Talk:Circumcision

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4	Archive 5
Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12	Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24	Archive 25
Archive 26	Archive 27	Archive 28	Archive 29

Frenectomy in the intro paragraph

Jakew and the Cabal claim bias with inclusion. See their comments above.

I reiterate that because frenectomy in integral to circumcision ... required to complete ~25% of circs, only done along with circs, and potentially caused by circs ... the reader should have reference to the procedure in the intro. Again, it is a critical component of circumcision. See the intro that existed for years before the Cabal deleted...

Circumcision is the procedure that removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and caedere (meaning "to cut").TipPt 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Based on my above discussion with Jakew, it is clear that a majority of the sources cited in the procedures section make reference to the frenelum as well as the foreskin. I would suggest fine tuning the above wording, perhaps by removing the word "away" since apparently the frenelum may also be cut through without being removed. Whatever the particular phrasing, I agree that the frenelum should be included in the definition of circumcision since it is clearly a part of the penis involved in the procedure. Zandrous 11:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, it sounds reasonable to me to include mention of the frenulum in the intro. --Coppertwig 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is sufficient evidence to include mention of the frenelum in the intro. Now the question becomes, do we have sufficient sources to mention frenectomy specifically, or just the frenelum as a part of the penis involved in the procedure? I could not find mention of frenectomy in the sources that TipPt provided links to in the above section entitles "Avi Reverts Away Frenectomy." TipPt, if I am missing something could you direct my attention to the mentions of frenectomy? Zandrous 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Frenectomy has its own article, and, in my opinion, while it should be referenced somewhere in the section on methodology, it is inappropriate for the lead. -- Avi 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think mention of the frenelum belongs in the definition in the lead. Zandrous 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about circumcision in general. The frenulum is a detail that may or may not be involved. It doesn't belong in the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

TipPt's continued lack of civility

For someone who “honestly apologized” for inappropriate remarks about other editors, espcially vis-a-vis use of the term “cabal,” on July 15, your further posts, Tip, are indicative of your insincerity, and perhaps duplicitousness, as can be seen from

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

-- Avi 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Leading paragraph

1) Is cutting also not "customary" in Israel (which isn't on the list unless counted as "Muslim" or considered part of the United States; either of which POVs seem far fetched in either direction). 2) What is the "other" bit in "so it is not prescribed in other forms of Christianity." other to "some African churches you mean? Surely "is not prescribed by the major Christian denominations" makes less of a tail wagging a dog? --BozMo talk 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestiions.Michael Glass 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is probably best not to try to list such countries. It may be perceived as an exhaustive list. The World Health Organization include the following (source):

...using published data from the DHS and other sources 13, 53, 54, we estimated the number of non-Muslim and non-Jewish men circumcised in countries with substantial prevalence of non-religious circumcision (Angola, Australia, Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Uganda, United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania, United States).

The information may also be subject to change. Another WHO document advises that Eastern and Southern African nations have elected to scale up male circumcision. Jakew 11:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I approve of Reinis' edit [7] which moved the footnotes to after punctuation. I had thought it looked odd before, the way the footnote was placed right after a word, and had been intending to make a suggestion to change it if I got around to it. --Coppertwig 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Positions of National Medical Associations

I updated the positions of the national medical associations with careful citations and the updates were removed. For instance, the article incorrectly states that the Canadian Pediatric Society "does not recommend routine circumcision". That was their 2004 position. Since 2007, they recommend that routine circumcision "should not be performed". I quoted the new position and cited it and yet my update was removed. It is simply not honest to pretend that they still just do not recommend the procedure, when they now actively recommend against it. Similarly, I cited the position statements of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and their New Zealand counterparts stating their position that routince circumcision should not be performed. These too were removed from the article. It is not honest to pretend that these organizations do not recommend against circumcision.

Edwardsville 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the source you cited is dated 1996, not 2007. It notes that a revision is in progress as of May '07.

Second, your claim that "This is a significant change from earlier policy, which was simply not to recommend circumcision." was completely unsourced and violated WP:NOR.

Third, they do not state that they recommend against the procedure. They do, however, comment on the specific case of circumcision as a routine procedure: "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."

Finally, your "quote" from the RACP is not their recommendation but is itself a quote from a third party. Jakew 16:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I cited the wrong page. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I should have cited [8]

The claim that it is a strenghtening of the old policy is confirmed by the citation at the end of the paragraph, like everything else in the paragraph.

If you find the lack of the word "routine" misleading (and you shouldn't, since no medical association is against the prodedure when there is a medical reason) you could have just removed the word.

The correct place for the RACP quote is here. [9]

Edwardsville 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey - you also removed citations showing that the American Medical Associations, and the other national medical associations in the west, say that circumcision is painful and anesthetic should be used.

Edwardsville 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seixas Family?!?

There is text beneath the picture on top of the article that says:

Seixas Family circumcision set and trunk, ca. eighteenth century Wooden box covered in cow hide with silver implements: silver trays, clip, pointer, silver flask, spice vessel.

Which "Seixas Family"? There is mention of some Seixas Family in this text without explaination (or helpful wikilink) about what or who this Seixas Family is. This should be fixed to avoid confusion.

Also, this picture of little wooden box looks creepy in its context. --antiXt 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm,... anybody!?! Please do not ignore - do something constructive instead of constant fighting. Both sides. --antiXt 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow the image link, it is a library of congress picture. -- Avi 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say which "Seixas Family" is this about, so it would be good to either put an helpful wikilink or remove information (in this article) that this creepy wooden box belongs to/belonged to some "Seixas Family". And why is "Seixas Family" capitalized like that? --antiXt 13:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, please do something about it instead of constant fighting about petty details! --antiXt 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I followed the image link, and did not find any useful information not already provided except that the image can also be viewed at the Library of Congress website; however, I didn't find any text page associated with it there. (I suppose there probably is, but I don't know how to find .t I tried "Search", for example.) I find that the information provided with images at Commons is usually woefully inadequate.

I suggest deleting the name "Seixas", since we don't know who they are, and beginning with just "Family ...". --Coppertwig 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits and reverts

I support many of the edits that Edwardsville made today, and except for a few of them, I don't see explanations on the talk page as to why they were reverted. I hope to find time to comment in more detail later. --Coppertwig 22:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are personal opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision is a painful operation and the American Medical Association, like other national medical associations in the west, state that it should only be performed with anesthesia . Doesn't sound like personal opinion.

While there is debate about whether penile sensitivity is lost, it is obvious that there is a loss of sensation from the foreskin. A case where something on which there is no debate is targetted? Verifiability over truth, I guess. We cannot verify whether a male gets sensation from his severed foreskin. Wow -- and you wonder why I make Orwellian references on this discussion page. In any case, Jayjg, maybe you could restrict your edits to what you consider opinion rather than wholesale reversion as is common here. Blackworm 09:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you contemplate, for a moment, the consequences for the article if it could include anything that is 'obvious' to at least one person. The article would be a mess of unverifiable, non-neutral, and perhaps self-contradictory nonsense. There is a very good reason why policy requires us to only include information that is explicitly stated by a reliable source. Unfortunately, the claims which you've quoted above do not come close. Jakew 11:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of "at least one person." No one I would judge to be sane would claim that the owner of the foreskin derives sensation from his severed foreskin after circumcision. The good reason behind using RS's should not allow us to take leave of our reason. This is clearly a case of WP:IAR if there ever was one: ultimately, the section is better with that sentence than without it. But there are so many better examples of totally disputed claims, incorrect and misleading summaries, POV-forks, and even a reference to something published by you, Jakew -- an active editor, in a laughably clear breach of conflict of interest. When presented with the evidence, you simply deny and revert without any logical explanation or even any denial of obvious logical contradictions. Four or five strong willed people, with two having administrative power, are enough to keep this charade going forever. Despite someone erasing the totally-disputed flag (without any consensus reached here), you can be sure this article is, in fact, totally disputed. Blackworm 08:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on some edits that were reverted: [10]

"Indeed, Galatians 5:2 appears to forbid the practice, though few Christian churches uphold this rule." This sounds like opinion: it might "appear" to some people to forbid it. An exact quote from Galatians might be OK (though is it sufficiently relevant for this article? Maybe in an article on circumcision and religion?) or your statement backed up by a reference to a source that gives that opinion about Galatians.

"Indeed, in Galatians 5:2, he goes so far as to say "behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" . " This is verifiable. Again, I'm not sure whether it's needed. I think the whole religion section should be shorter in this article, and most stuff like this moved to an article about circumcision and religion.

"Some organizations have been formed as support groups for men who are resentful about being circumcised" (changed "upset with" to "resentful about") I support the "resentful about". It sounds more specific and accurate to me. "Upset" sounds undignified, like a general loss of control over one's feelings rather than a specific feeling about a specific thing. Alternatives include: "who wish they had not been circumcised", "who feel regretful about..." etc.

"Circumcision is a painful operation and the American Medical Association, like all western national medical associations, recommends the use of anaesthesia . Despite this, Stang, 1998, found only 45% ..." I support this edit. References are given to support the assertions. Jayjg said in an edit summary while reverting, "rv POV and/or OR edits to last by michael glass". Please support your statement that these assertions are POV. Please find references stating that circumcision is not painful. The reference given clearly states that neonates show signs of pain (reaction to noxious stimuli).

Re Taddio 1997. I'm not sure I can immediately see this study online. Could someone fix the link and/or provide a quote here on the talk page from that article to support the statement that they say the results are speculative? (I might be able to do this later.)

"While penile sensitivity may or may not be reduced by circumcision, it goes without saying that all sensation is lost from the foreskin." I support including this sentence. It's a good summary of the next couple of sentences, and is much easier to quickly understand what is being said. It's not unverifiable: it's supported by the reference(s) described in the sentences that follow it.

"As of 2007, the Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" . This is a significant change from earlier policy, which was simply not to recommend circumcision. " I support including this information. It's important and relevant, and supported with a reference.

". It states that circumcision "should not be routinely performed" , It recommends, " I support this edit. It's supported by a reference. It looks like an accurate representation of the position of that association. It's quite relevant to this article.

"This is also the policy of the Paediatric Society of New Zealand " Do they really have exactly the same words? Someone should check. Whether or not, the policy of this organization also deserves to be mentioned in this article.

I hope to have time to comment on some other edits later. Feel free to discuss the above. Please put your comments here: [i.e. below rather than interspersed in mine; thanks for having done that.] --Coppertwig 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Let me reply in turn:

• "Indeed, Galatians 5:2 appears..." agree: opinion.
• "Indeed, in Galatians 5:2, he goes so far as to say..." -- Need to eliminate "goes so far" and "indeed", but the quote itself is not a problem.
• "Some organizations have been formed as support groups..." -- ok, agree with you.
• "Circumcision is a painful operation" -- reference does not explicitly make this claim. Furthermore, "like all western national medical associations" appears to be OR.
• Re Taddio 1997, see here. The final paragraph reads: "The post-hoc nature of our analyses and the small sample sizes make our conclusions speculative. Nevertheless, we suggest that analgesia should be routine for circumcision to avoid possible long-term effects in infant boys' pain responses." (emph added)
• "While penile sensitivity may or may not be reduced by circumcision, it goes without saying that all sensation is lost from the foreskin" -- personal opinion. It is unverifiable. It may be a verifiable fact that such an argument has been made, however.
• "As of 2007, the Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" -- wrong. The source cited, as noted above, is dated 1996, not 2007. It is already summarised in the text. The comment that "This is a significant change from earlier policy, which was simply not to recommend circumcision" appears to be pure original research.
• "It states that circumcision" -- as noted above, this is not the recommendation of the cited source, but is in fact a quote from a different document. Thus it severely misrepresents the source.
• "This is also the policy of the Paediatric Society of New Zealand..." The RACP policy is a policy of several sub-organisations, including the NZ society. There's no particular reason to name each of these individually. Jakew 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply in detail. I edited in "resentful about". More later. --Coppertwig 21:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Re Galatians 5:2, I agree that "goes so far" and "indeed" are implying a particular point of view and that the quote itself might be OK without them.
• Re pain: Here's another reference: [11]

OK, this and the other reference may not state explicitly that there is pain. They indicate that newborns undergoing circumcision have higher-pitched cries, changes in heart rate and other reactions usually associated with noxious stimuli. How about if we say something like "Newborns undergoing circumcision without anesthesia show higher-pitched cries, changes in heart rate and other reactions often associated with pain." However, please answer this question: do you doubt that circumcision is painful? Are you actually challenging the assertion that circumcision is painful, and are you not personally convinced that it is? If no one is seriously challenging the assertion, then I would prefer to keep a shorter, simpler statement such as "circumcision is a painful procedure", to avoid unnecessarily complicating the article and taking up the reader's time. I think that given these references, the statement that circumcision is painful is not likely to be challenged.

