interject, I think there is some confusion here, and add the definition of normal tends to be what society defines as acceptable, having a penis with a foreskin is natural, and is normal, while being circumsized is not natural but still normal.Coldpower27 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thus making the case that for a female in some parts of the world, undergoing FGC is normal. Ahh, were you perhaps talking about *your* society? Blackworm 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing FGC, at all, I was just talking with regards to normal as what a society accepts as acceptable, but with that definition, you still have to clarify what you mean by society as you seem to allude to. If you were talking about African countries, then yes in some FGC is normal with regards to those societies, but if normal only means what is acceptable by society, it doesn't preclude the fact that FGC has other social implications attached to it, such as "is it right?", and from that standpoint it is much less clear if it is acceptable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldpower27 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and the same could be said of male circumcision. Blackworm 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm quite sure Jakew and Avi would both object to "natural penis," as well, even though you and I believe there is no doubt on that question. Blackworm 08:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to one made of plastic? Jakew 10:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NATURAL 2 a: being in accordance with or determined by nature. The "natural form of the penis," if you prefer. Address the points, Jakew, or concede. Any why aren't you over on the FGC page improving it by fighting over the word "normal" over there? Could it be that that article is also guarded by ideologues, making that task unpleasant? Better just to keep the current double-standard, correct? It fits with your advocacy goals anyway. Blackworm 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Natural form of the penis" is a little better, but somewhat ambiguous. Fortunately the term "uncircumcised" is precise, neutral, and commonly used. Jakew 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot claim that the word "uncircumcised" is neutral if you admit that it also means "unclean" and "heathen." See my "sinister" example above. Your logic fails. Your argument fails. You will never admit this, because until the day you admit being wrong on anything, you may continue to engage in heavy-handed unilateral reversions and edits while claiming to be engaged in "discussion." Blackworm 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that "black" can also mean "gloomy; pessimistic; dismal", "boding ill; sullen or hostile; threatening", "without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked", "marked by disaster or misfortune", "illegal or underground", or several other negative meanings, would you suggest that that word should be considered POV? Should black people be renamed? Jakew 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you use that example. In the US, black people are referred to as "African-American" precisely for that reason. That sentiment is fading since its peak in the early 90s -- with the mainstreaming of hip-hop culture, popular culture has become much less racist, and no longer equates black people with "without any moral quality or goodness." Unfortunately, the same is not true with respect to popular culture and circumcision -- as evidenced by my "The Ex" movie example above, the natural form of the penis is associated with ugliness, fear and ridicule, and the circumcised form presented as the preferred norm. You still hear the word "uncircumcised" used pejoratively, while not hearing "black" used pejoratively at all. Thanks for trying. Blackworm 02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) It's been several days since anyone has commented. Can anyone refute that the words "normal" and "uncircumcised" are both valid to describe the physical male persons, and the penises of same, who have not undergone circumcision? If not, are we prepared to accept the usage of both terms in this way in the article? If not, why not? Blackworm 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, the problem is not that it "normal" is a valid description of an uncircumcised penis. The problem is that it fails to differentiate, since it is also a valid description of a circumcised penis. This problem, obviously, does not affect "uncircumcised". Jakew 11:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not clear at all. If I were to use the same terms, I would say, "Jake, the problem is not that 'uncircumcised' is not a valid description of a normal penis or male. The problem is that it fails to differentiate, since it is also a valid description of an unclean penis or male, or of a heathen male."

There has been no ambiguity in my meaning when I have used "normal" to describe a penis or male, because I used it in correct context, contrasting a circumcised penis or male. I see no reason not to adopt this style here or in the article, if we are to assume that the sensibilities of editors opposed to the proposed use of the words "normal" and "uncircumcised" are not a factor. Blackworm 12:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, as noted above, given the fact that this article is about circumcision, it is blatantly obvious that 'uncircumcised' is used to mean 'not circumcised'. To read it in any other way would be deliberately perverse, much like reading "the Model T Ford is black" as "the Model T Ford is marked by disaster or misfortune". Since 'normal' describes both uncircumcised and circumcised penes, we could only conform to NPOV by using it in both cases (pointless), or neither. Jakew 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, in the context of my use of the word "normal," is it blatantly obvious that I'm referring to the natural form of the penis, in contrast to the circumcised form. You have not have your case for WP:NPOV in the case of "normal" any more than I have made mine in the case of "uncircumcised." Blackworm 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jake's logic is correct here, Blackworm. Furthermore, how is a circumcised penis considered not normal? Which of the difinitions listed http://www.webster.com/dictionary/normal here] dies it fail? This is the second time on this page that it begins to appear that perhaps English may not be your first language, as you are making assumptions that at best indicate a poor understanding of colloquial vocabulary and at worst indicate a distinctly limited world-view based on the fundamentals of anti-circumcision gential integrity. -- Avi 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Example of POV-forking.

Here's an example of the systematic POV-forking going on with this article: [7]. The material is referenced and pertinent to the section. Unfortunately, it casts circumcision negatively and weakens the pro-circumcision arguments in the section. Thus, it is "excess detail for main article" and the author is told to "try a subarticle." Couldn't be more perfect. Blackworm 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my reading of the reference given is that they had no uncircumcised male control group, so I don't think we can conclude much from that study. --Coppertwig 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you, an expert conducting original research? It's not your place to criticize a study published in a peer-reviewed journal and deem it unworthy of inclusion based on your criticism. Get your criticism published, and we'll include it also. Blackworm 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with inclusion of this information from this study. Firstly, it is only relevant to one specific form of circumcision, not circumcision in general. Secondly, the information is too vague: what does 'high incidence' mean? Compared with what? As Coppertwig has noted, it isn't a high incidence as compared to uncircumcised males, since the study did not include them.

Thus, because it is information that is only relevant to a small subset of circumcisions, it is excess detail for the main article. For a summary, you need information with a more general scope. Thus, if useful and clear information can be presented about the study, it is better to put that in the appropriate sub-article. Jakew 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your first objection could easily be applied to the six-line paragraph under "pain" in which only ritual circumcision is discussed, and conclusions about all circumcision are implied. (Of course, that heavily contested paragraph is pro-circumcision, therefore you support its remaining in the main article.) Second, it is not your place to criticize the study and exclude its conclusions based on your criticism. To do so would be original research. Blackworm 02:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. I've no interest in criticising the study. What I'm criticising is a particular usage of the study. Jakew 11:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- its usage in the circumcision article, since it casts circumcision in a negative light. Blackworm 15:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you're willing to assume good faith, and we can continue this discussion. It's somewhat pointless unless you do. Jakew 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still planning (if there continue to be no objections) to implement the changes I suggested in a section above with title like Talk:Circumcision#Changes to leadin. I just have to find the time to find the footnotes for it, which I don't think will be difficult at all. --Coppertwig 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this discussion pointless unless I do, Jake? The validity of my arguments against your illogical and hypocritical objections to any material presenting any criticism of circumcision is not dependent on my opinion of you. Blackworm 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Blackworm, your comments such as that dated 15:05, 10 September 2007 suggest otherwise. In that comment, for example, you completely ignored arguments that had been made, and instead attacked those which had not. Jakew 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, that comment was in response to your one-line dismissal of the study, with no argument supporting that dismissal. Your arguments were addressed in my previous comment -- for example, the fact that you reject the inclusion of one line of the study's conclusions because it only examined ritual circumcision, yet strongly support the contested six-line paragraph under "pain" despite the fact that it only examines ritual circumcision. You have yet to address this contradiction. Blackworm 19:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, Blackworm, this article is now in summary style. Now, one of the things about writing a summary is that you can't include every detail. If you did, it wouldn't be a summary. So, for every piece of information, you have to ask, "how important, how fundamental, is this to an overview?" And if it isn't sufficiently important, a good summary demands that you leave it out.