• Re the link to the Taddio article: Thanks for providing a link. I think the references section in the article needs to be fixed up a bit. We now have two articles: Taddio 1995 and Taddio 1997. The first seems to be a preliminary study and the second a similar but more complete study. For the first one, the link you provided gives the full text available without registration. I think it would be a good idea to put this in the references list for the benefit of readers who would like easy online access to the text. The second, better study apparently requires registration at The Lancet to view it. The link given in the references section goes to a page saying something like "page not found" (if you're not logged in). I think we need to fix this to go to a useful link, such as a page at The Lancet that displays at least the title of the study to people who are not logged in. Although registration is free, it takes time and requires providing personal information and agreeing to terms and conditions, which is why I think it would be useful to list both studies in the reference list.

The 1995 study says the results are "speculative". The 1997 study includes a somewhat larger sample size and is "prospective", and does not contain the word "speculative".

Here's a quote from the 1997 study. I suggest that we include these words or something very similar in the article: "Despite evidence that circumcision causes intense pain and short-term alterations in infant feeding, sleeping, and crying behaviours,1–3 analgesia is rarely given."

• Re "like all western national medical assocations": good point. I think it would be unwise to make a generalization like this in the article: it could turn out to be wrong, (it's hard to even define the list of which countries this means). Better to list the particular medical associations being referred to. Unless maybe there's a good quote from a reliable source making this claim.
• Re sensation in the foreskin: please answer: do you seriously believe that people with their foreskin removed do not necessarily lose all sensation in their foreskin? The paragraph in a version of the article you reverted was:

"While penile sensitivity may or may not be reduced by circumcision, it goes without saying that all sensation is lost from the foreskin. Boyle et al. (2002) argued that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with "heightened erogenous sensitivity," stating "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision." They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well.""

If you're seriously challenging the statement that all sensation is lost from the foreskin, how about a statement like "the circumcised male has lost the ability to feel sensation with the part of the body that was removed." I think this is an important point, obvious once pointed out but that might not occur to a mother considering having an infant circumcised, so it's important to include it in the article. Maybe you could suggest a different wording?

• Re Canadian Paediatric Society [http:www.cps.ca] The 1996 statement says "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." The website says this statement is under revision. I agree that (without more information, anyway) we shouldn't say there's a significant change in policy.
• You're right: New Zealand is covered by the RACP. The RACP statement (Australasia) says "The CPS recommended 'Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed'... . ... the RACP concurs with these statements and endorses ... that 'Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication'". I think these statements should be mentioned in the article. --Coppertwig 16:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Re pain control: The CPS statement says "The evidence of the need for pain control is strong,". The RACP statement says "Circumcision is now generally performed with local or general anaesthesia". Edwardsville, I don't see statements that anaesthesia "should" be used. If I missed them, perhaps you can supply them to support your statement. --Coppertwig 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, please explain in more detail why you deleted this part: " and endorses statements by other medical societies that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" and that "neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication"." How is that a "mispresentation"? Rather than simply deleting it, would you please put it back in and edit it so that in your opinion it's no longer a misrepresentation? Would it be OK with you if I put into the article the following exact words from the position statement: "The CPS recommended 'Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed' ... the RACP concurs with these statements and endorses ... that 'Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication'"." That's wordier than what I originally put in and I think the increased wordiness is unnecessary, but if you think it's necessary to avoid a misunderstanding it's OK with me. Do you think even more words are needed to fill in the parts where I put three dots? --Coppertwig 16:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The first problem is that the source is slightly unclear: it does not specify whether they mean that they concur with the policy statements cited ("statements"), or with the specific sentences ("statements"). The second problem is that the CPS and AAP statements belong in the relevant sections, not under Australasia. The third problem is that the RACP are already quoted as saying that "there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision", and we do not need to introduce repetition. A final problem is that to include quotes with which the source agrees is a poor reflection of their own policy, and appears to be an example of cherry-picking words in order to present circumcision in the most negative light possible, rather than to fairly represent the sources. Jakew 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Re pain, you ask "Are you actually challenging the assertion that circumcision is painful, and are you not personally convinced that it is?" My main concern is with the fact that we should not make a claim that is not explicitly stated by a source. My personal view, since you ask, is that circumcision without anaesthesia is likely painful, but that circumcision with appropriate anaesthesia is not.
• Re the Taddio study, we must always link to the text at the publisher's site in preference to CIRP. Please see Wikipedia:Convenience links#Reliability.
• Re your suggestion that "Here's a quote from the 1997 study. I suggest that we include these words or something very similar in the article", I think this is a poor idea. The purpose of that study was not to assess how frequently anaesthesia is given, so it can only be considered an opinion.
• Re sensation in the foreskin, I'm more concerned with accurate sourcing and the absence of original research than with my own view. Incidentally, our purpose is not to convince mothers to circumcise or not to circumcise, but only to summarise reliable sources. Please see WP:NOT. Jakew 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your replies. Re pain: Oh, I see what you mean: we can't just say that circumcision is painful, because it isn't when anaesthesia is used. You're right about that.
• Re the Taddio studies: It's strange. The 1995 study is listed as a reference in the 1997 study, referring to it as another Lancet article, but I can't seem to find it on the Lance website. Maybe just linking to the 1997 article is fine, but at least the link should be fixed so it doesn't say something like "page not found" to people who are not logged in. I might attempt to do this later.
• Re the quote from the 1997 study: perhaps you're right.
• Re sensation in the foreskin: no comment for now.
• Note my comment above asking you to explain what you meant by "misrepresentation" -- you might have missed that due to the edit conflict. --Coppertwig 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Re the RACP statement. I don't see how any of that adds up to "misrepresenation". The statement with "...should not be..." seems to me to be a stronger statement than "no medical indication"; anyway they don't mean quite the same thing. Therefore I would like to see both or at least the "should not be" one included. (The "neonatal male..." one is pretty much just a repetition of "no medical indication" and not needed, as you point out.) Since they state in their position statement that they "concur" with this, I think it's quite fair to state that that is their position. As to being unclear: whether they mean that they concur with those sentences or with the whole position statement containing those sentences, either way they do concur with those sentences since they're contained in those position statements, so any such lack of clarity if present is irrelevant for our purposes here. --Coppertwig 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That a statement appears to be more strongly against circumcision is a very poor reason for inclusion. We are not an anti-circumcision website, and we have a non-negotiable policy of neutral point of view. That means that we can't collect the most anti- (or pro-) circumcision comments in a source and present them together. Instead, we must ensure that we fairly summarise the most representative points.

I agree that they concur, and that this is part of their policy statement; however it is far from a key point and as such a rather poor choice of quote to use in summarising their statement.

Finally, the ambiguity presents us a problem. If they meant that they agree only with those sentences in the statements, then such a quote does not misrepresent them. If, however, they meant that they agree with the entire statements from the AAP and CPS, then it would misrepresent their position if we cherry-picked only certain phrases. Jakew 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent their position to quote the very sentences they chose to quote when they were saying that they concurred. The strongest sentences are the most interesting. If they have a strongest pro-circumcision sentence perhaps we should quote it too. --Coppertwig 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you write an essay on the subject of 'interesting quotations about circumcision'. The article, however, is part of an NPOV encyclopaedia. Hence, the priority is to present sources in a fair and representative manner. Jakew 10:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) The strongest sentences in a position statement are the most representative of that position statement. --Coppertwig 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What's your basis for making such an assertion? Jakew 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give your opinion about how to select the most representative statement(s) from a position statement, if you don't agree with mine. --Coppertwig 21:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it is a hard problem. In general, I would say that 1) such statements are to be found in the organisation's own 'conclusions/summary/overview/recommendations' section, 2) that they should be their own words, rather than a third-party quote, 3) that they should be relatively self-contained and qualifiers should not be excluded, and 4) that they should cover the policy regarding both routine and elective (including religious) circumcisions. That's not an exhaustive list, but it is at least a start.

I should note that, in the footnotes, we have fairly complete quotations from the organisations already. Jakew 10:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed, really. You've managed to find an objective way to choose one sentence rather than another from a position statement -- though I wouldn't necessarily want to be restricted always to the summaries of things. I guess when the position statement has something in bold type, that's sort-of a clue, too. --Coppertwig 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for "4) that they should cover the policy regarding both routine and elective (including religious) circumcisions" unless you insist that the strong societal stigma against saying anything negative against religious circumcision carry over into watered-down, non-medical, PR statements about all circumcision. Statements about circumcision which are freed from the stigma of offending those who circumcise for religious reasons, are the most fair, balanced, and in a medical context, accurate statements. That's why we don't have any in the article (Jakew reverts them). And by the way "routine" circumcision *is* "elective." Blackworm 20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean that their policies regarding both routine circumcision and elective circumcision should be included, Blackworm. If, for example, the AAP were to release a statement in which they stated that no circumcisions should be performed for any reasons, then that could certainly be included. As it stands, however, few (if any) major medical organisations are opposed to elective circumcision.

As for elective vs routine, I am using routine to mean "for all infant boys" and elective to mean the parents choosing/electing the procedure, as in:

• "Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social and cultural reasons. Since circumcision is not essential to a child’s health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks." [12]
• "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[13]

Hope that helps. Jakew 20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The word you are looking for to describe "for all infant boys" is "universal," not "routine." No one is discussing universal circumcision. Routine infant circumcision is a reality today. Circumcision happens routinely. Elective circumcision essentially means "circumcision not performed for a health reason, but at the request of the parents," which is exactly why most (if not all) medical associations "do not recommend" elective circumcision. Your response is confused and illogical. Blackworm 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read through the above two quotations more carefully, Blackworm. Jakew 10:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Blackworm's comments and the quotations more carefully, Jakew.

Edwardsville 12:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

The dispute tag is accurate. There's currently dispute as to whether circumcision is (always) surgery, and whether the strongest statements from medical association position statements can be quoted in the article. Also the large section on religion occurring before much (or any?) mention of any harm or risk has been pointed out as being non-neutral. Etc. --Coppertwig 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, although what the dispute tag says is accurate, it was not appropriate to put it on this article at this time, at least not in the way it was done. See Template:dispute and Wikipedia:Accuracy disputes. To use the dispute tag properly, I think you have to have disputes about at least five parts of the article, and you have to state clearly what they are and have a link from the tag to a section of the talk page that lists them. The tag only had a link to the top of the talk page. There has to be a way to know whether the disputes which were the reason for the tag have been resolved. The disputes I'm aware of don't seem to me to be enough for the disputed tag, and especially not the totally-disputed tag. I apologize for having commented above without first reading the instructions for dispute tags. (There are, however, some ongoing disputes that still need to be resolved.)

When adding, removing or changing dispute tags or other tags at the top of the article, please say in the edit summary exactly what tags you're changing. The article is no longer semi-protected, so please don't put a semi-protected tag on it. --Coppertwig 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Skin Bridge" Photo

I believe this photo was removed because it was obviously of an underaged child.71.198.175.226 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to which image you mean. Does that explain this edit? [14] To reduce confusion, editors should state the reason in the edit summary. --Coppertwig 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the photo showing an example of the skin bridge was removed but it has since been put back up by another use. It clearly appears to be the photo of an underage male, and as far as I know this is not legal to post even in medical use. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Why would it be illegal; it is not pornographic? -- Avi 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still not clarified. Someone didn't sign their post, but worse than that, they didn't specify which image they're talking about. --Coppertwig 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration of content

The issue is content. The circumcision article is not factual in it's omission of highly pertinent facts, it's emphasis on relatively irrelevant information, and it's gross misrepresentations of fact.

I won't raise related issues again, and will have a concise list of topic problems in about a week.TipPt 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "vandalism"

In Jayjg's most recent edit, in which his edit description reads: "cleaning up the rest of some old vandalism," the following content is removed:

", though it is not prescribed by the major Christian denominations. It is not requirement of the other great world religions."

Wikipedia's official policy on vandalism states: "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

Since none of the other definitions of vandalism in the policy seem to match this deleted material, then Jayjg, could you support your apparent claim that this material is both in bad faith, and that its "bad-faith nature" is "inarguably explicit? Blackworm 09:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Please use accurate, useful edit summaries, everyone. I await Jayjg's response. --Coppertwig 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this going to be resolved? I'm still waiting to hear the response.

Edwardsville 12:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

Section title	Current word count	Proposed word count	Percent	"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.) 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.

Section title	"Main article"	Wording has been checked	References have been checked
Circumcision procedures	Medical analysis of circumcision
Cultures and religions	Circumcision in the Bible or Circumcision and religion
Ethical issues	Bioethics of neonatal circumcision
Pain and pain relief during circumcision	Medical analysis of circumcision
Sexual effects	Sexual effects of circumcision
Medical aspects	Medical analysis of circumcision
History of circumcision	History of male circumcision	Coppertwig 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Prevalence of circumcision	Prevalence of circumcision

See WP:SUMMARY. --Coppertwig 23:54, 13 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)

Pain

(The subject now seems to have changed from article length. In order to facilitate discussion of both subjects, I'm therefore creating a new section for the following. Other than changing the indentation I'm not making any changes to the text, which was formerly a part of "Article too long?". Jakew 10:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

I guess at this point I'm wondering what purpose this entire discussion page serves, when the boldest editors simply edit and revert to their liking, and make horrible, illogical arguments as to why such edits/reverts should remain in place. Eventually, when a topic has been "debated" enough, they ignore the discussion which by then passes into "Archive xx" and is lost forever (i.e. ignored). The net effect is, the article stays wildly biased. It's August 2007 and Jakew, you are arguing against inclusion of the phrase "circumcision is a painful procedure" when it is found verbatim is several of the exact same references you use to make pro-circumcision claims. I know you've read them, you know you've read them, so why not help the article by fixing the reference instead of reverting the claim? Your user page gives us the answer: your goal is not to improve the article, but to eliminate anti-circumcision POV from the article. When you add three or four others who seem to have the same goal, two of whom being administrators making threats exclusively against those who seem to want to include anti-circ material or exclude pro-circ material, while policy breaks by others go ignored, then you don't have a working, dynamic, growing article, you have what we have here -- a farce. I realize I'm "not contributing," but as far as this article is concerned I think whether you're seen as "helping" or "hurting" just depends on which side of the circumcision debate you are on. (And yes, there is a debate, it's not just "anti-circumcision zealotry" like our administrator Jayjg claims.) Again, show me once that you are willing to end this charade and *really* practice what you preach, and I'll be right there working as hard as I can to help. But continue to oppose or support all edits based on their content, while claiming it's based on policy or guideline and making weak arguments that don't support your claim, and I will continue to see this for the game it currently is. Blackworm 20:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm: Will you please list the references that say "circumcision is a painful procedure" (and perhaps give the page number and where on the page they say it)? I was looking for references like that. --Coppertwig 00:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Newborns experience pain during circumcision." Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision. American Academy of Family Physicians (2007). http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/circumcision.html
• "Circumcision is a painful operation." http://cks.library.nhs.uk/patient_information_leaflet/circumcision
• "ASPMN recognizes that neonatal circumcision is a painful procedure." ASPMN Position Statement on Neonatal Circumcision Pain Relief http://www.aspmn.org/pdfs/Pediatric%20Circumcision.pdf
• "Neonatal circumcision is a painful surgical procedure often performed without analgesia." New England Journal of Medicine Volume 336:1197-1201, April 24, 1997, Number 17 -- Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine–Prilocaine Cream for Pain during Circumcision, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/17/1197

It's true, it's verifiable, and gosh darn it, it will never find its way into the Wikipedia article on circumcision except presented as speculation, conjecture, something to be ignored, from a few of the anti-circumcision zealots, like the crazy so-called "New England Journal of Medicine," or those kooks over at the "American Academy of Family Physicians," which is really just a front for a bunch of anti-Semites. Blackworm 05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the official policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which states “there is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychological stress”. "Circumcision Policy Statement", Pediatrics, Volume 103, Number 3, Pages 686-693, March 1, 1999. I put that citation in the article. Naturally, it was immediately removed. This article is indeed a joke. The positions and conclusions of the world's major medical organizations are ignored and are consistently removed when it doesn't support circumcision, while individuals who are in favor of circumcision get quoted. Oh, of course, the AAP gets quoted when people like what it says - but as soon as it says that circumcision is painful, it gets ignored. Edwardsville 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy section already contains the words "Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided." Jakew 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I note yet again that all reference has been removed to the joint policy statement of the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, the Urological Society of Australasia, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Paediatric Society of New Zealand. In this statement, they clearly say that "circumcision of newborns ought not to be routinely performed". The quote is cited directly to the home page of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527), yet it immediately vanishes as soon as it appears. Edwardsville 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're incorrect. This RACP document is referenced in several places in the article, and is discussed in the section Circumcision#Australasia. It does not contain the phrase you quote above, but it does contain the phrase 'The CPS recommended "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed"'. Note that this quote is not their own policy, but is attributed to another organisation. It is misleading to claim otherwise. Also, it is a single statement, and it should not be misrepresented as two separate statements. Jakew 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It says clearly that it is their own position, agreeing with the other groups. It says:

The CPS recommended "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" (reaffirmed February 2001: (www.cps.ca/english//statements/FN) and the AAP concluded "we can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision". (www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm). Following the present review of the evidence, the RACP concurs with these statements.

Please note that it is not just the RACP, because this is the joint policy of all the groups I mentioned above. I provided the link and anyone who follows it can see perfeclty what is written there. http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527 Follow it and read it again

Edwardsville 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are at it, I notice that the two links to anti-circumcision groups that I provided in the "opposition" section were taken out. Do you disagree that these groups oppose circumcision?

And while you are here, are you going to stop removing quotes from national medical associations stating that circumcision is painful?

Edwardsville 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, here's another quote from the American Medical Association that I put in and that got taken out again. It was in the section on the policy statements of medical organizations and was cited directly to the AMA's website. The American Medical Association states that "virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."

Now why was that taken out of the article? Because it isn't relevant to a section on the policies of major medical organizations regarding circumcision? Because it isn't an important fact? Because the American Medical Association isn't a sufficiently important authority?

Edwardsville 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing those references, Blackworm and Edwardsville. I think I understand a point that I think Jakew was making earlier: that it would be misleading to say something like "circumcision is painful" because of course, when it's performed with anesthetic, it might not be. Therefore I think rather than saying "circumcision is painful" or words to that effect, that we say something along the lines of "circumcision without anesthetic is painful." (I think we don't know whether it's painful (always or sometimes or never) when anesthetic is used. I think at least sometimes there's still some pain. (This is not a proposal to say that so in the article.)) Therefore I think the quote Edwardsville gave above is a good one.

Jakew also made the point that it already says "Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided." I would like to reply here that this is not at all the same thing. This quote does not state that there is pain. This quote strongly implies that there is pain at least sometimes; i.e. it does not rule out the possibility that some circumcisions without anesthetic are painless. The other quotes state that there is pain (something that is merely implied here) and strongly imply that there is pain in every such procedure if anesthetic is not used (something that is not even implied by the quote Jakew mentions). Therefore I think we do need to say something along the lines that "circumcision is painful...". I think it would be OK to take one of the other quotes and insert, inside square brackets, something like "when performed without anesthetic", since that is obviously (to me) what is meant. But, as I say, I propose adding the quote Edwardsville gave above (i.e. the AAP quote, "there is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychological stress".) --Coppertwig 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in including the "there is considerable evidence" quote in the 'pain' section (if it isn't already - I haven't checked), but I don't think it would be appropriate to include it in the main policies section. Firstly, as I've noted, we already have a quote referring to pain & pain management, and while you (correctly) note that it doesn't discuss exactly the same issue, one seems enough. Secondly, of the two quotes, the "Analgesia is safe and effective" quote is arguably more 'policy-ish' (pardon my lousy English) than the other, since it explicitly states what should be done.

Regarding pain, Lagarde et al (Acceptability of male circumcision as a tool for preventing HIV infection in a highly infected community in South Africa. AIDS, 17(1), 89–95) reported on traditional circumcision procedures in South Africa. 42.6% described the traditional procedure as "very painful", 34.4% as "mildly painful", and 18.5% as "not painful". There are also other studies, in which local anaesthetic was used, in which participants described the procedure as "painless". Clearly, then, we cannot make a blanket statement that circumcision is painful. More cautious wording is warranted. Jakew 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about "policy-ish". I put the "there is considerable evidence..." quote into the Pain section, and rearranged things a bit so it would flow smoothly. --Coppertwig 01:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville, the AAP quote says "physiologic", not "physiological" as you quote them above. Please be careful when you use quotation marks. Thanks for finding the quote, though! --Coppertwig 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If the reliable source says "circumcision is painful" that is good enough to warrant inclusion. It is not our job to decide that they are wrong because of our own thoughts and feelings about the matter. To do so would be original research. I notice Jakew has not argued my point about this directly -- he has done exactly what I said he would. Obfuscate, deny, stall, "discuss." The sources say "circumcision is painful." It will not be allowed into the article because it casts circumcision in a negative light. It's plain and simple for everyone to see. Blackworm 03:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A more accurate summary would be that some reliable sources describe circumcision as painful, while others do not. You are correct in noting that it is not our job to decide that they are wrong; however it is our job to summarise and present them in a way that conforms to WP:NPOV and WP:V. Jakew 09:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If we have a consensus here that something is false, I believe we should leave it out of the article. WP:V does not require including everything that normally-reliable sources say. We need to use our judgement as to what is interesting and important. Things that are false are less likely to be important to report in this type of article. --Coppertwig 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But, it is not false. It is true. And it is in enough reliable sources that it should be stated as fact. Unlike what Jakew is implying, NO reliable sources say circumcision is not painful. NONE. This isn't a debate, anywhere except here, where anything casting circumcision in a negative light is "wrong" and to be omitted. Blackworm 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few of these 'non-existent' sources...

• Kirya C, Werthmann MW Jr. Neonatal circumcision and penile dorsal nerve block--a painless procedure. J Pediatr 1978 Jun;92(6):998-1000.
• Poma PA. Painless neonatal circumcision. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1980;18(4):308-9.
• "Since circumcision can now be done under local anesthesia, the newborn infant can have a painless prophylactic operation that will prevent urinary tract infections, pyelonephritis, and end-stage renal disease." Roberts JA. Neonatal circumcision: an end to the controversy? South Med J 1996 Feb;89(2):167-71.
• "A "sugar tit" consisting of a small amount of sugar wrapped in gauze and soaked in wine is given to the infant to suck upon before the actual procedure. This mild sedative is often so effective that the prepuce excision is painless, and no harm has ever been caused by using this form of sedation." Weiss GN. Neonatal circumcision. Southern Medical Journal 1985: 78(10)
• "[circumcision] patients in group 2 were practically pain-free" Stav A, et al. Modification of the penile block. World J Urol 1995 ;13 (4):251-3
• "We strongly recommend subcutaneous ring block technique using lidocaine (1%) for children below one year of age undergoing circumcision. It is a fast, easy and painless procedure with no significant complications." Ahmed A, et al. Circumcision in Infants and Neonates with or without Local Anesthesia. Kuwait Medical Journal 2004: 36(4); 275-7
• "In infants under the age of 7 months, 99.0% fed immediately, 96.0% settled rapidly and remained settled, 96.5% had no disturbance of sleep pattern, 92.5% had little or no pain and 96.0% had no pain or difficulty when urinating. None required stronger analgesia than paracetamol. ... CONCLUSION: EMLA anaesthetic cream, properly applied, is a safe and effective method of anaesthesia for circumcision of neonates to 7 months of age. It reduces or eliminates pain, restlessness, agitation and interference with parent bonding." Russell CT, Chaseling J. Topical anaesthesia in neonatal circumcision: a study of 208 consecutive cases. Aust Fam Physician 1996 Jan;Suppl 1:S30-4.

Jakew 13:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources say circumcision is not painful. To you, a truism like "getting your eyes gouged out is painful" is debatable because it's not true if you're unconscious (from anaesthesia or otherwise). It's a ridiculous line of argument. The correct and balanced way to proceed is as follows: Say, without qualifier, that circumcision is painful. Then, include information that shows that anaestheic can be effective in reducing pain. Then, note clearly that most neonatal circumcision in the West (and practically all elsewhere) still takes place with no anaesthetic. The problem is, the reality is horrifying to most people, just like a video would be, or balanced, objective information would be. I can totally understand why you wish to keep this information muddled, ambiguous, and confusing, given your admitted quest to rid the article of any anti-circumcision POV and defend the article from "the onslaught from anti-circumcision activists" (the quote you proudly display on your user page). Blackworm 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, what exactly are you claiming to be true? The trouble is, the statement "circumcision is painful" is ambiguous. It could mean that some circumcisions without anesthetic are painful. It could mean that all circumcisions without anesthetic are painful. Or, it could mean that all circumcisions are painful, even if anesthetic is used. Maybe some of these interpretations are true and some are not. To move this discussion forward, we need to be clear about precisely what we're claiming. I think it would be misleading to put "circumcision is painful" in the article because as far as I know, a major interpretation of that (that all circumcisions are painful, even with anesthetic) is not true. However, something about circumcision being painful should appear in the article. We just need to figure out how to word it. --Coppertwig 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden is to show verifiability, not truth. That burden has been met. I could further argue the truth, but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Circumcision is painful. True. Anaesthetic tends to reduce the pain. True. Most circumcision is performed without anaesthetic. True. You'll only ever see the second "truth" mentioned in this article. Blackworm 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is merely a condition of inclusion in an article; it's not a ticket conveying a right to inclusion. I agree with you that truth is not obsolete but deserves to be talked about. I'm not convinced that you're able to predict the future. Is "circumcision is painful" the only wording you're willing to suggest on this topic? When you claim that it's "true", which meanings do you mean? --Coppertwig 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Circumcision is painful" sounds perfectly clear to me. If people would rather say that circumcision without anesthesia is painful, that may be alright, but only if we have direct research showing that there is no pain after the operation. My understanding is that there is pain after the operation and that adults feel pain and use pain relief. There is problem with the article as it stands, though, in that only the AAP quote is being cited. Scientific opinion is very clear that circumcision withouth anesthesia is painful (some other cited quotes to support that have been listed above, but they are only the tip of the iceberg). As far as I know, there isn't any doctor's group that disputed it, whereas they all seem to talk about the importance of pain relief during circumcision.