Bearing that in mind, let's evaluate the addition which prompted this thread. Is the information generally applicable (broad scope) or highly specific (narrow scope)? The scope is narrow: it only applies to one specific type of circumcision. Is the information actually usable - for example, can we convert it into a precise, neutral statement? Not really, there are no figures on absolute incidence or relative risk, and the study design was not capable of determining such things, as the authors acknowledged ("evaluating the incidence of UTI and its time of occurence in circumcised and uncircumcised populations is impossible in our area"). Indeed, the most that could really be said is that these authors happened to use a particular pair of words, which is a very poor reason for quoting them. Jakew 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed the contradiction. Please remove the contested six-line paragraph which only addressed ritual circumcision under "Pain" or, as you say, "convert it to a precise, neutral statement" on all circumcision. Blackworm 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Jakew to address this contradiction, hopefully before fellow supporter of the contested six-line paragraph Avi moves it into the archives. Blackworm 07:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, complaining about perceived hypocrisy on the part of other editors violates WP:NPA's requirement to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". As such, please don't be surprised if your comments are ignored. If you'd like to discuss a change that should, in your view, be made to the article, I suggest you propose it in a new section. Jakew 13:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not made any such complaint in this thread. Unfortunately I believe you are merely again cornered and exposed. Please address the contradiction. You oppose the above suggested edit because it only applies to ritual circumcision. You strongly support a contested six-line paragraph even though it only applies to ritual circumcision. Reconcile this apparent contradiction, or remove the contested six-line paragraph. Simple. Blackworm 14:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can infer from the silence that Jakew concedes that his reason for opposing this edit was selectively applied. Since there are no valid arguments against, I suggest we replace the deleted material. Blackworm 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be unwise to make such an inference when the reason for 'silence' has been clearly stated. See my comment above, dated 13:22, 24 September 2007. Again, if you expect input, you should introduce the proposal in a new section, and in a civil manner. Jakew 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The change proposed is Goldman et al. report a high incidence of urinary tract infection after ritual circumcision.[8] -- i.e. the change you reverted which I referenced [9] at the beginning of this section. Blackworm 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment above, dated 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC). In particular, please note that the change would contradict the cited source: the authors stated that "evaluating the incidence of UTI [...] in circumcised and uncircumcised populations is impossible in our area". Jakew 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The comment you quote relates to the difficulty in comparing circumcised and normal infants in Israel, since there are very few of the latter. The direct quote from the abstract is that the researchers "conclude that the high incidence of UTI following a ritual Jewish circumcision, as well as the relative high preponderance of bacteria other than E. coli, may suggest a causal relationship between circumcision and UTI." This quote makes no claim about relative incidence. If you prefer, we can use this quote directly. But you cannot claim that the article contradicts itself, because it does not. Blackworm 05:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I'm not claiming that the article contradicts itself. I'm stating that the proposed text contradicts the source. The source does not "report a high incidence of UTI following..." - it merely uses the words "high incidence" in such a context. The actual incidence, the authors clearly state, is unknown in their population. Jakew 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop implying that I'm an idiot who can't read. It doesn't fly. You *are* claiming that the article contradicts itself. The sentence I am proposing is: Goldman concluded "that the high incidence of UTI following a ritual Jewish circumcision, as well as the relative high preponderance of bacteria other than E. coli, may suggest a causal relationship between circumcision and UTI." It is a direct quote of the conclusion of researchers published in a peer-reviewed journal. If I were not to assume good faith, I would claim that your documented circumcision advocacy combined with your widespread heavy handed editing of all Wikipedia articles relatied to circumcision is leading you to suppress conclusions of peer-reviewed studies when their conclusions do not fit with your advocacy goals. Blackworm 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your new proposal may be appropriate for the sub-article, if properly balanced and clarified (such as with the sentence I quoted above). However, the level of detail is inappropriate for summary style. Jakew 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that one line sentence is entirely appropriate as-is for the main article. It is relevant, and is well sourced from a peer-reviewed journal. Or do you believe that the detailed, six-line pro-circumcision paragraph under "Pain," sourced from a letter to the editor, forwarding a tiny minority belief, which contains no balancing material and which you vigorously defend, and which refers only to ritual Jewish circumcision, should also be moved to a subarticle? The key word when considering this is, of course, "pro-circumcision." Blackworm 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, clearly we cannot include every sentence from every peer-reviewed journal article about circumcision, since the article would eventually become hundreds of megabytes in size. Equally clearly, since we have a general article about circumcision and more specific articles with narrower contexts, some content will belong in one and some in the other. Perhaps you could make an argument that takes these points into account, and makes use of some more practical criteria? Jakew 11:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we just continue using your criteria: pro-circumcision = include, anti-circumcision = suppress. Blackworm 15:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Better yet why don't you address what I'm saying and make the case for the six-line tiny fringe pro-circ opinion you vigorously defend in the main article. Meanwhile, I'll say that the one line I propose here merits inclusion because it presents material unreplicated elsewhere in the main article, and balances completely unopposed and uncontradicted claims that circumcision reduces UTI. The reader of the main article is led to believe that the literature is unanimous is believing that circumcision reduces UTI, while this peer-reviewed study contrarily suggests that the opposite may be true. Thus it deserves mention along with the other UTI claims -- exactly in the same way that you search desperately to find an article, or find (or write) a letter to the editor to counter every possible phrase casting circumcision in a negative light in every Wikipedia article remotely related to circumcision. Blackworm 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the article. They aren't comparing circumcised and uncircumcised boys, and hence aren't suggesting that the "opposite may be true" (that UTI risk in circumcised boys is greater) at all. What they are suggesting, broadly speaking, is that when it does occur in this specific sub-population of circumcised boys, it may be as a result of the procedure itself. Jakew 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation, besides being flawed, is original research. I aim to include this study's conclusion. Blackworm 21:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Far from being original research, it paraphrases the very first sentence, which states: "Circumcision seems to reduce the over all incidence of urinary tract infections (UTI) although a few studies have suggested that ritual circumcision may be a predisposing factor for UTI within the first few weeks following the procedure." (emph added)

They clearly state that they could not evaluate the incidence of UTI: "Therefore, evaluating the incidence of UTI and its time of occurence in circumcised and uncircumcised populations is impossible in our area."

They also explain their reasoning, which is based upon timing, not relative incidence: "comparing our data and those published by others in Israel 12-14 with studies performed in uncircumcised infants 7,18,19, it seems that UTI develops at a younger age in ritually circumcised infants than in intact ones. [...] The clustering of UTIs in the 2 weeks following the procedure may reflect a causal relationship between UTI and ritual circumcision relative to the non-sterile techniques used during the procedure, and may also be in part due to a pain-induced urine retention occurring immediately following circumcision." Jakew 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Jake. In addition to quoting the conclusion, we should also quote, "comparing our data and those published by others in Israel 12-14 with studies performed in uncircumcised infants 7,18,19, it seems that UTI develops at a younger age in ritually circumcised infants than in intact ones." We should also perhaps mention "The clustering of UTIs in the 2 weeks following the procedure may reflect a causal relationship between UTI and ritual circumcision relative to the non-sterile techniques used during the procedure, and may also be in part due to a pain-induced urine retention occurring immediately following circumcision." This is all excellent info, worthy of mention in the article. But please stop accusing me of being an idiot who can't read. All this excellent extra info should go in, but let's just start with the paper's conclusions for now. Blackworm 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"All this excellent extra info" is in fact the reasoning behind their suggestion that, while the overall incidence is reduced, ritual circumcision may also be a cause of UTI. If properly summarised, the study is suitable for inclusion in the sub-article, but not in the main article. Jakew 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Information supporting the claim that the overall incidence of UTI being reduced by circumcision is already present in the article. Information supporting the claim of a causal relationship between circumcision and UTI is not. Information supporting the claim that UTI occurs earlier in life in circumcised infants in not present. This information should be in the article, for balance against the first claim. Suppressing this information in the main article and relegating it to a subarticle appears like a POV-fork. Your judgment that it is not suitable for the main article is just that -- your personal judgment. Blackworm 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of UTI is supported by a high standard of evidence, Blackworm, and every medical organisation that discusses the evidence has agreed. In spite of this, only one sentence in the article discusses this evidence. The second sentence discusses possible confounding in some studies, and the third and final sentence discusses the overall risk and number needed to treat. There is no obvious lack of balance. However, addition of a primary source proposing a hypothesis of UTI as a complication of a tiny proportion of circumcisions would introduce imbalance unless there was already a lot of detail about individual studies. Jakew 11:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In that context, you have still not explained why you support the six-line paragraph (out of a 13-line section) under "pain and pain relief" which refers to this "tiny minority" of circumcisions, and presents an even tinier minority view. Is this not "too much detail" by precisely the same argument, and even more so given the length of the paragraph in comparison to what I am proposing? (This is the last time I will ask, I grow tired.) Blackworm 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Six days gone by with no further comment. Should I assume the answer is "yes" and I should proceed to remove this invalid paragraph? Blackworm 09:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comments dated 13:22, 24 September 2007 and 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC). Jakew 10:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As expected, neither of those statements address this issue. Your arguments are applying to the edits you defend more and more, Jakew; I think this is a sign that perhaps you will lose your ownership of this article quite soon. Maybe at that point we can actually edit the article according to Wikipedia policy rather than your personal fiat. Blackworm 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote: "If you'd like to discuss a change that should, in your view, be made to the article, I suggest you propose it in a new section." Jakew 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? The current proposed change is the removal of the paragraph starting, "J.M. Glass, 1999, stated that Jewish ritual circumcision is..." that I referenced multiple times. The argument against it is the argument you use, above, namely that it refers to a tiny minority of circumcisions (the same set as that of my proposed change above), and that it is "too much detail" for the main article (5 lines, sorry, out of a 19-line section). As the author of the argument, you should be in the best position to understand it. Your argument is my argument against it; what is your response? Start a new section with the response, if you insist. Blackworm 07:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you start a new section, you're giving people the opportunity to comment. As it is, people are likely to miss something towards the end of a long and frankly tedious thread. I will be pleased to discuss it with you in a new section. Jakew 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we just imagine in our minds that I propose to remove the paragraph, use your exact argument, then have to listen to your endless babbling and obfuscation for two weeks, then Avi steps in with a tangent, then you expand on that irrelevancy, then I give up. Saves us a lot of trouble, doesn't it? Your years of violating WP:OWN through the use of stalling and illogical arguments have to stop sometime, Jakew. Blackworm 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Jake, we'll talk about the 26.3% of the "Pain [...]" section which strictly discusses Jewish ritual circumcision later. I'll address the last relevant thing you said. I believe we both misunderstood the conclusion of the paper. I will show that the authors of the study are not primarily "proposing a hypothesis," they do have their own logical conclusions. When they say "following ritual circumcision" they are not comparing UTI rates with normal newborns; the words do not mean "as a result of circumcision, compared to the state of being intact." I personally believe the words obviously mean "soon after ritual circumcision," a conclusion strongly reinforced by the fact that this phenomenon is precisely what the paper is studying, with the conclusion derived from and repeated later in the text. Please reread the title of the paper. It says "following ritual circumcision." The conclusion of the paper is valid, relevant, interesting, a counterpoint, information absent from the article, and stated concisely. It also may prove to serve to balance and establish relevant context for the statement that circumcision reduces UTI overall. There is no undue weight issue here; the conclusion of the paper is not a minority view. It is a valid interpretation of raw data they compiled, studied, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. If this article's conclusion has been challenged, please cite. Blackworm 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tips on what to say to get your edits to stick.