146.163.162.184 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I must agree with Blackworm that the article must stress that most circumcision is performed without anesthesia, despite the fact that doing so causes pain to the infant.

146.163.162.184 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. We can't say "circumcision is painful" because that would imply that it's always painful, which it probably isn't in at least some cases with anesthetic. We can't say "circumcision can be painful" because that would imply that it's only occasionally painful even with no anesthetic. We can't say "circumcision without anesthetic is painful", because that would imply that all circumcision with anesthetic is painfree, which it probably isn't. It's really not easy to find the right words.

How about something along these lines (immediately before the current beginning of the first paragraph of the Pain section): Several medical associations and scientific articles have stated that circumcision is painful. Other scientific articles point out that circumcision can be painfree if certain types of anesthetic are used. --Coppertwig 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what is the problem with the AAP quote already present in the article: "There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychologic stress." Jakew 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be OK with me if it were presented as true, i.e. if the article itself said "there is considerable evidence..." etc., rather than "the AAP says that...". The way it's presented now, it gives the impression that the AAP may be the only people who believe that circumcision is painful; I agree with 146.163.162.184 that something more needs to be said; i.e. the article needs to accurately reflect the fact that there are numerous reliable sources stating that circumcision is painful. There are several ways to do that, but only saying "the AAP says..." and nothing else doesn't convey it.

Here's another idea. How about The American Academy of Pediatrics, among other medical associations and scientific reports, point to evidence that circumcision without anesthetic is painful... or something. It's a bit tricky to get the wording right because they don't all use the same words. --Coppertwig 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be made clear that this isn't just the AAP's position, since this is the position of every respectable body that has made a statement on the issue. "Point to evidence" is too weak, because it doesn't mention the strength of the evidence. It suggests that the AAP might just be concerned about the possibility, rather than having concluded that there is good reason to conclude that the operation is painful. I suggest that the issue is important enough (most circumcision is done without anesthesia!) that a list of quotes be presented from the major medical oranizations. Failing that, there should at least be the statement that circumcision is painful followed by a stack of citations to different medical organizations.

Edwardsville 12:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your first suggestion would be a clear case of soapboxing a point. Your second would be a violation of WP:NPOV, since there are reliable sources describing circumcision as painless. Jakew 12:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would Edwardsville's first suggestion be soapboxing a point? It doesn't look like it to me. What are the reliable sources describing circumcision as painless? As far as I know, all the big medical organizations say that it is painful. I don't even know of any experiments that found otherwise.

Just David 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My first suggestion would not be soapboxing a point. It would be presenting the reader with the facts about what medical science has to say on this issue. The major medical organizations of the world are not neutral on the topic of whether circumcision is painful and it would be misleading for the article to suggest otherwise. As to the authorities Jawew talks about who say that circumcision is painless, just who are these authorities, what are the experiments they performed, and what are the citations to the articles they published? Do any medical bodies accept their views?

The citations you give above are all useless, since they deal with whether circumcision under anesthesia is painful, and anything done with sufficient anesthesia is not painful. If you want the article to read "circumcision without anesthesia is painful" instead of "circumcision is painful", that would be acceptable.

Edwardsville 13:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic edits

Once again, certain problematic edits have been made to the article (eg. [15]).

There are countless problems with them, including:

1. Dramatic changes (restructuring) of the policies section with neither explanation or consensus.
2. Cherry-picking of the most negative quotations, rather than the most representative. As WP:NPOV cautions: "In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively"
3. Misrepresentation of sources (for example, still attributing "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" to the RACP, in spite of the fact that this was a quote from a third party). I've already explained this problem above; there is a distinction between Bob quoting Alice as saying X and Bob himself saying X.
4. Misleading repetition: the edits includes the same policy (RACP) under two different sections, creating the misleading impression that these are two different statements.
5. Inclusion of the American Cancer Society text. The same quotes (albeit a fuller, more representative version of the first) are included elsewhere in the article - they should only be included once. Since the ACS identifies itself as a volunteer organisation, and is not itself a professional medical body, it is inappropriate for inclusion in this section.

Jakew 12:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Consensus doesn't mean that you agree. Check out some of the opinions that people have been posting about your edits. Your personal opinions do not override those of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and so forth.

2. If you think the most negative quotations have been cherry-picked, stick in some positive ones that you find for balance. So far, the article has ignored and misrepresented the opinions of the major medical organizations. But if you think you can balance things, post away. It is not my habit to remove something from the article just because I disagree with it, so your comments will be safe Just make sure that you cite your sources carefully. It is about time that we paid attention to what they are actually saying, not what people wish were being said.

By the way, it is ludicrous to suggest that it is cherry-picking to point out, as the article did not before, such things as that the American Medical Association states that "virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice" or that the American Medical Association and American Pediatric Society say that circumcision is painful. Not including these facts is simply biased. It is pretending that medical opinion is something other than what it is.

3. Read that RACP policy statement. It very clearly states, and I very clearly quoted, that the RACP policy agrees with the quoted policy of the Canadian Paediatric Society. They say "here is what the Canadian Paediatric Society said and we agree with that". For goodness sake, read the policy statement.

4. It doesn't say that they are two different statements because it gives the same attribution. The policy is relevant to both sections.

5. If the opinion of the American Cancer Society, which is run by doctors, is not relevant, then the opinions of no researcher on the subject of cancer is relevant to the article. But hey, if you want to make a truthful and well-cited comment about the ACS after the quote from them, go right ahead. This article is supposed to be about the truth after all.

Edwardsville 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean that I, specifically, agree, but it does imply (loosely speaking) that most editors (of which I am one) do. Neither the AMA nor the AAP have attempted to edit Wikipedia, as far as I know, and unless and until they do, it is pointless to speculate about what they would want to do with this article.
2. In terms of the 'policies' section, the article already represents a fair and balanced selection of quotations, with fuller quotations in footnotes, in accordance with consensus at a former AfD. The attempt to imbalance is itself a problem, and a summary is often made worse, not better, by adding text.
3. I have read the RACP article, as should be quite obvious from the fact that I not only corrected your misquote, but observed the fact that you incorrectly attributed these words to the wrong source. Hypothetically, I might agree with, say, your point 5 above, but it would be completely erroneous to claim that I had stated those words myself. Even if this misattribution were fixed, there is still a problem remaining: given that we obviously cannot quote the entire policy statement, we must select the most represent parts, and a quote from a third party with which the source happens to agree is a very poor choice. It contributes to the distinct impression of cherry-picking anti-circumcision quotes from the documents, rather than taking representative quotes.
4. Quoting the same policy statement under two different sections gives a very strong (and misleading) impression that they are two different statements. There is absolutely no need to do so, moreover, since the statement was cited, perfectly adequately, under 'Australasia' - a term that includes both Australia and New Zealand.
5. What evidence do you have that the ACS is 'run by doctors', as you claim? Furthermore, please note that I have not objected to citing the ACS in the cancer section, only to duplicating the content and representing it as a medical association policy statement. Jakew 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville, re your edit that Jakew cites at the beginning of this section: Please don't make any extensive changes to the article, or any changes however small which include matters that have recently been under discussion here, without first quoting your proposed changes here, discussing and reaching consensus. Please don't make changes that move whole paragraphs unless that is the only change you make in that one edit and you use a word like "moving" in the edit summary to explain what you're doing (otherwise at first glance in the diff link it looks as if you've added or removed large parts of the article; see the diff link Jakew gives above.) You can make other edits immediately before or afterwards if it's OK to make such edits for other reasons. (Maybe you weren't moving paragraphs and it's just the way the diff link is that makes it look that way. I can't figure out what's going on in that diff link -- too many changes. Maybe you could just make fewer changes per edit to help make things easier.)

I agree with Jakew that the statement "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" should not be presented as if the RACP said it. Note also that this statement, and the RACP's agreement with it, already appear under Canada in the policy section; it would be too repetitive to say it again elsewhere in the article. I didn't see the wording Edwardsville used. Here's an idea: in the Australasian section, very briefly point out that they concur with a Canadian statement and refer the reader to the Canadian section, without repeating the statement itself.

Edwardsville, you said: ' They say "here is what the Canadian Paediatric Society said and we agree with that". ' I feel that it's very important, especially in a discussion of this nature, that when you say "they say" and then use quotation marks, that you give only the exact, unedited words -- which is not at all what you've done here, I believe. --Coppertwig 21:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, the RACP say very clearly in their position statement that they endorse the following statement "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed". Thus, I say in their article that their policy is "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" and I give the appropraite citation. If you state "X is true" you have stated "X".

Regarding moving the paragraphs around, the countries were listed out of alphabetical order.

Edwardsville 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jakew,

1. It is not pointless to speculate what the national medical organizations would want in this article. They would want their conclusions and recommendations stated in this article. The old article misrepresented these.

2. The policies article did not include a fair and balanced selection of quoations. It contained gross misrepresentation by leaving out key parts of the policies of national medical organizations, in particular, key parts of their conclusions and recommendations regarding circumcision. You have been removing the statement by the AMA that "virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." . Is that really not an extremely important piece of information for the section on the policy statements of medical organization? Or is the AMA not an authority worth quoting in this article? Why are you so keen that it be left out? Similarly, the article did not even mention the medical associations who hold that routine circumcision should not be performed, even when giving the policies of those organizations. Isn't it relevent when discussing their policy on circumcision to mention that they say it should not be routinely performed. This is not remotely balanced.

3. No, it is not obvious that you read the article, because you seem to have missed that the RACP was endorsing the Canadian policy. The wording used is in the policy for which I have given the citation. They say that they endorse the following claim "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed". I say in their article that their policy is "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" and I give the appropraite citation. If you state "X is true" you have stated "X". Please read it again.

Yeah, there is a difference between Bob saying "X" and Bob quoting Alice as saying "X". There is also a difference between Bob quoting Alice as saying "X" and Bob saying "Alice said X and I agree".

4. Australia and New Zealand are two separate countries with two different sets of medical organzitions who do not have to have the same policies. They is no such country as Australasia, no such thing as a national Australasian medical organization and no such thing as the policy of a national Australasian medical association. Do you want to lump the US and Canada together under North American statements?

5. The American Cancer Society is a national medical organization. Look it up.

Edwardsville 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. If you believe that the article misrepresents the conclusions of the sources, then I suggest that you explain why.
2. As far as I can tell here, your main concern is that the article does not cherry-pick negative quotes. That is almost a non-argument.
3. I am aware that the RACP agrees with the AAP and CPS statements (and I have noted some concern over the wording about this above). However, as I commented previously, even if I agree with something you have said, it is misleading to claim that I myself said it. This is called misattribution.
4. Actually, there is such a thing as an Australasian medical organisation, and one happens to be called the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. They describe themselves as "The RACP is a diverse and energetic organisation responsible for training, educating and representing over 9,000 physicians and paediatricians in Australia and New Zealand."[16] If, at some future time, the US and Canada issue a joint statement under an umbrella organisation (North American Pediatric Association or something) then yes I shall want to 'lump them together' because that is precisely what the source has chosen to do.
5. Is not an answer to my question. Jakew 10:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, you continue to ask questions while ignoring mine. Are you ever going to say why you refuse to let the article note that

The American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy Statement states that “there is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychological stress” and recommends that anesthesia be provided

Do you really think that the American Academy of Pediatric's position is not extremely relevant to the article? Do you think that the American Academy of Pediatrics is not an important body or that their opinion does not matter?

Why do you keep removing the fact that the American Medical Association states that "virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."

Do you really not find that relevant to the section on the policy statements of medical organizations? Do you really not think that it is an important fact? Do you not think that the American Medical Association is important enough for their opinion to matter?

Why do you keep removing reference to organizations whose policy is that routine circumcision should not be performed? You don't like the word "states" but you don't change "states" to "It is X's policy that". You just remove reference altogether? Why is that, Jakew? Do you really think that their position that the operation should not be routinely performed is not relevant to the section on their policy on circumcision? If an association said that circumcision should be routinely performed, would you leave that out of the article, or would you consider that relevant? Would you really stop removing reference to their policy if the article said "It is X's policy that" rather than "X states"? "X states" is accurate, but it really doesn't matter which we use in the great scheme of things. Or would you remove reference to their policy too, despite the fact that the organizations in question directly endorse the statement in their policy statement?

Are you ever going to answer my questions?

You ask why I say that the article misrepresents the conclusions why, despite the fact that I have explained time and again with direct quotes from the policy statements in question. Do you really think that the policy statement misrepresent themselves in what they say? Conversely, when I ask for evidence as to why you say that these recommendations are "cherry-picked", you can come up with no evidence of your own, not a single quote. The policy statements are right there, Jakew, usually with their conclusions and recommendations highlighted. You can go right ahead and read them and find whatever you find. You are free to find evidence just like anyone else instead of erasing evidence that you don't like. The organizations said what they said. If you don't like it, that's irrelevant - I'm reporting what they said and you are offering no evidence at all that I am twisting their words. The major medical organziations of the world deserve to be heard, Jakew. Their opinions are an awful lot more important than yours or mine.

Speaking of "cherry-picking", you are defending a section on "Australasia" on the grounds that there is one medical organization that uses that term. What about the rest? The document in question lists many of them. Yet you just picked one and ignored the fact that the others are entirely national. Why is that?

Are you ever going to answer my questions?

Edwardsville 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville, please pay attention to what others are saying on this talk page. If you had done so (see [17]), you would have realised that I don't 'refuse' to let the article note the AAP's comment.

You would have realised that two editors have asked you to explain your proposed restructuring and gain consensus. Yet you've made no effort to do so.

You would have realised that both Coppertwig and I have noted that it is incorrect to claim that the RACP stated words which were in fact attributed in the source to the CPS. As Coppertwig has commented, "Note also that this statement, and the RACP's agreement with it, already appear under Canada in the policy section; it would be too repetitive to say it again elsewhere in the article."

Finally, the word 'Australasia' means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "The islands of the southern Pacific Ocean, including Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea." The source cited in it is titled: "Paediatrics & Child Health Division/The Royal Australasian College of Physicians/Policy Statement On Circumcision". Four of the six sub-organisations listed include 'Australasia' in their names. Jakew 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, you are being ridiculous. Removing important cited policy statements of national medical associations is neither fair nor balanced. It is biased in the extreme. You are simply preventing the truth from being told. Please contribute constructively to the article or leave it alone.

It is obviously not repetitive to say that medical organizations in Australia and New Zealand state that circumcision should not be routinely performed because people should know what is being said by the medical organizations in Australia and New Zealand say on the matter, not just medical organizations in Canada. The idea that Australia and New Zealand should not get separate headings even though there are medical organizations that they do not share is likewise ridiculous.

As for restructuring, Edwardsville clearly said it was done to put nations in alphabetical order.

Please read what is being said to you. Please address the questions that are being put to you. Please stop removing important cited policy statements of national medical associations. Your blatant bias in censoring important facts is inappropriate in the extreme. It is just wrong. 74.230.142.124 20:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep ignoring my questions Jakew, yet you expect me to answer yours?

I am happy to talk to Coppertwig, since he is actually talking to me. I am actually becoming heartened by the idea of building consensus here for changes to be made on the page, since I see that there have been some positive changes recently made to the article. My previous experence of this article has involved only people arbitrarily removing facts they didn't want aired, regardless of what was being said on the talk page. But will Jakew abide by consensus here, or will he just remove whatever he doesn't like?

Edwardsville 22:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User 74.230.142.124, when you say "Jakew, you are being ridiculous," I think that may be a violation of WP:NPA. Some of the rest of the paragraph may also be. Please talk about article content, not about other editors. If something someone says really is ridiculous, it should be easy to put together a calm, logical argument against it without resorting to labelling. Please log in with a unique username -- it's easy to register if you haven't already and makes it easier to keep track of who is talking. --Coppertwig 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville, in your message above "Coppertwig, the RACP say very clearly ... routinely performed" If you had been paying attention to this talk page and the editing history of the article, you would realize that I know that already: I had already made the article contain that information in the Canada section. Re later in that paragraph "If you state "X is true" you have stated "X"." If you see no distinction between the meanings of two different ways of saying something, and Jakew does see a distinction, then since it's all the same to you why don't you just make a suggestion (on this talk page) for an edit that conforms to the way Jakew thinks is more accurate?

Edwardsville, after I reminded you twice on this talk page to be careful with quotation marks, you've misquoted the AAP again, I believe. You quoted them as saying something with the word "psychological" in it when I think the word they used was "physiologic". If you're going to help edit an encyclopedia, please learn to be careful with quotes. You can double-check them or even triple-check if necessary before posting. --Coppertwig 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, Jakew has already answered at least one of the questions you're saying he didn't answer. I don't have time to look for it right now -- you can look in the talk page above. You might not agree with the answer and it might look to you as if it's not really answering the question, but it is an answer and if the discussion is to move forward rather than going in circles you have to address your comments to that answer rather than claiming that he hasn't given an answer. --Coppertwig 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: one reason your edits are being reverted is that you've been asked to suggest edits here and discuss them, and I don't think you're doing that, at least not thoroughly. I don't really understand what you're doing in that edit you keep repeating. I said I didn't understand it, yet you keep doing it again without telling us here what you're doing (e.g. is it moving paragraphs? or not? What is it doing? What section of the talk page does it relate to?) If you discuss edits here first you may get a better reception. --Coppertwig 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville, I asked you to divide your edit up so that if you're moving paragraphs around (e.g. putting sections into alphabetical order) then that is the only thing you're doing in that edit. You replied to another part of my comment (above) so you must have seen it, yet after that you again repeated the same edit without dividing it up, and I don't see any explanation from you as to why you shouldn't divide the edit up as I asked. I really can't see what's happening in that edit. If you do two separate edits (one to move things around, and a separate one to add and delete material) then I will be able to see much better. If you're putting things into alphabetical order, please don't add or delete anything in the same edit. Please don't repeat that same edit again. Also, please provide edit summaries. (When you edit, there's a little box at the bottom of the screen marked "edit summary". Fill it in with a helpful explanation of your edit.) If you put something into alphabetical order, say so in the edit summary. Please spend more time reading and understanding what other people are saying on this talk page. Thanks. --Coppertwig 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It may not have been "Edwardsville" who was responsible for that last revert. He has been writing to people (including myself) showing them both versions of the text, telling them what has been going on here, and urging them to get involved. I hope that we see a lot more people getting involved, although not necessarily performing reverts.

146.163.162.184 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Edwardsville said about the unscientific bias in favor of circumcision in the article. If it is him that is reverting, I hope he stops, but I urge him to keep pointing out the gross flaws in what we have now. The public deserves a fair discussion of circumcision with the important facts presented impartially - what we have now does not reflect the state of play in science at all.

Just David 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're both welcome to get involved yourself if you're here on your own behalf, not editing as a favour for another editor here. (See meatpuppets.) You can help improve the article. A good way to start would be to get involved in the ongoing discussions, or else to find better wording for some part of the article and propose that change here, to be discussed, maybe modified by others, and maybe edited into the article. Or maybe even be bold and go ahead and edit the article -- but don't be surprised if your edits are reverted. A certain amount of reverting is normal wiki behaviour, and often edits require a lot of discussion on this page before they're accepted by everyone. Do please avoid repeated reverts of the same material: see WP:3RR. --Coppertwig 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (This message had been intended to be welcoming to very new user(s) but was poorly thought out and does not seem to have had the intended effect.)

I never asked anyone to do anything for me as a favor. I have told a number of people about what has been going on here and have encouraged them to get involved. While quite a lot of people from child abuse advocacy groups and sexual freedom groups have expressed shock and concern, the general consensus has been that it isn't worth trying to get truth into a Wikipedia article. I will continue to encourage others to get involved.

Edwardsville 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just what am I being accused of? I do not express any opinions other than my own and I certainly don't express opinions as a favor to anyone. "Edwardsville" knows that I am more than eager to disagree with him when I disagree with him.

Just David 17:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they are accusing me, not you. First, the unfounded accusation was sockpuppetry. When I showed that I could prove I was innocent by pointing out the ISP addresses (although the onus should have been on them to show evidence that I was guilty before they made a charge), they shifted it to "meatpuppetry". I hope that you keep posting.

Edwardsville 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Taddio 1997

The article now says "This statement referred to a study by Taddio, 1997, who found a correlation between circumcision and intensity of pain response during vaccination months later, but stated that "[f]actors other than circumcision may account for the observed differences in pain response."[77]" The full paragraph in the Taddio study is:

"Factors other than circumcision may account for the observed differences in pain response. For example, there may be differences in genetic attributes, socioeconomic status, and parent-infant interactions between people who have their sons circumcised and those who do not. However, race and socioeconomic status did not differ between groups in this study and there were no observable qualitative differences in the way parents interacted with their infants during the vaccination."

I think it's misleading to quote the first sentence of this paragraph without providing the qualifying information given later in the paragraph. I suggest either deleting the "factors other than circumcision..." quote (preferred), or adding However, race and socioeconomic status did not differ and no qualitiative differences were observed in the way parents interacted with their infants. (Note: what I'm suggesting to add is not the exact words of the study; it's rearranged a bit for brevity (summarizing) but is intended to mean the same thing. The exact words are given above.) --Coppertwig 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Clarification: I didn't mean that any editor here was intentionally misleading. I only meant that if the first sentence of the paragraph is given, then for balance the part after "However" also needs to be represented. I had meant to avoid using the word "misleading" because the word itself can be misleading, but I forgot. --Coppertwig 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is misleading to quote the first sentence and not the qualifying information given later in the paragraph. (Like you, I am not suggesting an intention to mislead).

Edwardsville 04:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your concern, Coppertwig. Taddio et al first tell us that "Factors other than circumcision" may account for differences. Then they give three "example" differences, and comment on these specific examples. I cannot understand why you would want to justify deleting the first sentence on these grounds. Jakew 11:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The section as it stands is misleading because he specifically talks about the three differences that might be present, and then states that they did not appear to be present in this case.

Edwardsville 12:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the section in general needs an awful lot of revision. There was a significant discussion of circumcision and pain above yet nothing seems to have changed, despite citations. There is an awful lot of literature on this, yet it is not even mentioned. Furthermore, and most importantly, what the scientific community has made of the literature has not been touched. Nothing has been said about recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the various other medical associations regarding pain and pain relief. The quotes are all easy to find (a number of them are in the section above).

This section doesn't reflect the evidence that the operation is painful. It needs significant change before it is balanced. There is no indication of the weight of scientific opinion. 74.230.142.124 20:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that just recently some positive changes were made to the section on pain. That is great. Much more needs to be done, of course. As things stand, it looks like the American Academy of Pediatrics might be the only authority who says that circumcision is painful. The article should reflect the fact that this is the consensus view in science - statements from other bodies would be appropriate, as would a more thorough survey of the scientific literature.