A study in 1987 found that the prominent reasons for parents choosing circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[10] Begging the question, what were the prominent reasons for parents choosing against circumcision? Answer: we don't care -- anyone against circumcision is wrong. The views of those who oppose circumcision or choose against it are the irrelevant views of a tiny majority. A 2005 study speculated that increased recognition of the potential benefits may be responsible for an observed increase in the rate of neonatal circumcision in the USA between 1988 and 2000. That same study speculated that this may result in increase surgical complications. Do we care? No, surgical complications from circumcision make circumcision look bad. Finally -- we choose to highlight and expose any study claiming that circumcision rates are on the rise (becuase officially, according to Wikipedia, circumcision is GOOD and GETTING BETTER). Any study claiming that worldwide circumcision is on the decline, or that circumcision anywhere is on the decline, that stuff all belongs under "prevalence." Any information claiming an increase in prevalance may be scattered around the article, in order to give the impression of a rising trend. Any information about anyone being opposed to circumcision may be mentioned briefly if absolutely necessary -- but make sure not to present any supporting reasons or facts, even if attributed to those opposed. They is too long. The sources are not "the best sources." That info belongs in a subarticle. Actually, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, since we are NPOV and that means only pro-circumcision arguments are to be explored fully. Thanks for reading these tips on getting your edits past the controllers of this article! Blackworm 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackworm, but I have long-since given up trying to get any edits past the owners of this article. It's a shame, but there it is. Well done to you for still trying. --Nigelj 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One would think that if enough people came forward at the same time to push for balance in this disgraceful article, progress could be made. Unfortunately I suspect that all reasonable editors who come in are immediately alienated by the pro-circumcision owners, frustrated by their edits being reverted, and end up leaving in disgust. What would it take, specifically, to destroy this fraudulent farce? Three of the four owners are Wikipedia administrators with specific watchdog-like editing agendas motivated by their particular cultural points of view. They e-mail each other to discuss strategy, which is why they are rarely seen responding to each other in discussion. They never (never) oppose each other in any discussion. They will not allow this article to reveal that circumcision is controversial. They will not present both sides of the controversy. They enforce a state of lacking NPOV. They furthermore conceal the dispute by systematically removing any "disputed" tags on the article -- when it would be obvious to anyone glancing at the talk page that the neutrality of the article is completely and fully disputed. When anyone is bold enough to stand up to them, the administrators in the group make administrative threats. What to do in the face of such a blatant fraud? Blackworm 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Meatal stenosis etc.

In this edit, Jakew reverted apparent good-faith edits without explanation. Please provide an explanation. --Coppertwig 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I, too, wondered how that reversion did not simply remove a small amount of valuable work on the article. --Nigelj 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edits introduced a level of detail that was more appropriate for the sub-article (and which is already present in that article). Other problems included introduction of claims that were not directly supported by the sources cited, unexplained removal of 'adult circumcisions...', and introduction of POV in changing "...may be a common..." to "...is a common...". Hope that helps. Jakew 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And as always, every single change moves the POV of the article to being more positive toward circumcision. Any fragment of text which casts circumcision negatively is "more appropriate for a subarticle," while Jakew sees nothing wrong with adding large sections that cast circumcision positively. (Note also the misleading edit summary.) The jig is up. Stop the POV pushing. This article has become a shameful propaganda device due to your longstanding influence and heavy handed WP:OWN violation. You have no consensus for this change. Revert it immediately or others will. Blackworm 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, Blackworm. You might also care to check your facts before making accusations. Jakew 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Been checking facts for months. When you run out of arguments, rather than resort to citing policies made irrelevant by the current atmosphere of distrust and AGF violations on both sides, I suggest you review WP:OWN. Blackworm 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should check facts more rigorously. For example, rather than claiming that the edit summary ("rv to last by jakew, add brief treatment of stenosis in kaplan list") was misleading, you could have examined the diff against that version. Then you would have found that it was in fact precisely as described.

Of course, as a result of checking this diff, you'd have seen the claim of 'mov[ing] the POV of the article to being more positive toward circumcision' was completely unsupportable. A more accurate description might have been 'reversing an edit that introduced unverifiable, POV original research and fit poorly with WP:SUMMARY'.

Going a little further, had you not dismissed core conduct policies as 'irrelevant', you might have actually read my explanation above, taken the time to look at the text that was removed, and examined the sources. Perhaps you might have seen my point. Who knows? Jakew 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely fascinating to me that you would stoop so low as to post a false diff of your changes. Your edit summary implied that the only significant change was the addition of meatal stenosis to the Kaplan list. The diff you post above reinforces that disinformation. HERE is the REAL DIFF [[11]] of your change. You combined your unexplained reversion to your own edit with one tiny change, then implied that the tiny change was the ONLY change you made. You did not explain WHY you reverted the article. You had no consensus for the reversion of the other parts, which are, as I said, all shifting POV toward circumcision in a positive light. Your arguments against the edits could easily be applied to edits you support. Finally, WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy. I also suggest you read WP:AAGF and stop pulling out AGF when you're cornered and exposed. Blackworm 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Blackworm, the words "rv to last by jakew" make it clear that this revert was performed. And as the diff I gave against that version (specified in the edit summary) clearly showed, it was indeed a revert to that version plus the specified secondary change. Jakew 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I must wonder if your obtuseness is calculated to upset. You said: "Of course, as a result of checking this diff,[i.e. the diff YOU posted -bw] you'd have seen the claim of 'mov[ing] the POV of the article to being more positive toward circumcision' was completely unsupportable. The claim was that your ENTIRE change moved the POV. Not the tiny addition you made after your reversion. Blackworm 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be an error in communication. You seem to be viewing a revert as an isolated change, while I'm viewing it not as a change per se, but as a reversal of another change. Because a revert cannot exist without a change to reverse, I view the two as an inseparable pair, and look at net differences. To my mind, thinking of it as a change that 'moves POV' is like viewing a dam as causing a stream to flow backwards. Jakew 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By damming every edit which you see as shifting POV, you become in essence the unilateral arbiter of NPOV, assuming good faith. You are simply displaying reversion of anything shifting POV in the direction you don't like, combined with endless, illogical objections to the removal of any obviously POV material you support. This is a violation of Wikipedia's article ownership policies. I can understand that given the time you have alloted to improving the article, you may feel a responsibility to keep it to your liking. Can you understand why someone might fail to assume good faith, as you are fond of claiming I do, given that you do this sort of thing on every article remotely related to circumcision, and are a documented circumcision advocate? What can you do to allay these fears? I appeal to your sanity. Blackworm 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) I think there may be a simple misunderstanding going on. Jakew's edit summary is in abbreviated speech, not a full sentence, as is quite common for edit summaries. The comma can be interpreted to mean "and", as in "reverted, and also added meatal stenosis to kaplan's list," which is accurate. Blackworm may be interpreting it as if it were a colon like "revert: adding meatal stenosis" meaning "reverted by adding meatal stenosis", which would be inaccurate. I assume Jakew had no intent to mislead. I encourage everyone to make edit summaries as clear and useful as reasonably possible. I see nothing wrong with someone making all their edits in the direction of a particular POV if they honestly believe that the article is biassed the other way and that their edits are moving it closer to a neutral stance -- although the occasional edit the other way helps establish a more cooperative feeling among editors, for example when Jakew supported changing a statement that had claimed that all bleeding could be quickly stopped. --Coppertwig 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been 'off-topic' here for a while in response to Jakew citing the wrong diff (although, of course, we all, "assume [he] had no intent to mislead"). Now, what about the items he did revert. Using this diff, we have:

1. 'For some, but not all, sects of Judasim...' removed by reversion.
2. 'immediate surgical risks of' removed by reversion and replaced by 'risk in'
3. 'Recent publications give a frequency of occurrence between 0.9% in Iran,[78] and 9% to 10% in the United States.[79]' removed by reversion.
4. 'Adult circumcisions are often performed without clamps, and require 4 to 6 weeks of abstinence from masturbation or intercourse after the operation to allow the wound to heal.<ref name="aafpadult" />' added by reversion.

You'll have to view the diff to see sense of these changes. My original point was that, the reversion "simply remove[d] a small amount of valuable work on the article" and I still think this is so. People who have worked on an article in the past cannot expect it to remain preserved in their favourite form for posterity. Do we need further to discuss these good-faith edits? Can we get a consensus here to put them all back in and let the article continue to evolve by the usual teamwork process? --Nigelj 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, I outlined some problems with the edits in my post of 18:07, 16 September 2007. Would you care to address these problems? Jakew 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you seemed to be talking about something else at that time ('changing "...may be a common..." to "...is a common..."', etc). But, once again, with your obfuscation of the issues and dogged determination to your cause, you have once again worn my interest to engage with you over this down to a sliver. It clearly is still your article. --Nigelj 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just obfuscation of the issues, it's like a kind of strange idea that if you simply keep responding with illogic and invalid arguments, while engaging in heavy handed POV pushing with respect to every edit made, your opponent will give up in frustration -- and the discussion pass into "the archives" (i.e. electronic oblivion). Perhaps Jakew could teach us something about how Wikipedia articles are made -- it would be a fascinating case study which would be pounced upon by the growing tide of people claiming Wikipedia to be a farce and a disgrace. Blackworm 07:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

International consensus statements

I think based on WP:NOR policy, you would need a reliable source that discusses the relationship between those statements and circumcision in particular. There may also be issues about the length of this page and whether material should go in a subpage. --Coppertwig 15:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If reliable source(s) interpret these statements in the context of circumcision, then such interpretions could be cited in a sub-article. Since the statements themselves do not even mention circumcision, however, they should not be included. The very idea that they are "international consensus statements" with respect to circumcision appears to be pure OR. Jakew 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like the idea, claimed as fact without citation in the main article, that circumcision is traditionally presumed legal, or is a "traditional right" for parents. But that kind of pro-circ OR stays in the main article under heavy guard. Blackworm 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with accuracy?

When I replaced a broad generalisation with more accurate figures about penile cancer, they were removed almost immediately. What is the problem with accurate figures of the incidence of penile cancer?

Here's what I wrote: Penile cancer affects 0.82 per 100,000 in Demnark and 10.5 per 100,000 men per year in parts of India and 0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the United States.

Here's a slight change of wording that gives the broad overview without sacrificing accuracy:

Penile cancer affects from 0.82 per 100,000 in Demnark to 10.5 per 100,000 men per year in parts of India (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the United States).

If that's any problem, please discuss it here. Michael Glass 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, there is nothing wrong with accurate figures about the incidence of penile cancer, and I encourage such an addition to the penile cancer article. Similarly, I would applaud the addition of information on mortality rates, treatment, etc. to that article. However, the subject of this article is circumcision, and the purpose of the relevant section is to provide an overview of penile cancer as it relates to circumcision. The incidence of penile cancer in Denmark may belong somewhere in Wikipedia, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article.