Edwardsville 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my concern. The quote "but stated that "[f]actors other than circumcision may account for the observed differences in pain response" could be a perfectly good summary of an article which goes on to say something like (made-up quote) There is evidence from other studies that socioeconomic status is correlated with circumcision and that socioeconomic status is correlated with infant behaviour at vaccination, and the results given here do not rule out the possibility that the correlation found here could be fully explained in that way. (end made-up quote) In other words, it could be a summary of an article where there is good evidence or a plausible, fleshed-out theory that some other factors might explain the correlation. Therefore, a reader seeing that summary might easily jump to the conclusion that this is that type of study, which it is not. The well-educated reader, on seeing the word "correlation", will immediately already know that some other factors might explain the correlation. Maybe some readers need some help -- but it has to be given carefully to correctly convey the type of result the study gives. Possible fixes include: deleting the "but stated that...pain response" quote; replacing the "but stated that ... pain response" quote with "although it was not a randomized study."; or keeping that quote and appending something like "although no difference between the two groups was observed in race, socioeconomic status or parental interaction." (as a summary of the "However..." part of the Taddio et al. paragraph.) And actually I think any of these three fixes would be fine. There may be other good ways to do it, too. --Coppertwig 01:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't regard it as necessary (or indeed an improvement to the article), but for the sake of consensus I'm happy to go along with your third suggestion, Coppertwig. Jakew 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited it in. --Coppertwig 21:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The current revision still misrepresents Taddio's 1997 article because it gives undue weight to a relatively minor paragraph in the article and it ignores the significant findings and the significant recommendations of the article. I am sure it was not the intent of other editors to misrepresent Taddio's article. -- DanBlackham 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point. Could you suggest a specific edit that would improve it? --Coppertwig 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Avraham has edited the beginning of the Pain section to look like this: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics' 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement, “There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychologic stress.”[67] In the statement, the Academy recommends the use of pain relief for circumcision.[67] One of the supporting studies, Taddio 1997, found a correlation between circumcision and intensity of pain response during vaccination months later. They acknowledge that there may be other factors besides circumcision that account for different levels of pain response, but felt that such differences were not present in their study. Mostly I think that's an improvement because it flows more smoothly than the previous version, but I don't think we can say "felt that such differences were not present in their study" -- I don't think that's verifiable (or maybe you could quote here on the talk page words from the study that support this statement?). I suggest changing those last few words to "but they found no evidence for specific factors." --Coppertwig 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph flows better now. However I would change the last sentence in the paragraph to, "They recommended pretreatment and postoperative management of neonatal circumcision pain based on the results of their study." That was the significant recommendation of Taddio's 1997 article and it should be included in the paragraph. The current last sentence gives undue weight to unfounded speculation. Taddio's article clearly states that there was no evidence that other factors account for the observed differences in pain response. My recommendation for the paragraph is:

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics' 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement, “There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychologic stress.” In the statement, the Academy recommends the use of pain relief for circumcision. One of the supporting studies, Taddio 1997, found a correlation between circumcision and intensity of pain response during vaccination months later. They recommended pretreatment and postoperative management of neonatal circumcision pain based on the results of their study.

DanBlackham 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal is that it omits Taddio's acknowledgement of the study's weaknesses. I realise that you believe this is "unfounded speculation", but that, of course, is WP:OR. I also realise that you believe that there was "no evidence" that other factors accounted for these differences; you misrepresent Taddio et al, however, who discuss only "example" (their word) factors. Jakew 10:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No Jake, Taddio did not acknowledge the study's weaknesses. The paragraphs in question highlight the strength of the study's methodology and results.

It is good practice in articles reporting scientific research to list possible confounding factors. The article lists several possible confounding factors and then says there is no indication that any of those factors influenced the results.

"However, race and socioeconomic status did not differ between groups in this study and there were no observable qualitative differences in the way parents interacted with their infants during the vaccination." and "However, the revised infant temperament questionnaire did not show any differences in infant behaviour among the groups." (emphasis added)

To mention possible confounding factors when the article clearly says that there is no evidence those confounding factors influenced the results gives undue weight to a minor and relatively unimportant part of the article.

I do not misrepresent Taddio's article. Taddio lists several possible confounding factors and then explains why in their judgment each one did not influence the results. Your suggestion that there are other possible confounding factors that are not even mentioned in Taddio's article is original research. -- DanBlackham 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Taddio et al explicitly state that "Factors other than circumcision may account for the observed differences in pain response". Nowhere do they contradict this statement. They do list specific "example" factors that did not, but neither state nor imply that this list is exhaustive. It is not original research to take a statement to mean precisely what it says, nor is it original research to include a literal quote of that statement in the text. Sorry. Jakew 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No Jake, they do contradict the statement: "However, race and socioeconomic status did not differ between groups in this study and there were no observable qualitative differences in the way parents interacted with their infants during the vaccination." and "However, the revised infant temperament questionnaire did not show any differences in infant behaviour among the groups." (emphasis added) -- DanBlackham 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, the basis for "felt not present in study" is the bolded text below:

Factors other than circumcision may account for the observed differences in pain response. For example, there may be differences in genetic attributes, socioeconomic status, and parent-infant interactions between people who have their sons circumcised and those who do not. However, race and socioeconomic status did not differ between groups in this study and there were no observable qualitative differences in the way parents interacted with their infants during the vaccination.

— Taddio 1997, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673696103160/fulltext#section18

-- Avi 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like DanBlackham's proposed version of the paragraph above, and agree that presenting their actual recommendations is more representative of their study than their discussion of the possibility of confounding factors, a possibility that is present in any non-randomized trial of that type; I think those recommendations should be presented. Although I prefer DanBlackham's proposal as-is, for the sake of consensus I suggest inserting in it at the beginning of the last sentence, "They acknowledge that there may be other factors besides circumcision that account for different levels of pain response, but they recommend..." or better, "They acknowledge that there may be other factors besides circumcision that account for these results, but they recommend..." Although in my opinion presenting the first sentence of the Taddio paragraph about confounding factors without also representing the "however" section of the paragraph would convey the wrong impression to many readers, nevertheless I now notice that when it's reworded to Avraham's wording including "there may be...", that ambiguity is not there in my opinion and there is not the urgent need to include Taddio's "however" clause. Avi/Avraham, in my opinion the quote you give does not support the "felt that..." statement. They present some carefully-worded results; they don't say how they feel about them, nor do they state that there are no confounding factors in their study -- on the contrary, they acknowledge the possibility that there may be. --Coppertwig 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How about (changes underlined):

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics' 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement, “There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychologic stress.”[67] In the statement, the Academy recommends the use of pain relief for circumcision.[67] One of studies supporting the use of pain relief, Taddio 1997, found a correlation between circumcision and intensity of pain response during vaccination months later. They acknowledge that there may be other factors besides circumcision that account for different levels of pain response, but stated that they did not observe the presence of such differences in their study.[77]

-- Avi 13:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. We should also note that the correlation observed was with circumcision performed using EMLA or no pain relief. The researchers commented: "Study of the vaccination pain response of infants who had received more effective circumcision pain management (ie, dorsal penile nerve block and adequate postoperative pain management) would be interesting." Jakew 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm proposing the following changes to Avi's text (changes in bold):

• According to the American Academy of Pediatrics' 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement, “There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychologic stress.”[67] In the statement, the Academy recommends the use of pain relief for circumcision.[67] One of the studies supporting the use of pain relief, (Taddio 1997), found a correlation between circumcision using topical or no anaesthesia and intensity of pain response during vaccination months later. They acknowledge that there may be other factors besides circumcision that account for different levels of pain response, but stated that they did not observe the presence of such differences in their study.

Jakew 14:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Circumcision is painful" seems clear enough to me. If people would rather say that circumcision without anesthesia is painful, that may be alright, but only if we have direct research showing that there is no pain after the operation. My understanding is that there is pain after the operation and that adults feel pain and use pain relief. There is problem with the article as it stands, though, in that only the AAP quote is being cited. Scientific opinion is very clear that circumcision without anesthesia is painful (some other cited quotes to support that have been listed above, but they are only the tip of the iceberg). As far as I know, there isn't any doctor's group that disputed it, whereas they all seem to talk about the importance of pain relief during circumcision.

146.163.162.184 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll let it pass if everyone else agrees on it, but I don't think it's accurate to say "but stated that they did not observe the presence of such differences in their study". I don't think they stated that. How about "but did not observe specific examples of such differences in their study," or "but did not find evidence of such differences in their study," or "but did not observe the presence of such differences in their study" (which is also shorter; just deleting the "stated that".) --Coppertwig 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of possible confounding factors gives undue weight to a relatively minor part of Taddio's article. -- DanBlackham 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's better to leave out any mention of confounding factors, and either leave it to be implied by the word "correlation", or at most put something like "in a non-randomized trial". I'm trying to compromise. I'm willing to accept "They acknowledge that there may be other factors besides circumcision that account for different levels of pain response. without a clause about finding no evidence for such factors; would you be willing to express a preference one way or the other: i.e. is this better because it's shorter and therefore puts less undue weight, or do you think we need the counterbalancing clause if that is put in? I realize you would, like me, rather not see it mentioned at all. --Coppertwig 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of possible confounding factors should not be included because it gives undue weight to a minor part of Taddio's article. I fear there will never be a consensus without a request for comment, mediation, and / or arbitration. -- DanBlackham 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that mention should be made of possible counfounding factors, because evidence of such factors was looked for and not found, so it isn't a significant part of the study's conclusions. If the "confounding factors" sentence is to be included, then there should definately be mention of the fact that no evidence was found of such factors.

Edwardsville 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, DanBlackham, for being too dismissive of the point you raised. Let's see if we can find a wording that everyone can accept. It seems clear that we won't get consensus for anything that includes wording such as They acknowledge that there may be other factors besides circumcision that account for different levels of pain response, for the reason DanBlackham raised and with which Edwardsville and I concur. I would appreciate it if Jake or Avi or someone would explain the reasons for wanting to include that wording, so that we can think about how to proceed. I'm wondering whether we might succeed by wording the original mention of the Taddio study differently; maybe something like "found a correlation in a non-randomized trial" or "found evidence suggesting a possible link". Perhaps Jake or Avi or someone could suggest other wording.

Jakew: usually, quoting an entire sentence accurately represents what's being said in the original (as opposed to quoting part of a sentence, which can result in leaving out the word "not", for example). But occasionally, as in this case, quoting an entire sentence out of context conveys a different meaning from the sentence in context. The word "may" in scientific articles is often used in the following way: saying "X may be Y" means or strongly implies that the authors have evidence supporting the hypothesis that X is Y. (A reviewer might ask that the sentence "X may be Y" be removed from an article if they have no such evidence.) Apparently in the Taddio study they were not using the word "may" in that way. However, when the sentence is taken out of context without the following "however", the impression is given (to some readers, at least; to those familiar with this way that "may" is often used in scientific papers, perhaps) that that is the usage: that is, that they do have some evidence supporting the hypothesis that some (particular) other factors account for the correlation; while if you read the whole paragraph you get the strong impression that they have no such evidence; if they had it, scientific convention would have required that they mention it in their article. --Coppertwig 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I'm generally reluctant to speculate about what authors may or may not have meant, since original research should generally be avoided. That said, my personal view is that Taddio et al probably made that statement as an acknowledgement of a fundamental limitation of their study design (as you note, it was not a randomised trial, and was thus inherently limited by possible confounding).

Whatever their reasons, the fact cannot be denied that they chose to make this statement. Incidentally, Wikipedia articles should generally avoid assuming specialist knowledge in the audience, and since 'hinting' through words such as 'non-randomised', even ignoring OR concerns, would be less clear than the researchers' own words, the latter should be preferred.

As I've said above, I do not object to adding the words "but stated that they did not observe the presence of such differences in their study", and I'm happy to work towards fine-tuning those words. Jakew 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jake, your concerns are unfounded. Taddio's study was a randomized trial well designed prospective cohort study.

"The participants in this study included uncircumcised boys, who served as controls (n=32), and circumcised boys who had been randomly assigned to treatment with Emla (n=29) or placebo (n=26) during circumcision. ... We recruited uncircumcised infants from the same study by the same inclusion criteria as for the circumcised infants, the difference being that their parents had chosen not to have their infants circumcised." (emphasis added)

"Infant pain response was scored from the videotape by a research assistant who was unaware of the purpose of the study and the treatment group status of the infants."

The following sentence from Taddio's article is just as important and just as relevant to this article as the paragraph on possible confounding factors.

"It is, therefore, possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination."

The significant results and recommendation of Taddio's 1997 article were.

"The results of this study are consistent with studies of pain response in animals and behavioural studies in humans showing that injury and tissue damage sustained in infancy can cause sustained changes in central neural function, which persist after the wound has healed and influence behavioural responses to painful events months later. Pretreatment and postoperative management of neonatal circumcision pain is recommended based on these results. Investigation of the neurological basis of these effects is warranted."

The information in this paragraph is the most important information from Taddio's article. -- DanBlackham 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, DanBlackham! I apologize for referring to it as a "non-randomized" trial. The study presents results from both randomized and non-randomized comparisons. Significant results were found in both types of comparison. Results from randomized comparison: "In addition, visual analogue scale pain scores were significantly higher in infants circumcised with placebo than in those circumcised with Emla (5.1 vs. 3.3 cm; P < 0.05)". (p. 601, Taddio 1997.)

I agree with DanBlackham that the results of the study are worth mentioning, while the possibility of confounding factors, present in every nonrandomized trial, is not. Sorry, Jakew, maybe I'm just tired, but I don't recognize in your comment anything that looks to me like an argument intended to explain why that one sentence should be selected out of all sentences in the study. Anyway, here's a more objective criterion: I would like to point out that when the AAP mention the Taddio study, they don't say anything about possible confounding factors, so presumably they agree with DanBlackham and me that that isn't a highly interesting part of the report.