If the approximations concern you, then change "1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000 men" to "0.82 to 10.5 in 100,000 men", but why replace seventeen words with twenty-nine that give the reader no more information about circumcision itself? Jakew 13:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in unnecessary words, but giving incidence figures without mentioning where those figures come from is potentially misleading. The orgiinal sentence reads: "Penile cancer affects approximately 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000 men per year, varying by region." But what regions? United States? rural vs urban? rich vs poor? We simply do not know. Add just 12 more words and the reader knows that the rate is low in Denmark and the United States and high in parts of India. So for the cost of 12 words we get a significant gain in clarity. I hope that this answers your concerns, Jake. Michael Glass 14:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the reader is reading an article about circumcision, not global distribution of penile cancer. Is it not reasonable to presume that the reader wants to know about circumcision, and would prefer information with such a focus? If (s)he wants to know about the incidence of penile cancer in India, Denmark, or the United States, then (s)he is unlikely to be reading this article in the first place. Perhaps we could clarify 'region' by substituting the word 'country'? Jakew 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Or we could say "penile cancer affects 1 in 3 men in some parts of the world," then just claim we were talking about "the parts of the world that contain 1 man with penile cancer and two without." Jakew would love to add that, I'm sure. Nah, I'd rather use Michael's wording, lest someone believe that penile cancer isn't ridiculously rare in industrialized countries, and circumcise their children for fear of it (that couldn't be Jakew's motivation to suppress this information, could it?). Blackworm 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, Blackworm, not a soapbox. Concerns that parents might a) circumcise or b) not circumcise should not influence the presentation of information. Jakew 21:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- but the fact remains that the information at present is misleading, or at best, incomplete. When you are talking about a disease that is ten times more prevalent in developing countries versus industrialized countries, it behooves us to present this information, rather than suppress it and obfuscate it. Blackworm 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual wording, I agree that country is better than region. However, the reader is still left in the dark about which countries may have high and low rates of penile cancer. Jake is quite right in saying that great details about the incidence and causes of penile cancer are most appropriate in the penile cancer article, but when we focus on circumcision and penile cancer, it is important not to exaggerate nor minimise the efffect of circumcision, and that we avoid wording that could be misleading or tendentious. Michael Glass 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok Michael. Why don't we change the text to "0.82 to 10.5 in 100,000 men, varying by country"? Jakew 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you missed the word "important" in Michael's response. How about "1 in 10000 in developing countries, and 1 in 100000 in industrialized nations?" Let's get across the extremely important information that the incidence of penile cancer in the West is 1 in 100000, period. Not 1-10 in 100000. ONE in one hundred thousand. We should also mention the average age of first diagnosis of penile cancer, which I believe is in the 70's. We wouldn't want to mislead the reader in presenting the significance of the protection circumcision gives against penile cancer, would we? The medical associations make these numbers clear in their presentation of the benefits and harms of circumcision. Let's do the same, lest we become propagandists for circumcision. Blackworm 12:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source stating that it is 1 in 10,000 in developing countries and 1 in 100,000 in developed nations, please cite it. Jakew 12:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The information we used gave the rates of penile cancer in Denmark, the United States and parts of India, so let's go with that. Of course, if there are other reliable sources that give other information, then let's consider it here. Michael Glass 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As you acknowledge, Michael, such details are most appropriate in another article. Does my suggestion above seem reasonable to you? Jakew 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "great details". I also wrote that we should write something that was not misleading nor tendentious in this article. I do not regard the addition of 12 extra words as going into too much detail. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the best place to go into great detail about this subject is in the article on penile cancer.I hope that this clarifies my meaning. Michael Glass 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Consent

re: JakeW - (rv. excess & one-sided detail for summary, insufficiently neutral. please review WP:NPOV.)

In my view the previous version of this section oversimplified the differing views related to consent to the point of not reflecting them as intelligibly or as evenly as it could. I see that my initial edit might have been perceived as insufficiently neutral so I have tried to correct this.

+ Re: "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits...." makes more sense than "Somerville agrues..." as Somerville is not the only individual within the medical/science/bioethics community that holds this view. > "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision" < is a common reason why many doctors no longer perform the procedure - the view that proxy consent based on parental preference alone does not provide sufficient ethical grounds for performing a circumcision a minor. I think that this is self evident, but if a citation is needed I will find one, and I don't see how this can be attributed solely to Somerville. + I added "Another argument contends that the removal of healthy genital tissue is inherently harmful and that without an individual being capable of providing consent, when he will have this capacity at a later date, and in the absence of any medical need - circumcision is a violation of an individuals right to security of the person."

This is another aspect of consent related to infant circumcision that wasn't presented in the earlier version. - The view that there is a degree of inherent harm associated with removing healthy genital tissue (whether its perceived as loss of sexual tissue or simply unnecessary pain and trauma inflicted on an infant.) Also, to be put in proper context of the section, it should address the issue of the lack of need for proxy consent to be obtained, and how this can be perceived as weakening the validity of said consent. - in light of the fact that proxy consent in the context of surgery and removal of anatomy is almost exclusively limited to situations where there exists a anatomical deformity or medical need, and the patient is incapable of providing consent. (which I did not include to avoid any 'excess +one sided detail) I don't see this as POV pushing, it is simply covering an aspect of the consent issue. I think that the fact that it says " "It has also been argued that the removal of healthy genital tissue is..." as opposed to " The removal of healthy genital tissue is..." makes this clear.

+ "Others believe neonatal circumcision to be a permissible practice, suitably subject to parental discretion. Arguing that circumcision can be beneficial to a male before he would be able to otherwise provide consent; that there is no convincing evidence of sexual or emotional harm; and that there are greater monetary and psychological costs in circumcising later rather than in infancy should the need arise.[3]"

I added another element to the argument that parental consent is sufficient -the surgery may be beneficial to a male before he would be able to provide his own consent. And I added "should the need arise." The escence of the argument is that there is not enough evidence that it is harmful, that some males will benefit by avoiding the greater costs of a later circumcision. But it reads as though this argument carries with it the irrational view that to not circumcise during infancy is simply delaying th einnevitable - which I don't think was intended, but I think it reads better this way.

+ "In a cultural/religious context, some argue that circumcision is of significant enough importance that parental consent is sufficient and that any possible misgivings surrounding the issue of consent are not significant enough to limit the exercise of infant/childhood circumcision as a cultural practice or religious rite."

This was not included and it seems to make sense to include this as it plays a significant role in how issues of consent are perceived.

And this part....

Re: "Another argument questions why the genital cutting of males is allowed while the genital cutting of females is prohibited." in the first section

This is an argument much more related to the legality so I'll move it there. And I do not think a brief one sentence explanation of how the two can be perceived as analogous is unreasonable given that the term FGM/FGC encompasses a much broader set of practices. Without some elaboration it seems the reader might be left scratching their head. And regarding NPOV, to say the view that male circumcision should be prohibited because FGM is prohibited, implies by omission that this argument holds the two as equatable; which inaccurately reflects the argument. And framing it in this fashion is actually a very common tactic of those pushing their own POV by oversimplifying this argument to the point of creating a bias against it.

The term FGM or FGC (which encompasses everything from a pinprick to the removal of vitually all the external genitalia of a female; and which is a term most commonly asscociated with the more common severe forms -ie removal of the clitoris) represents a spectrum of practices, whereas male circumcision is a specific procedure. The crux of this viewpoint questions why more analogous forms of FGC( such as the removal of clitoral hood) or lesser forms (such as a pin prick) are prohibited while male circumcision is not; the argument being that equal degrees of what could be perceived as violations of an individuals bodily rights are not given equal status under the law. By ommiting this it implies that the argument holds that all forms of FGC are analogous to male circumcision which is a distortion.

So there you go, I did my best to provide 'equal airtime' to differing POVs and perceptions around consent - without going into excess & one-sided detail. I don't see any excess detail in this revision, and I think it provides a fairly balanced, accurate and slightly more intelligable summary of the issue of consent as it relates to childhood circumcision than what was here before. A small paragraph of equal length for each respective hemisphere of the consent spectrum without any unecessary elaboration.

Fair? Gainstrue 10:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gainstrue. Thanks for the above explanation, and for attempting to address my concerns.

My concern about excess detail relates to the "Main article: Bioethics of neonatal circumcision" link at the start of the relevant section. This link occurs because the article is written in WP:SUMMARY style, with a brief overview in the main article (ie this article), and more detailed explanation in the sub-article. I am concerned that a considerable amount of detail has been added to the article, which is more appropriate for the in-depth article instead.

Another concern is the replacement of "Somerville argues that" with "Some argue that". Per WP:WEASEL, we should cite specific authors.

Another concern, relating to the general concern about excess detail, is the addition of Hill's argument. First, is Hill's argument significant enough to be cited in an overview (as opposed to the in-depth article)? I see no evidence that it is (indeed, while letters can constitute evidence of disagreement on an issue, an electronic letter is a weak source for introducing an argument (see WP:RS)). However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is, the summary would need to be shortened. It also badly violates WP:NPOV in the present form, since it claims that "circumcision is a violation of an individuals right to security of the person", rather than properly attributing this belief.

Finally, regarding the FGC analogy (which, strictly speaking, is not a legal issue but a meta-legal issue concerning what some believe ought to be illegal), you have cited only a private website -- MGMBill.org -- which does not constitute a reliable source. Even if it could be reliably sourced, detailed discussion of this issue (along with rebuttals such as para 18 here belongs in the in-depth article. Jakew 13:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jake, I see your points,

Re: the viewpoint attributed to Hill. I think including this in the summary seems appropriate in the overview as it is does not represent an extreme position of one man's electronic letter; the idea of circumcision as being perceived as damaging has been around throughout the ages (ie the texts of Moses Maimonides "For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened", or as perceived by the ancient Greeks, or the aversion that many cultures have towards it.... " Perhaps an additional citation : The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision by J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor" would constitue a more credible reference. "circumcision is a violation of an individuals right to security of the person." was meant to link it to Hill's argument by way of the dash, but perhaps this is unnecessary and the way it appeared on the page could be ssen as statement of fact however unintened. I see no proble with letting that part go.

Per WP:WEASEL Fair enough, I suppose that in staying true to this : "Benatar & Benatar believe neonatal to be a permissable practice ...." as opposed to "Others..." Although, I wonder if the idea of "Follow the spirit, not the letter - As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text" should apply here.

This section was meant to provide a summary of the ideas around consent in relation to childhood circumcision and by briefly traversing the spectrum of viewpoints I don't see how it sways the POV either way. As I mentionned, the idea that, say, "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision." is a widely held view within the medical profession in many countries. "It would be impossible to say A,B,C, D & E all the way down to Z and then some argue that ..." and likewise for the argument attributed to Benatar and Benatar, their argument is another widely held view within the medical profession. Likewise about the religious view. I realize one must be careful about weasel words but in this case, given no POV is being given undue weight, is it not the most logical, and readable, way to provide a summary of the issues surrounding consent?

For example if an article was summarizing the ethicacy of animals for human consumption.. Would it not be reasonable to say : some people believe it is wrong in all cases, others believe that under certain conditions.. survival etc it's ok, another argument is that... and so on and so on? As long as it is a spectrum of views being presented and some references were given or am I wrong?

I believe that what amounts to two small paragraphs does represent brief overview in the main article (ie this article), and could be elaborated on in more detail in the sub-article.

for example:

brief summary: "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision. Somerville states that the removal of healthy genital tissue from a minor should not be subject to parental discretion and that physicians who perform the procedure are not acting in accordance with their ethical duties to the patient.[43] Another argument contends that the removal of healthy genital tissue is inherently harmful and that without an individual being capable of providing consent, when he will have this capacity at a later date, and in the absence of any medical need"

more detailed description : brief summary + More detailed description of the potential medical problems that may arise, and example of less invasive treatments. Specific ethical duties of doctors that may not be seen as being followed. Inherent harm A B and C. Issues of condiotions required in order to validate proxy consent and how the circumcision of children does or does not meet these conditions etc.

brief summary: "Others believe neonatal circumcision to be a permissible practice, suitably subject to parental discretion. Arguing that circumcision can be beneficial to a male before he would be able to otherwise provide consent; that there is no convincing evidence of sexual or emotional harm; and that there are greater monetary and psychological costs in circumcising later rather than in infancy should the need arise.[46] In a cultural or religious context, some argue that circumcision is of significant enough importance that parental consent is sufficient and that any possible misgivings surrounding the issue of consent are not significant enough to limit the exercise of infant/childhood circumcision as a cultural practice or religious rite."

more detailed description: brief summary + Health situations specific to children, where circumcision may have afforded protection, perhaps their frequency, what excatly are the greater costs, Eloboration on why religious circumcision can be seen as having significant enough importance etc.

Basically, to me it just reads "Views differ on whether limits should be placed on caregivers having a child circumcised... The basic gist of these views are A B C D E and F." Without too much detail and no POV either way that I can see. In fact I think it might be more NPOV to not include these views or to abbreviate them to the point that the issues of consent are merely hinted at, as opposed to presented. The idea being that by presenting them in such a vague manner presents the issues surrounding consent as, well, vague; when they are not.

And re: the FGC concern. I can see your point there, I probably would not have taken it upon myself to insert it , but it was sitting there in the "Consent" area and seemed more appropriate. Perhaps it deserves some mention in the "Circumcision and law" article if it is not already there?

What do you think?

Gainstrue

Correction : In fact I think it might be more POV to not include these views or to abbreviate them to the point that the issues of consent are merely hinted at, as opposed to presented.

Hi Gainstrue. You may wish to read the section "How to get your edits past the owners of this article," above, and also the section where the complete absence of any anti-circumcision arguments in the article is discussed, and how it is not presented as a controversial subject. This article is maintained in this state for specific advocacy reasons -- and covertly so (any "POV" or similar tags will be promptly removed without discussion). The entire page should be blanked pending review by a truly neutral party. Blackworm 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blackworm,

So I see, and it is not surprising, that there is some headbutting going on within these pages. To my knowledge nobody 'owns' a wikipedia article, I'd have to make time to go through the history of the article to completely understand what you are getting at. All I can say is that when dealing with a controversial topic, everyone's coming from an angle. But diplomacy seems to be the best approach to any content disputes... I'm not sure that this page should be blanked pending review, whatever problems that exist hopefully can be solved in a less drastic and positive way.

I haven't had time to look through the whole recent history here but I can agree with you about a statement, listed under ethics :"Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault." This seems to be an obvious instance of POV pushing - Taking the most extreme viewpoint that goes much beyond what the majority of those opposing circumcision (who have a rational understanding of context) supposedly 'assert' - For instance, within the Animal Rights article it is written : "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of a moral community." yet if given the spin that was applied to the presentation of what 'those opposing circumcision' assert it would read: "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, and that meat is murder." an obvious case of spin doctoring. So I don't know maybe that can be corrected, and without going into excess elaboration.

And I see your point, about NPOV being perhaps over being aggressively applied in some cases in a very POV fashion. But, this is tricky territory.

For instance, Jake, the bit about the FGC/male circumcision legal question, did not become an issue to you until it was clarified... Yet it sat within the article, in its original slightly distorted state, in a less appropriate place without being challenged by you. So as long as it was spun in way that gives it an air of baselessness, it was ok? I don't know if it was intended? But maybe this is an example of POV bias in the name of NPOV. Or, "Another concern is the replacement of "Somerville argues that" with "Some argue that". Per WP:WEASEL, we should cite specific authors." yet, the argument attributed to Benatar and Benatar flew under your radar per WP:WEASEL. Anyways, as mentioned, I think that when presenting a basic overview of the general views around consent, it would be unnecessary, and of detriment to the readability of the section to attribute each area on the spectrum to a specific author. And of no detriment to the accuracy or neutrality of the article.

I tried to reword the argument that was originally attributed to Hill in a way as to address some of your concerns. In my view issues of consent and medical ethics are complex by their very nature and I don't see how even just a basic summary can be condensed anymore, without rendering this section slightly unintelligeable and vague to a point of inaccuracy. To my thinking, it seems to provides a fairly short, to the point and concise summary of the consent in the context of circumcision. But, regarding your concerns relating to the general concern about excess detail, maybe we can figure out a way to address this if this is still an issue.

Gainstrue —Preceding comment was added at 08:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ethical issues

changed from: Opponents of circumcision question the legality of removing genital tissue, arguing that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault.

to more NPOV and accurate wording:

"Opponents of circumcision question the ethical validity of removing genital tissue form a minor, arguing that infant circumcision infringes upon individual autonomy and represents a human rights violation."

[User:Gainstrue|Gainstrue]] —Preceding comment was added at 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the earlier discussion about this entry, this is a more NPOV and accurate than the previous entry , at the expense of 5 extra words, how this can be reasonably considered excessive I do not know, so I hope this doesn't become an 'issue'. But I am all ears.

ex: "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of a moral community." vs. "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, and that meat is murder."

Rhetorical question: Which version contains more spin?

Gainstrue—Preceding comment was added at 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In doing a little background on the Whos Whats and Whys re: the evolution of this article I happened to notice something your page, Jake: A star given to you by a user, "In gratitude for all the thankless work you do around here - especially for dealing with the onslaught by anti-circumcision activists who would have others tearing their hair out" I don't know how much this is a reflection of what kind of biases you bring to the table on this issue. But maybe something to consider.

Gainstrue—Preceding comment was added at 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---

In this pair of edits I've addressed some of the remaining concerns. There is still too much detail, in my view, but I believe this represents a reasonable compromise. Jakew 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Agree, On my end I'll see if I can think up something that might address your concerns about too much detail.

Gainstrue 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Avraham, my mistake, if that was my doing I didn't intend to, not sure what happened, someone reverted the whole article back with no reason given so I tried to refresh it back to where things were left off.

Gainstrue 14:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jake, what about something along the lines of this? and going into more detail in the bioethics page as you mentionned.

Views differ on whether limits should be placed on caregivers having a child circumcised.

There has been discourse surrounding the acceptability of proxy consent in the context of infant circumcision given that many cultural and medical factors come into play.(citing: https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum) Contributing to the differing views surrounding proxy consent are cultural beliefs{citation}, issues of parental choice{citation}, principles of individual autonomy{citation}, issues of public health, human rights considerations, the perceived harmful{citation}, benign(citation) or beneficial(citation) nature of the surgery when performed on a healthy child, the validity of proxy consent when a male with have the capacity to consent at a later date {citation}vs. the argument that in some cases the surgery will be of benefit to a child before he would otherwise have been able to consent. {citation}

Gainstrue —Preceding comment was added at 15:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

no idea of what un/circumsized looks like.

Mention that circumsized males often have no idea what uncircumsized males look like, and visa versa. Nor do they understand if there is a variation of what the other group is supposed to look like, and what the norms are. (Nor does Wikipedia present them with a concise page to help. E.g., list percentiles on how many look like Image:Foreskin2.jpg). Jidanni 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're proposing. If you wish to mention something, find a reliable source claiming something, and present it and reference it in the article or on this talk page. Blackworm 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Description of edits

Please describe edits accurately. Michael Glass 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is circumcision always surgery?

I would contend that circumcision is usually surgery. However, in cases where it is part of a violent assault [12] describing what happens as "surgery" is euphemistic nonsense. Michael Glass 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The lead is not supposed to reflect the 1-in-1,000,000 case. -- Avi 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Avraham,

• Please supply documentary evidence to demonstrate your contention that forced circumcisions are 1 in a million.
• Since when was telling the whole truth a case of "undue weight"?
• A Yiddish proverb says: "A half truth is a whole lie," [13]. Why should the article perpetuate a half truth?