Here's a possible solution that I hope may be acceptable to everyone: to refer to the Taddio study with the same words or very similar words that the AAP uses. I might suggest changing a few words at the beginning of the sentence to make it flow smoothly into the paragraph without significantly changing the meaning. They say "One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants." --Coppertwig 22:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Dan. The design was a prospective cohort study; though circumcised patients were drawn from those previously randomised for a separate study (I'm surprised that you claim otherwise - the words "their parents had chosen not to have their infants circumcised" are a substantial clue): "Methods We used a prospective cohort design to study 87 infants. The infants formed 3 groups -- uncircumcised infants, and infants who had been randomly assigned Emla or placebo in a previous clinical trial to assess the efficacy of Emla cream as pretreatment for pain in neonatal circumcision."

Furthermore, your assessment of what is and what is not important seems questionable to say the least. Speculation about what a result may mean is perhaps interesting, but ultimately there are an infinite number of opinions, and only a finite number of facts. The results of the study, together with its strengths and weaknesses, are more fundamental. It seems reasonable enough, however, to mention their recommendation for "pretreatment and postoperative management of neonatal circumcision pain". Jakew 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the design was prospective, when they analysed the data they also found results based on comparing the two randomized groups to each other. Since there are an infinite number of opinions, why not go with the AAP's choice of not mentioning the (relatively unimportant) confounding factors? Anyone who wants to know the details of the study can read the whole study themselves. --Coppertwig 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC) (I'm not sure what happened, but I'm guessing we had an edit conflict and that the new software handles it differently now and fit my comment in behind yours.) --Coppertwig 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have moved beyond discussing the meaning of the researchers' words and into our own analysis of the methodology. I must accept part of the blame for that. But let's stop there (at least on-Wiki) and return to reliable sources. As I've stated above, one source to have commented on the methodology (Taddio) stated that such factors may "account for the observed differences". Does anyone know of any others?

Also, can I remind you that Wikipedia has certain policies that the AAP do not have. One of these, for example, is NPOV. It arguably violates NPOV to selectively quote some parts of a source while excluding other parts of that same source that serve to moderate and qualify the viewpoint. To take a (somewhat silly) example, if a scientist states that "I believe that I have found a cure for cancer, but I cannot be absolutely certain and I shall have definitive results when I have repeated my experiment", then both are part of her opinion, and to quote one but not the other is neither neutral nor fair to the source. Jakew 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the very principle I was invoking when insisting that if confounding variables are mentioned, then the "however" clause also has to be represented. I've thought of another possible (though unlikely) way to get consensus: if the quotes and descriptions of the Taddio study are made much longer overall, then the confounding variable discussion can be briefly included without putting undue weight on it in comparison to the rest of the article. For example, if the entire Taddio article were to be quoted, then certainly it would be appropriate to include that sentence. Possibly it might also be appropriate to include it in a somewhat shorter representation of the Taddio article, perhaps as one long paragraph. I'm not sure that doing so would be consistent with the plans to shorten the article; perhaps it could be mentioned on the "main article" page.

You mention Taddio writing about the study: do you mean in the study report itself, i.e. Taddio et al. (1997) as cited on this page? I note that Taddio et al., in their summary of their own article which appears at the beginning of the article, saw fit to omit any reference to confounding variables in that summary. A good summary of a scientific article usually omits the nitty-gritty details of the tables and figures, minor details of the methodology and discussion of factors affecting large classes of scientific studies. The fact that Taddio et al. themselves omit discussion of possible confounding variables in their summary, which is considerably longer than the summary of the article on this page, suggests that if we follow the principle of due weight and fairly representing the source, it makes sense for us to omit it too. As the AAP also did. --Coppertwig 14:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the study cited. Qualifiers and discussion of limitations are often left out of abstracts, or implied through short descriptions of the methodology that require understanding of specialist terminology. As I've noted above, though, they are a moderating part of the viewpoint expressed in the study itself, and we would fail in our duty to represent this viewpoint "fairly and without bias" (WP:NPOV) if we did not include it.

As I've indicated earlier, I haven't any major problems with the "however" clause (I think it unnecessary, as "may account" is fairly clear English, distinct from "do account", "probably account", or for that matter, "do not account". Nevertheless, I'm happy to go along with it). Another option, which would also serve to reduce the article length, is to omit the study from this article, and instead include a slightly lengthier treatment of the study in the medical analysis article.

So far, it has been claimed (to paraphrase heavily) that 1) they didn't mean it, 2) that it was unfounded speculation, 3) that they then contradicted themselves, 4) that it would constitute undue weight (to quote what is part of the same viewpoint), 5) that this was a randomised trial (they must have been wrong), and now 6) that they didn't mention it in the abstract. I have to say that I find these an extraordinary set of arguments against accepting a compromise. Jakew 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that both Taddio and the AAP ommited reference to these factors confirms that they are not particularly important parts of their conclusions. Citing them in our article gives undue weight, suggesting that there is a significant possibilities that these factors interfered with the results. It suggests that these are significant worries for Taddio and for the scientific community in general, when our evidence suggests just the opposite.

Edwardsville 12:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns are adequately addressed by the proposed compromise of the 'however' clause. Jakew 12:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. An element is being included in our summary that neither Taddio nor the AAP included in theirs, thus giving it undue weight. If neither Taddio nor the AAP felt that this was a significant concern worth mentioning in a summary, then we should agree with them.

Edwardsville 13:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should exclude all material that is not in the abstract of a paper? Or are you suggesting that this should be a special case? Jakew 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Edwardsville is suggesting that we follow Wikipedia policy and not give undue weight to a relatively unimportant part of Taddio's 1997 article. I agree with Edwardsville and Coppertwig that including information from the paragraph on hypothetical confounding factors would give undue weight to that paragraph. -- DanBlackham 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was argument no. 4, Dan. We've largely moved to argument no. 6 now. :-)

Since you express concern about policy, I'm sure you are equally concerned about the need for balance, and will therefore accept the 'however' clause. Jakew 19:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, I understand that you want to include mention of the possibility of confounding variables because you see it as important moderating information that puts the results of the study in context in a balanced way. I imagine it may be difficult for you to see why anyone would want to exclude that quote if the "however" clause is also represented; however, that is the position of two or three editors. I could go into more detail about the arguments. However, first I would like to see whether we can save time by setting aside that whole argument. I don't think anyone has replied to a suggestion I made earlier: to change the way the Taddio study is mentioned in the first place, so that mention of confounding variables becomes unnecessary. I gave two suggested wordings above (in the first paragraph of my message of 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)), and here's another suggested wording: somehow mentioning the other studies the AAP mentions, and saying something like the AAP mentions a study which compares the reactions of circumcised and uncircumcised infants to the pain of vaccination months later, and just not stating here that they found a correlation; more details, including the mention of confounding variables if enough space is devoted to the Taddio article, would be given in the "main article". Others may wish to suggest other alternative wordings along these lines. --Coppertwig 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I like mentioning the Taddio study directly and by name because it has been so influential. The "however" clause does not belong because it suggests that there are greater doubts about Taddio's results than there actually are. Coppertwig points out that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor Taddio thought that these concerns were enough to mention in a summary and so for us to talk about them gives them undue weight and is misleading. In a longer article that discussed the Taddio paper in full, they would belong, but not here, where most details of the paper are left out.

Just David 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to describe the arguments in detail, Coppertwig. I understand them, and have already enumerated them above. Many rely upon an incorrect understanding of the source material, others upon personal opinion, and still others on lack of understanding of appropriate policy.

Regarding your suggestions, I think that "found a correlation in a non-randomized trial" is slightly OR-ish, but "found evidence suggesting a possible link" seems fair enough to me. Jakew 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The old wording is good as it is. It is only the mention of possible coufounding factors that is not appropriate. In a longer article, talking about them would not give them undue weight. If there is great concern that they should be mentioned somewhere, a separate article on the Taddio studies would be fine. There could even be a link form this article. However, this article should just state Taddio's findings, in a way that reflects Taddio's summary and the summary of the AAP.

Edwardsville 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on their recent comments, in my opinion both Just David and Edwardsvill correctly understand the source and Wikipedia policy. I also understand the source and Wikipedia policy.

If this were a discussion about Taddio's 1995 article, "found evidence suggesting a possible link" would be an accurate and NPOV way to present the article. However this discussion is about Taddio's 1997 article and "found evidence suggesting a possible link" is not a NPOV way to present it. The article says:

"There was a significant linear trend on all outcome measures, showing increasing pain scores from uncircumcised infants, to those circumcised with Emla, to those circumcised with placebo."

"Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants."

"This study showed that neonatal circumcision in male infants is associated with increased pain response in vaccination 4-6 months after surgery. The results support our previous finding of a higher pain response in circumcised than uncircumcised male infants during routine vaccination."

"The results of this study are consistent with studies of pain response in animals and behavioural studies in humans showing that injury and tissue damage sustained in infancy can cause sustained changes in central neural function, which persist after the wound has healed and influence behavioural responses to painful events months later."

DanBlackham 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring

This is getting tiresome. Please stop repeating the same edits over and over again. Just leave the page the way it is, and discuss it on the talk page until consensus is reached. I'm talking about this edit [18] and others like it. Also, always give an edit summary which explains what the edit is doing or what the reason for it is. The edit summary can refer to the talk page which can have a longer explanation. Don't just leave the edit summary blank. Do not make that same edit again unless consensus has been reached here about it. And please explain here on the talk page what that edit is all about. It's hard to tell by looking at the diff link. --Coppertwig 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot get consensus when a dominant group of people support or oppose content based solely on its apparent support or opposition of circumcision (respectively), with all Wikipedia policy gone out the window. Did Jakew obtain consensus when the letters he wrote to journals were deemed worthy of mention in the encyclopedia article he edits? Is there a consensus to avoid saying "circumcision is painful" or "circumcision is usually performed without anaethetic?" Was there a consensus when a mohel and a doctor were quoted as saying that it is more humane NOT to use anaesthetic? Of course there wasn't, but gosh darn, it's still in there because of you know who. Preposterous. I actually believed you were here to help change this screwed up article, Coppertwig, not to be yet another proponent of the broken status quo. Blackworm 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We have policies and guidelines, regardless of how you, I, Coppertwig, Jake, Edwardsville, or anyone feels. Wikipedia cannot be used to push one idea over another. Regarding Jake (or anyone else's) letter, if it was deemed worthy enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, that is usually sufficient for passing wikipedia's reliability standards. Go ahead and get YOURSELF published,on-topic, in a peer-reveiwed journal. Blackworm, because the article is not being developed in a matter you deem appropriate may be unfortunate, but it is irrelevant. There have been issues raised with Edwardsville's edits which have not been accurately addressed. As for the Taddio statement, both Coppertwig and myself have tried to come up with accurate, reasonable, NPOV, and verifiable paraphrases of the article, which address both the existance of other factors as well as their apparent non-presence in the tests according to the examiners. Have you read the most recent version? -- Avi 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues raised? Well, I suggest you start a discussion and raise your points. So far there have been none made.

Avi said: "Regarding Jake (or anyone else's) letter, if it was deemed worthy enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, that is usually sufficient for passing wikipedia's reliability standards." No, as the discussion [[19]] after I presented my case on the talk page for Wikipedia:Reliable Sources proved. Anyone can go read it, it's linked right there above -- the clear consensus was that it was not sufficient, contrary to the argument you, Jayjg, Nandesuka, and Jakew made. (Conversely, the phrase "Circumcision is a painful operation," quoted above in different flavors by four reliable sources, is forbidden from entering this article by you, Avi, as well as Jakew.) I can't even imagine how the interested parties over there would react knowing that an apparent activist writes letters to journals which then get referenced by the Wikipedia articles he is most interested in editing. It goes further than being against Wikipedia policy; it's completely unethical. Do you see lots of letters to journals, of any sort, not just those written by Wikipedia editors, being used to push anti-circumcision points in the article? I don't. If you do, I will be happy to help you remove them -- and all the others. Of course, you've already preemptively threatened me with a revert based on a violation of WP:POINT should I include anything you deem anti-circumcision that comes out of a letter from a peer-reviewed published journal. (That was completely unfounded, a blatant personal attack, and a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Yep.) Anything pro-circumcision, I suppose, would be fine? Can you really not see a problem with the editorial environment you have created here? Maybe you can't, but I'm hoping others can. Blackworm 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Avi said: Go ahead and get YOURSELF published, on-topic, in a peer-reveiwed journal. Well gee, would an advertisement count too? I think I might be able to scrounge up a few thousand dollars. Seriously, being "published in a peer-reviewed journal" usually means you went through peer review. The flat denial of the previous sentence by the group of administrators + one editor above completely destroys your credibility, as far as I am concerned. Blackworm 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, It was not a clear consensus at all. For example, DGG who is both an admin as well as either an MS or PhD in library science, I forget, stated that while it should not be the sole source in an article, it is acceptable to show controversy (as opposed to, in my opinion, some wackjob advocacy website). The following edit by R.Baley suggests that such sources be marked as letters, but not unused, so you seem to be incorrect.