Michael Glass 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• • How many circumcisions are there per annum which are part of a violent assault?
  • Since the definition. Please read WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
  • Since when have Yiddish proverbs become Wikipedia policy? The article needs to follow wikipedia policy. There are other places to publish items, even facts, that do not conform to wiki guidelines. -- Avi 03:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Avi 03:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Avraham,

• No-one knows how many violent assaults happen per annum, so your claim of one in a million is simply a stab in the dark. What we do know, however, is that these assaults happen. We also know that they are documented in the Journal of Medical Ethics and other reliable sources.
• How can shortening the article by one word be construed as giving undue weight to anything?
• Are you saying that Wiki policy is to deny facts?
• I'm not asking that forced circumcisions be mentioned at this point. All I am asking is that the definition reads either procedure or surgical or other. Remember that the other could include ritual circumcisions as well as assaults.
• If you have any problems with this proposed wording, please state it here.

Michael Glass 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead defines circumcision. Circumcision is defined as a "surgical procedure" only in medical texts ("when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"), and second rate encyclopedias. That is because it is not, necessarily, surgery. It is defined as a "ritual procedure" in other sources, but that casts it in a perhaps more negative light, so it is omitted. Female genital cutting is being medicalized today, yet we don't call FGC "surgery" on the FGC page, and we won't ever call FGC "surgery" -- even if it gets to the point that 1 in 1,000,000 FGC procedures are not surgically done in a hospital. The best texts define circumcision as a "surgical or ritual" procedure, covering the vast majority of cases, as well as a possible origin of the procedure. However, Michael, don't fall into the trap of believing in "forced circumcisions." When they rape children by force, as opposed to statutory rape where the child consents (if not legally, then in word and deed), they call it "forcible rape." Why don't they call circumcising children "forced circumcision?" The term "forced circumcision" is original research, in the absence of evidence of the use of the term or definition anywhere. It is blatantly misused here in Wikipedia, since it omits mention of its most common form; infant or child circumcision, which is forced upon the infant or child. Blackworm 08:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, please read the documented evidence of forced circumcisions that may be found here: [14]. Forced circumcisions have been happening since at least the time of the Maccabees. (See Maccabees 2:46). I am not pushing for this term to be used in the article. However, I want a wording that is broad enough to accommodate the fact that some circumcisions are not surgery but are best described as assaults. Examples can be found here [15] and here [16] and here [17]. The simplest way of doing this would be to use the term procedure; another way is to use the phrase surgical or other procedure. In other words, I am asking for the elimination of one word or the addition of two words to deal with the fact that not all circumcisions can fairly be described as surgery. I don't think that this is too much to ask. Michael Glass 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt the evidence you present. What I object to is the hijacking of the phrase "forced circumcision." Your phrase "best described as assaults" is POV. Some people believe circumcision of infants is an assault. Without defining "forced circumcision," and restricting your examples to a particular subset *you* regard as "forced," you wrongly imply that infant circumcisions are not forced upon the infant, or child circumcisions are not forced upon the child.

I agree with you that that is evidence enough that not all circumcisions are surgery. I support either of your wordings. Blackworm 07:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, I note your objection to using the phrase forced circumcision to apply when an adult or older child is forcibly circumcised. Also you're right that describing these forced circumcision as assaults is a point of view rather than a fact. However, as you have seen, that is not at issue here. The question is whether the opening sentence should be either shortened by one word or lengthened by two words to account for the fact that circumcisions in some contexts can hardly be described as surgery. Here are examples where the description surgery is questionable, and may even be somewhat misleading:

• forcible circumcision of adults or children by unqualified operators
• many ritual or traditional circumcisions, where the operator has no medical training, as in an example from southern Thailand, published in the Bangkok Post on 18 March 2006, where a rural doctor won an award for his work in reducing circumcision-related injuries among the Muslim men in that area.
• ritual circumcisions, where the motivation is religious rather than medical

There are two simple ways of acccounting for this. One is to define circumcision as a procedure. This implies a medical procedure, but the wording is wide enough to encompass non-medical circumcisions as well. The other way is to define circumcision as a medical or other procedure. The addition of just two words accounts for non-medical circumcisions without labouring the point or going into too much detail. Michael Glass 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with you that not all circumcisions are surgical. You've made your point here without question, and I'm sorry if I derailed the discussion. How about "procedure," with no mention of it being "surgical" -- we shouldn't have things that are usually true in the lead sentence, nor should we bias the definition and frame circumcision strictly as being the domain of the practice of improving health (i.e. medicine), when it clearly is not. Circumcision is the cutting off of the foreskin. Period. That is something everyone can agree on (except perhaps Jakew, who insists that it isn't necessarily cut, but has not made his case). Whether it is "surgical" or "ritual" or "a mutilation" or "painful" or "beneficial" or "controversial" should be up to the reader, based on the information to follow. (It's bad enough that the powers that be have decided that "circumcision" is always done to males, which is also unclear; but that battle, it seems, is lost.) Again, Michael, I support your proposed edits. Blackworm 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Per numerous sources, circumcision is a surgical procedure. Whether cutting is required depends upon the method used: consider some of the 'clamp and wear' devices intended for use in the field. Jakew 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Per numerous sources, it is a ritual procedure. Per numerous sources, it is a controversial procedure. Per some sources, it can be a non-surgical procedure. That is the point Michael made. Sorry, you lose. Even if it was always surgery, which it isn't, that STILL wouldn't necessitate the word "surgery" appearing in its definition -- any more than we need the word "controversial" in there. See WP:LEAD -- the definition should be UNDISPUTED. Also, cite a source claiming these 'clamp and wear' devices removing the foreskin by a method other than cutting, which means (CUT: 1 a: to penetrate with or as if with[emphasis mine] an edged instrument). Blackworm 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've missed something, but I don't think I've seen any sources cited that state that circumcision can be non-surgical. To which sources do you refer? Jakew 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One wouldn't specifically use the word "non-surgical" to describe any particular circumcision, but I believe that the descriptions of forced circumcisions found in the letter Michael references above meet my definition of "non-surgical." Is this not the case for you? Also, that circumcision is not necessarily surgical follows from the dictionary definition of "circumcise," which is, ": to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)." The state of being circumcised has nothing to do with the sequence of events leading to that state -- a foreskin could be cut off by a dropped knife, in which case its former owner would be circumcised; but no "surgery" was performed. It could also be recklessly cut off by a sadist torturer with scissors; which would also not be "surgery" by any but the most strained definition. As I've said in the past, the reason I oppose this attempt, not duplicated often if at all elsewhere, to define circumcision in terms of "a surgical procedure" is because the definition of the word *does not* say this, and further that the words carry POV by evoking the image of a nice, sterile, careful, and beneficial procedure, a point on which there is serious debate in the common case. Start with a definition we can all agree with, then push your POV as best you can elsewhere. Blackworm 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, all you have is a personal interpretation of a source. Jakew 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't support Michael's change for his reasons. I support it because it improves the article by making it conform more to WP:NPOV. That's all. I've already made my case for that, it's summarized here and details are in the archives. That one was argued against illogically by you, and also by Avraham ("Avi"), Jayjg and Nandesuka. Check out their user pages, they're admins! Avi pushed for Jake to be admin too. Blackworm 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I repeat my request for you to cite a source to support your claim that the foreskin is not necessarily cut off by circumcision. You have very recently used this claim as a basis to edit the article away from using the word "cut" in the first sentence. Please explain and defend your edit, citing source. Blackworm 09:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Q: Can the prepuce be left on after the clamping mechanism is applied?
A: Yes, the prepuce can be left on without cutting it away; the tissue will necrotize. However, the removal of the tube with a larger amount of remaining prepuce may be more difficult. Theoretically the SmartKlamp® will eventually drop of by itself if you don't do anything.

— http://www.smartklamp.com/medical/faq.html

Jakew 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept that this private website is a reliable source. Secondly, the quote above refers to not requiring the surgeon to cut away the foreskin. It is the clamp that cuts off the foreskin, by first causing tissue to die (necrotization), then penetrating the necrotized tissue. That the tissue is first weakened by necrotization does not mean it is not eventually cut. All emphasis mine on many definitions which still apply: CUT: 1 a: to penetrate with or as if with an edged instrument 2 a: trim, pare <cut one's nails> 4 a: to divide into segments -- b: intersect, cross c: break, interrupt... b: to undergo incision or severance... f: to cause constriction or chafing... 1: to free from control or restraint. Blackworm 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that when a source refers to "without cutting [the foreskin] away", it actually means the opposite? Jakew 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "I'm so confused" mode. Your patterns are repetitive. I said, just above, "Secondly, the quote above refers to not requiring the surgeon to cut away the foreskin." The statement first sentence you quote from the unreliable source is informing the user of the clamp that he or she does not need to cut the foreskin away. The following statement sentence implies that some cutting from the user may be necessary. The statement sentence after that implies, with the word, "theoretically," that no one has ever used this clamp without needing to cut! Now please, stop this nonsense. Blackworm 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This particular discussion has gone a long way from deciding whether the beginning of the article should be adjusted to account for the fact that some circumcisions are not accurately described as surgery. To recap, this applies in cases where:

• forcible circumcision of adults or children by unqualified operators
• many ritual or traditional circumcisions, where the operator has no medical training, as in an example from southern Thailand, published in the Bangkok Post on 18 March 2006, where a rural doctor won an award for his work in reducing circumcision-related injuries among the Muslim men in that area.
• ritual circumcisions, where the motivation is religious rather than medical.

I believe that if we added just two words to the beginning of the article so that it read 'surgical or other procedure, this would account for these occurrences without going into detail. I can't see any problem with that particular wording and I ask for feedback on that wording. Michael Glass 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, do you know of any sources that explicitly state that circumcision is not surgery? Jakew 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jake, first of all, I am not stating that circumcision is not surgery. I am stating that circumcision is better described in other terms in certain contexts. There is a difference. Here are examples where sources show this:

• "Judaism views circumcision as a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery." [18]
• Jewish circumcision described as a rite and a ritual [19]
• A Jewish doctor discusses the surgical and ritual aspects of the procedure [20]
• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians discusses the controversy over whether circumcision could be viewed as an assault [www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527]
• Boyle and Sobova argue that circumcision of boys may be viewed as an assault [21] Margaret Somerville argues a similar position [22]
• Edwin Baxter was convicted of second degree assault for attempting to circumcise his child, a conviction that was upheld on appeal [23]
• The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations defines circumcision as a surgical procedure but then goes on to say, "It has ritual significance in some cultures, and so its practice may be ceremonial, performed with non-surgical instruments by elders rather than doctors" [24]

I hope that this clarifies why I want to add two words, or other to account for these and other cases. Michael Glass 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, as far as I can tell, none of these sources claim that circumcision is not surgery. Some state that there are (or may be) non-surgical aspects in addition. But arguing that circumcision, in some contexts, may meet religious or legal criteria is not arguing that it is not a surgical procedure. Jakew 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He is arguing that since there are cases of circumcision where there are no surgical aspects, circumcision cannot correctly be defined as surgery. Even if the circumcision could always be described as "surgical," which is the bold assertion you are making, there is no indication that it should be defined in those terms, any more than it should be defined as a "controversial" procedure, for example. Blackworm 12:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the argument is pure original research. Jakew 13:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Jake and Blackworm are arguing from a binary viewpoint: that circumcision either is or is not surgery. That is not my point. I am not arguing an either/or position on circumcision as surgery but an and/or position where circumcision could be both surgery and a religious ritual or both surgery and an assault, if proper consent has not been obtained. I believe that there are also some occasions where the description of circumcision as surgery would be problematic, as when the circumcision resulted from a drunken attack. [25] Now in this particular case it is pointless to argue whether or not this drunken attack was surgery. Call it surgery if you will, but the important thing is that it was an assault. Now if my proposed two words sound too either/or perhaps that problem could be remedied with a slightly different wording. Finally, this has nothing to do with original research, it is merely trying to acccount for the complexities of describing something accurately. Michael Glass 13:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, there are two problems here. Firstly, we have a problem of sourcing: if you wish to state that it is sometimes surgery (and/or etc), then you must have a source that makes that argument, not a synthesis or interpretation of sources. The second problem is undue weight: it is plausible that someone might perform any surgical procedure as part of a drunken assault, but in general these events are rare, and of dubious relevance to an encyclopaedia. Jakew 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

POV - prevalence quoted in lead (30%) -- later we admit it's really 16.7% to 33%, so it's ok.

For some reason, only the WHO's estimate of worldwide prevalance is presented in the lead. This estimate (30%) is almost at the very top end of the range of published estimates (16.7% to 33%) we reference later in the article, yet it is stated in the lead paragraph. Also, note the contrast between what the source says...

Global estimates in 2006 suggest that 30% of males [...] are circumcised.

— - World Health Organization

According to WHO 30% of men worldwide have had the procedure [...].

— - Wikipedia, citing the above.

...and what the editors of this article wrote in the lead. There is no mention that it is an estimate that suggests something. I propose we change the lead to match the sentence in the "Prevalence" section which summarizes estimates of worldwide prevalence. Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one sixth (16.7%)[114] to one third (33.3%).[115] A slight rephrasing may be appropriate since the sentence should also appear where it is now, in the prevalence section. Blackworm 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Best to keep things simple. How about "According to WHO, estimates suggest that 30%" Jakew 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I love it! Jakew resists removing this obviously POV, biased, misleading sentence in the lead. PUT THE RANGE OF ESTIMATES IN THE LEAD AS A PROPER SUMMARY OF PREVALENCE ESTIMATES. DO NOT DISTORT THE DATA BY PRESENTING ONLY THE HIGHEST ESTIMATE YOU CAN FIND, TO MAKE CIRCUMCISION APPEAR MORE PREVALENT THAN IT IS FOR YOUR ADVOCACY GOALS, JAKEW. There, can I put that any plainer? iSee alsoWP:LEAD. Blackworm 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE

• WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision by World Health Organization and UNAIDS
• Male circumcision - global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability by World Health Organization, UNAIDS, UNICEF, UNFPA ,ANRS and World Bank
• Male circumcision in HIV prevention by World Health Organization

Conclusion:Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary according to WHO from 30% to 33.3%. Includes countries listed in Table 1. If 5% of men in other countries are assumed to be circumcised for non-religious reasons, the global prevalence of circumcision is 34% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.193.14 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to present only the opinion of WHO in the lead, to the exclusion of all other sources, merely because it has the highest prevalence estimate. To do so violates WP:NPOV, besides opposing WP:LEAD. The goal of the lead is summarize information from multiple sources, which the sentence I quote above regarding prevalence does much better than the existing lead statement. Blackworm 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, the goal of the lead is to "...briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". It should "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions."

It should do so according to NPOV, which, among other things, states that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

So, in this instance we include a number of estimates in the text. In the lead, where we need to be brief and not overly specific, we include the most prominent estimate, which we carefully attribute in order to avoid endorsing that viewpoint.

Could you please explain why you feel this violates LEAD and NPOV? Jakew 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting only the WHO in the lead paragraph is over-specific, especially since it almost at the top end of the estimate ranges. My proposed statement is no less "concise" than the existing one, which additionally adds a nonsense truism in order to labor the exaggerated point further, and additionally *repeats* (yes, repetition, in the lead, for POV) the cultural and religious character of circumcision. Don't even begin to talk about "concise" given that. The lead "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints." The language is beautiful and clear, and since prevalence is the only instance of a statistic currently used in the lead paragraph, let's indeed let all significant viewpoints ring clear by presenting the range of estimates from reliable sources; not one source cherry-picked for its near-highest estimate. Hence: WP:NPOV (In fact, nowhere does the WHO say THEY estimated anything, they are repeating others' estimates -- picked from some obscure source.) That WHO appears twice in the lead with apparently pro-circumcision bent each time is interesting, isn't it, Jakew? You say "we include a number of estimates in the text" -- but, here, we are talking about the lead, not "the text." Hence: WP:LEAD. Continue your obtuseness, irrelevancies, and "discussion," I still have some energy left on this one. Don't worry, you'll probably sap it out of me in a couple of weeks, like you always do, with your endless reversions and asking for justifications and claims of being confused. It's amazing how much you can argue for weeks demanding justification for the most obvious improvements to the article, as long as they seem to push a certain POV, while keeping complete and total silence when any justification for inclusion (e.g. the six-line paragraph in the Pain section) is demanded from you. The entire lead is written with a pro-circumcision POV slant, actually, and this may be the most egregious example.

Can we get some other opinions? What about you, Avi? What's your take on this one. I'd really love to hear it. How about Michael Glass and Nigelj, too? Coldpower27? Let's really talk this one through and make it a model Wikipedia discussion reaching consensus. Blackworm 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's something else to chew on. The missing "..." in Jakew's quote in the first sentence above, from WP:LEAD, is highly relevant. It comes from halfway down WP:LEAD, and states,

Next to establishing context, [emphasis mine -bw] the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article ([...]).

— - Wikipedia style guideline: WP:LEAD

Would you say the WHO quoting estimates of 30% establishes context better, or is it the fact that reliable sources present a range of 16.7% to 33%? In light of the chopped quote you posted, Jakew, would you agree that perhaps I am in a better position to understand the importance of context? (How ironic.) How about this, Jakew -- "Estimates of the percentage of males circumcised worldwide fall in the range 16.7%-33%, with the WHO quoting estimates of 30%." That is the real, logical, derived information that we get from all these sources. I have to say though, it makes WHO look silly, and not worthy of being "the most prominent estimate." Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest, anyway. But in any case, with my proposed sentence we can also get rid of that original research phrase "mostly in countries where it is common for religious or cultural reasons," which is not established clearly in the source, but which arguably is a truism and unwelcome in a concise lead paragraph given that we've already established the religious and cultural character of circumcision. What do you think? We even get to relegate the WHO to being the most important authority in the world on choosing estimates to publish and calling them "global estimates." Blackworm 06:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "...not worthy of being 'the most prominent estimate.'" What I meant was, "...not worthy of being [[...], if indeed it is." Blackworm 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of the WHO hardly seems relevant. Nor do you appear to have read the sources - you claim that "nowhere does the WHO say THEY estimated anything". As you can see on page 13 here, "We have estimated the global prevalence of circumcision among males aged 15 or over...". Jakew 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed -- read that entire paragraph, noting that these estimates are based on others' estimates, make certain questionable assumptions (100.0% prevalence among Muslims and Jews), involve prior estimates ("we estimated the number of non-Muslim and non-Jewish men circumcised in countries with substantial prevalence of non-religious circumcision"), and apply only to males 15 or older. That is not even an estimate of worldwide prevalence, since it excludes males under 15. It is a guess based on a guess based on others' guesses. Given that WHO is now advocating mass male circumcision, ignoring any opposition or controversy, these guesses need to be taken with a grain of salt. But, given all that, I will propose the wording "Estimates of the percentage of males circumcised worldwide fall in the range 16.7%-33%, with the WHO estimating 30%." This I believe answers your objection. Blackworm 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I retract that proposal. It is wrong given that WHO excludes males under 15, where the "percentage of males crcumcised" is probably less given that many areas practice circumcision on boys of all ages up to 18. I will replace my earlier proposal with this: Estimates of the percentage of males circumcised worldwide fall in the range 16.7%-33.3%. The WHO, sadly, appears to have nothing to say on actual worldwide prevalence of males of all ages in this source. Am I mistaken? We also should note that the current lead statement regarding the WHO under scrutiny here is not only POV on two counts (the picking of a source with a high end estimate, and the "drumming in" of information irrelevant to the statement in the form of a repetitive truism), it is factually incorrect. I suggest we amend this by adopting my proposed replacement as a matter of some urgency, Jakew. Blackworm 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I keep finding more holes in this ridiculous source. First, it states, "Results: Approximately 30% of males are estimated to be circumcised globally." Then, to explain this result, it goes into estimate after assumption after estimate regarding males 15 and older, then comes out with this, strong, convincing language: "Using these assumptions, we estimate that approximately 30% of the world's males aged 15 or older are circumcised." Are we to eat this illogic wholesale? How does "30% of the world's males aged 15 or older" concluded deep in the document become "30% of males" in the summary of results, which is what actually commonly gets repeated? Since when are males 14 and under not males? Maybe that's why this "reliable source" has DRAFT DOCUMENT written in large letters on it. Didn't quite get the bugs out of it, apparently. Is a non-draft version of this source available? Was this report indeed ever formally released by WHO? I hope not, for the sake of their reputation. Blackworm 10:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, it's already perfectly clear that you dislike the WHO's estimate. I assure you that there's no need to elaborate further, especially since your criticism is, and can only ever be, original research. Jakew 11:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak, and pathetic, Jakew. My criticism of WHO may be original research; my criticism of the sentence under scrutiny is not. So far, you have not presented a viable objection to my change. Blackworm 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Misuse_of_statistics#Overgeneralization -- a page linked to by WP:RS to explain misuses of statistics. Above, I describe the details of the overgeneralization error the authors of this draft WHO document made. Perhaps it was corrected in the final version; but presently we don't even know if a final version was written, or if this document was scrapped before publication. Blackworm 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What prevalence among Jewish males does this imply?

"Circumcision is a positive commandment obligatory under Jewish law for Jewish males, and is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child." What would you guess to be the prevalence of circumcision among Jewish males given that information? Should we cite a reference and quote a percentage? Blackworm 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? -- Avi 07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why what? Blackworm 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I now see from your edit summary that you are asking, "for what purpose?" It is still unclear what you are referring to, specifically. If you ask why we should cite a reference and quote the percentage, then my answer would be simply to enhance the article. We have eight lines devoted to prevalence specific to countries; it seems logical to devote one line to prevalence specific to one of the religions that most commonly circumcises. But then, I'm asking the opinion of others here on whether this information should be placed in the article. Should I put you down for a "no?" Your resistance seems to suggest that I should -- in which case I would ask, why? Blackworm 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just curious. I don't know of any sources, but theoretically, the prevalence among Orthodox Jews will be around 100% (exceptions made in the case of hemophilia or other blood-clotting disorders, for example). Among Reform Jews, my hunch is that it tracks the general population, and Conservative Jews will be somewhere between. Of course, that's completely unacceptable for wiki, but a logical estimation. -- Avi 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your estimates, Avi. We need something more concise, however; this article is attempting to conform to WP:SUMMARY. Now how about we find a source for prevalence among Jews and cite? Is this area of no interest? Blackworm 07:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WHO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health. Established on 7 April 1948, and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the agency inherited the mandate and resources of its predecessor, the Health Organization, which had been an agency of the League of Nations.It's a serious international organisation!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.212.135 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Brit Milah under "other uses?"

This is new. Why is Brit Milah listed at the very top of the circumcision article, in the disambiguation section? Brit Milah is a subset of circumcisions, not a separate concept. It should not be in the section devoted to other uses of the word "circumcision." It is correctly referenced elsewhere in the article. Blackworm 09:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply, because often people looking for the Judaism-specific ritual do not know the proper term, so they type in Circumcision; it most probably is the second-most meant article when "circumcision" is searched for. The other uses templates are merely directional indicators. -- Avi 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that people "often" look for the Judaism ritual and do not know the proper term, nor any evidence that it most probably is the second-most "meant" article when circumcision is searched. I put myself in the place of such a person, typed in "Jewish circumcision" in search, and was redirected to "Brit Milah." Presumably a semi-intelligent reader could do the same, or skip to the religion section (where "see also: 'Brit Milah' is mentioned at the top the section, AND linked again in the text), OR skip to the end "See Also" section where the link appears a fourth time. I believe it is a bad precedent to start putting things that should be under "see also" in the "other uses" section before the term circumcision is even defined, and I do not believe your justification for it is valid. Blackworm 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. See:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_circumcision&redirect=no
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_circumcision&redirect=no

Further, while I do not have any wikimedia page statistics, I'm pretty confident that more people are looking for Brit Milah than Female Genital Cutting when typing "Circumcision" and not meaning this particular article. As a matter of fact, the term "Circumcision" without any adjectival qalifiers has been used to mean "Brit Milah" but I do not recall it ever being used to mean "Female Genital Cutting" without the "Female" qualifier appended to the front. If you feel so confident in the intelligence of the average reader that the blurb at top for Brit Milah is rendered unnecessary, I am certain you would agree that the blurb for Females is even more of a waste of WIkipedia server space and client-side CPU and Video card processing power and resources.

So, according to your logic, shall we remove the template in toto from the top? -- Avi 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Lots of sources refer to circumcision of males and females. It is the same Wikipedia circumcision advocates who have defined circumcision as male circumcision, contrary to the dictionary definition of "circumcise" (: to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)[[26]]. Once this fraud has been successfully perpetrated, we are now to accept this nonsense you are proposing? Nowhere is FGM referred to anywhere in the article as referring to the article's subject, circumcision. Brit Milah is clearly a kind of male circumcision. It does not merit inclusion in "other uses" any more than any of the other "see also" terms. Blackworm 18:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of definitions:http://www.webster.com/dictionary/circumcision. -- Avi 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what's your point? Blackworm 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition specifically mentions Jewish circumcision, doesn't it? -- Avi 01:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please construct an argument? I really don't know what you're getting at. Blackworm 06:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brit Milah is a form of circumcision currently discussed at length in the main article; FGM includes the dictionary definition of circumcision but is only mentioned briefly, and not ever associated with the word, "circumcision," nor is this defintion of circumcision as being something done to males and females even presented in any way. That is a fraud. It is shameful and heartbreaking that it is allowed to continue. I suspect that when the articles were renamed to what they are now, the supposed "consensus" accepted by the hapless victims of your and Jakew's illogic was that FGM would only be mentioned as something "sometimes referred to as 'female circumcision.'" They probably rejoiced that they were "allowed" to put the misleading and factually incorrect disambiguation ("other uses") statement we had. It was disgraceful then. Now -- it's doubly disgraceful with your suggesting to use someone's mistake to remove the section "in toto" -- which would make the fraud complete. No, sorry. Remove Brit Milah from the "other uses," please. Blackworm 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is used as a "signpost". For some strange reason, you seem to be understanding that having directions to other articles at the top of an article page is tantamount to Wikipedia making a philosophical statement. I believe you are under a distinct misinterpretation. You are not the only reader of wikipedia, Blackworm. There is significant reason to believe that people entering the term "circumcision" are looking for "Brit Milah". Thus, the direction sign. Simple, concise, appropriate, and undeniable. -- Avi 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is nonsensical. It could be applied to any of the terms in the "see also" section, or any aspects of circumcision ("circumcision and law", etc.). It is POV a violation of WP:NPOV to single out Brit Milah for special mention before the general article on circumcision even starts; demonstrably so, as I argue above. It was added without discussion here nor consensus. Remove it, please. Blackworm 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia already has the concept of a "signpost:" a disambiguation page. If you wish to propose one, I would be glad to discuss it with you. Blackworm 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Can we fix this glaring example of an WP:NPOV violation? Do you give your assent? You are an administrator who has admonished me in the past, I do not wish to flare your wrath by performing these edits unilaterally. I leave you with: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.[emphasis mine]" -- Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Blackworm 08:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion not supported by source.

From the article: The frenulum is cut if frenular chordee is evident.[23][24] I read this somewhat ambiguous sentence as, "The frenulum is always cut during the circumcision procedure if there is evidence of frenular chordee." Assuming that is an accurate reading of the statement, neither of the two sources cited make that claim. The claim seems farcical; it would seem apparent that not all circumcisions are performed by experts who can diagnose frenular chordee with 100% accuracy and who consequently cut the frenulum. Is there another interpretation of the article statement? I propose this sentence be removed. Blackworm 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal seems reasonable. Jakew 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you agreeing? Oh, I see. You don't want any mention that the frenulum is often cut off during circumcision for no reason at all. Now I understand. That sentence must have served to weaken that point by implying it was only done if necessary. Now you'd rather see the whole idea go away. Hmmm... How can we rectify this? Well, I guess we can start by removing the sentence, then we can cite a source later. Blackworm 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you: the claim is unsupported by the source material. But apparently you are now unable to assume good faith and remain civil even when others agree with your position. Jakew 20:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are now and have always been unable to discuss anything without either injecting POV, illogic, or WP:AGF behavioural guideline violations -- the latter being obsolete among the parties present here. And where am I being uncivil above? I was publically musing; merely trying to "talk out" my confusion. I'm better now, and my apologies for burdening you with my mumblings. Thank you. Blackworm 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Jake, I'll tone it down. Perhaps I'm just celebrating a possible first; I invite you to do the same. Sorry. Blackworm 02:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of "pacific islands foreskin not removed in circumcision"

The sentence I deleted is: In pacific islands circumcisions do not remove the foreskin REF (mp3) This is not a reliable source. Further, your statement is demonstrably untrue. The word "circumcision" means "to cut around" and does not refer to a dorsal slit, which the unreliable source (an interviewee on a radio program) mistakenly calls circumcision. It should remain out of the encyclopedia article. Blackworm 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision procedures section incomplete, and not WP:NPOV.

The section on circumcision procedures goes into great detail about three related forms of the procedure, all discussing aseptic uses of a clamp. There are myriad other circumcision procedures that are performed in both aseptic and septic settings. The section as a whole perhaps depicts the majority of circumcisions performed, but neglects to mention other significant forms of circumcision. As a WP:SUMMARY article, this is unsatisfactory. Also, the specific choice of presented procedures may lead the reader to form certain incorrect general conclusions about circumcision. Therefore, I believe this is a case of a violation of WP:NPOV through an absence of material. Blackworm 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Added to controversial warning in preview

Was this appropriate? Nah, probably not, despite the general lack of sense of controversy one gets from reading the article. That only shows the article is deeply flawed, not that this tag is. On second thought, I'll remove it. Sorry. Blackworm 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs information about ridged band

The ridged band is the most important part of the foreskin, but it's not mentioned in this article at all. I hope someone can add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.107.128 (talk • contribs)

The subject of this article is circumcision, not the anatomy of the foreskin. The 'ridged band' is discussed in other, more appropriate articles. Jakew 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I hope someone can add it in, too. The anatomy of the foreskin is highly relevant to this article, which currently inexplicably focuses on the remaining parts of the penis (e.g. the glans) to argue, for example, that circumcision is not harmful to penile sensitivity. Do you have a specific edit to propose? Blackworm 21:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)