Further, if you are comparing a letter to the editor, in which I have an e-mail from the editorial staff that such letters are reviewed and even shown to the article authors before publishing, with a paid (or unpaid) advertisement, then you seem to have a deep fundamental misunderstanding of how peer reviewed journals work. For example, you cannot PAY to have your article or letter published, you know. Shall we now exclude ALL articles in ALL journals, newspapers, or magazines that have advertisments in them? According to your logic(?), it seems we should. Which in my opinion, strains the bounds of credulity. -- Avi 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to establish a scientific fact, then a peer-reviewed published scientific study presenting evidence about that fact is an excellent source. If you're trying to establish the fact that there is controversy about a point, then a published letter to the editor about it in a peer-reviewed journal seems to me to be an excellent source, possibly better than scientific studies which could be interpreted as science proceeding in a normal way without significant controversy even if they present contradictory evidence. Re paying to get published: actually, some peer-reviewed journals have something called "page charges". You still have to pass peer review, but you also have to pay. --Coppertwig 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[OT] That's true, and the open access model of publication, which most commonly requires payment, is becoming increasingly used. Such payment does not, of course, bypass the peer-review process. There is an interesting article at the BMJ about their plans to move towards such a model. But this is, of course, off-topic. Jakew 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting a letter in a journal does not require that the letter is considered scientifically respectable. It is not an appropriate citation to show scientific disagreement. If you want to show serious scientific disagreement, you must cite articles in peer reviewed scientific jourrnals. Nobody would accept a letter to the editor as an appropriate source for a college essay, let alone a scientific paper. Similarly, letters to the editor have no place in this article. 146.163.162.184 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, a lot of intelligent people disagree with you -- Avi 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

None of them are going to get a letter to the editor cited in a college paper without failing. None of them are going to publish an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal if they cite a letter to the editor. Why should the standard here be lower than in a college paper? Just David 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A letter to the editor of a journal such as Lancet is significantly different than a letter to the editor of the Washington Post. Can you bring sources for your conjecture that a letter to the editor, when used to demonstrate conflict about a topic which is cited from a peer-reviewed article itself, would be an automatic failure? Somehow, I don't think so. -- Avi 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Avi please show me a single example where a reputable scientific paper or book has cited a letter to the editor in support of its case. You have all of scientific literature to choose from. Just David 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, all that is being done here is demonstrating that controversy exists. If the peer-reviewed journal itself saw fit to publish the claim, that is sufficient. -- Avi 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the common Creationist tactic of getting a respectable to scientist to criticise their work, and then using the fact that they have been mentioned by a respectable scientist to argue that there is a serious debate in scientific circles over Creationism? Of course, the fact that they have been replied to proves absolutely nothing.

If you want to prove that there is a real scientific controversy, then you have to show that there are articles being published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals that argue both sides of the case. Again, no scientist would try to establish, in an article that they wanted published, that an issue is a serious bone of contention by pointing out that people have written letters to the editor saying that it is a serious bone of contention. For that, they need to cite published research: books and articles.

The fact that letters to the editor are being considered reasonable sources, but that the article doesn't even mention that the American Medical Association has stated that there are virtually no national medical bodies that recommend circumcision is just surreal.

Just David 18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is not the topic of this article, nor are the tactics used by its proponents. As a side point, Hill, who is Denniston's partner in at least one paper, has argued in print with Waskett, who (Waskett) has been defended by Willcourt. (See http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7264/792#109475 ). Just another point in that letters to peer-reviewed journals are often extremely useful in furthering the understanding of the debate on a topic. -- Avi 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Another letter that springs to mind was a reply to an HIV meta-analysis by Van Howe. The letter, by Moses et al (and entitled 'Analysis of the scientific literature on male circumcision and risk for HIV infection'), pointed out several methodological flaws in Van Howe's paper, and has since been cited in (Google Scholar tells me) 15 other articles. Another letter, in reply to the same article, and again discussing shortcomings, was cited in 39 other articles, including a comprehensive 387-ref review of techniques in meta-analysis itself. So science marches on.... Jakew 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

David is right to make that point about creationism. The mere fact that a position is mentioned doesn't mean that there is significant controversy over that point.

If you want to establish that there is moral controversy over circumcision then you can cite all the websites on the topic. If you want to establish that there is medical controversy over circumcision then you have to cite scientific research papers and books. A letter to the editor demostrates nothing, since letters to the editor are not send off for peer-review as articles for publication are.

I am missing the point of your sentence about Hill, Denniston, Waskett and Willcourt. What is this demonstrating? You say that they have argued in print. What does this establish? That one letter cites another letter?

Can you show me where the Moses is cited as a letter to the editor? I found direct reference to the article by Moses and co. here w.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Male%20Circumcision%20and%20HIV%20Prevention%20%20%20Current%20Knowledge%20and%20Future%20Research%20Directions.pdf but it didn't say that it was a letter to the editor.

Edwardsville 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(This was originally in reply to Edwardsville, who asked: "Who selects articles for "Google Scholar" and how are they vetted? I am not familiar with their process. Are they subject to a review procedure, or is the process more like Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, it does not appear to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal of any kind, but I'm willing to learn better." In future, Edwardsville, please use <s>...</s> to strikethrough your old comments if you want to replace them. Jakew 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Google Scholar is a database of articles published elsewhere, generally in academic journals that make their content available on the 'net either for free or by subscription. Unlike PubMed it provides the facility to search the full text of articles, including references. Unlike plain Google it excludes many (but not all) unreliable sources, such as lay websites, that are not useful for Wikipedia. In this instance I am using it to provide a convenient link to articles that cite the letters which I mention. Jakew 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To verify that Moses et al was a letter, please go here and in the 'display' combobox, select 'Abstract'. You will then see 'Publication types: comment, letter'. Jakew 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel the need to reply to a question that I removed after I found the answer, but feel free.

Firstly, was it a letter to the editor, or was it a letter to someone else, later published in a journal article?

Secondly, and more importantly, it isn't a case like the one we are discussing. If three physicians with research credentials have the authority to have a letter they wrote together to be cited, that is a very different thing from citing a letter from an ordinary citizen. Can you show me a case where a letter like that has ever been cited?

I don't understand why you would want to cite it in the first place. What does it prove that you can't better prove by citing something more substantial?

Edwardsville 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, I suspect that you deleted the question while I was busy replying to it. Unfortunately the Wiki seems poor at detecting such edit conflicts at present.

The letters cited above were published as 'letters to the editor' of a medical journal. I have demonstrated that letters to the editor can indeed highlight errors in published work, and I have also demonstrated that arguments above (that they are not cited in peer-reviewed articles) are incorrect. They also receive as a minimum the review of the editor, and it would be bizarre to exclude them. Jakew 13:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It would not be bizarre to exclude them. The editor is not required to be a scientific expert on all topics. Only articles get submitted to proper peer review. If three medical researchers have sufficient authority when writing a letter together that they can be cited, that is one thing. That isn't what we are talking about here.

Why don't you just cite something more substantial?

Edwardsville

It would be bizarre to exclude them because letters to the editor are the proper place for criticism of published papers, and they have an important role. To quote Afifi: "Letter section of a scientific journal is an essential part of post- publication peer review. (1) Many readers seem to assume that articles published in peer reviewed journals are scientifically sound, despite much evidence to the contrary. Hence, misleading work should be identified even after publication. (2) Therefore, journals welcome and encourage the submission of letters to editors either a critical or research letters."[20] Jakew 14:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." What are the professional qualifications of the author of the letter in question that make him or her "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"? -- DanBlackham 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully. Did you miss the words "or publications"? The policy goes on to say: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Jakew 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, you are talking about a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed article. A letter to the editor, unless the source is themself authoritative, is not authoritative.

Why don't you just cite something more substantial?

Edwardsville 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that letters are not sufficient, but policy does not seem to agree with you. Jakew 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville, you're welcome to look for alternative citations yourself. --Coppertwig 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Put me firmly in the not citing it camp. It has been shown that when three authorities in a field write a letter together, they might reasonably be cited. That isn't anything like what we are talking about here. Find something else to cite or just leave it out. I don't know of any case in acedemic literature where the sort of citation you are suggesting has been done, but you can show me if you can find one.

Just David 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm welcome to do what I like, but that doesn't address my concern. My position is that the letter should not be cited. If someone wants to cite something substantial for the same purpose, they are welcome to find something, but citing the letter is not appropriate.

Edwardsville 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Too long

Article is TOO long —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.158.216 (talk • contribs).

Please see discussion above. Jakew 11:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

... at Article too long? above, where there is ongoing discussion of a proposal to shorten the page and input from more editors is welcome. --Coppertwig 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos?

Any reason why the uncircumcised photo is poor-quality, dark, and features an unkempt hairy man, while the circumcised photo is well-lit and featurs a well-groomed man? Hmm... anyone care to fix this obvious bias? 65.94.108.200 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is evil and is engaged in a secret mission to emasculate all men through "circum-rays" emitted from your monitor as you innocently browse the project .

Seriously (and if you could not understand the above as tongue-in-cheek humor, Oy Vey!), those two pictures are excellent foils, because they depict the penis in almost the same exact style regarding angle towards the camera, relative image size, and, of course, flaccid vs. erect. Perhaps someone with Photoshop can brighten the uncircumcised one? -- Avi 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with hair or with dark skin. --Coppertwig 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision lawsuit

User Nandesuka deleted the following content which had been added by user Areseepee. User Nandesuka's edit summary said "WP:NOR".

Most complications from circumcision go unreported because often after a major complication the family settles with the hospital or doctor and the public never knows. Only when the family spends money to hire a lawyer and sue does the reporting of major complications become public knowledge. See July 27th, 2007 article where Illinois boy has glans severed after a "routine" circumcision: http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/07/19/news/doc469edde7e929a511952004.txt

I don't see how content supported by a newspaper article violates NOR. Please begin your edit summary with "revert" or "rv" when you revert. --Coppertwig 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how content supported by a newspaper article violates WP:NOR either. However, that doesn't really describe the paragraph you quoted, which is essentially a little bundle of one editor's personal opinions, followed by a citation that has nothing to do with them. Nandesuka 12:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Nandesuka and Avi. Situations such as this, in which OR is incorrectly attributed to a source, are particularly troublesome precisely because they appear at first glance to be sourced.

When reading the above, I'm asking some questions. If, as the wording implies, this is a proven fact, then it must have been demonstrated through scientific study. If a study has demonstrated (perhaps through a survey) that "most" complications go unreported, I want to know what methodology was used. I also want to know what percentage of complications go unreported - "most" is somewhat vague for an encyclopaedia (I'm also wondering why this information is omitted in favour of a sad, but anecdotal, account of a single incident). If, on the other hand, this an opinion stated in a reliable source, I want to know who stated it, for what purpose, and on what grounds. Proper attribution is important.

The fact that these questions were not answered by the text would prompt me to examine the source in hopes of finding answers. I'm glad that Nandesuka did so. Jakew 13:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The original research is the claim "Most complications from circumcision go unreported because often after a major complication the family settles with the hospital or doctor and the public never knows. Only when the family spends money to hire a lawyer and sue does the reporting of major complications become public knowledge." None of that is in the article, which I reproduce here for completeness:

CHARLESTON — A woman filed a lawsuit Wednesday on her infant son’s behalf alleging a doctor at Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center improperly performed a circumcision on the boy. The lawsuit claims physician Sherif Malek performed the circumcision at the hospital on Feb. 15, the day after the boy was born. Instead of removing only the foreskin, the entire head of the boy’s penis was removed, the lawsuit alleges. The suit also claims the boy later underwent corrective surgery and will require more operations in the future. The lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount of monetary damages against Malek and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System, the organization that operates the hospital. Patty Peterson, SBLHC spokeswoman, said hospital representatives have been aware of the incident since it happened and continually have been in contact with the mother. Because of that, they were “disappointed” that the lawsuit was filed, Peterson said. She did not elaborate on the manner in which officials stayed in contact with the mother. Beyond that, Peterson said hospital officials would have no comment on the lawsuit. She said hospital representatives likely won’t want to say anything about the suit until court proceedings conclude. In the suit, the boy’s name is listed only as “John Doe” and his mother as “Jane Doe,” and it doesn’t indicate where they reside. Chicago attorney Jerry Latherow, who filed the suit on the woman’s behalf, included a motion asking that the boy’s and woman’s real names not be used. The motion says Illinois courts allow pseudonyms to be used in cases of a “highly sensitive and personal nature or where injury would be increased” if the real names were used. No hearings in the case have been scheduled yet.

— Charleston & Matoon Journal Gazette and Times-Courier, Thursday, July 19, 2007

Unfortunately, there are botched procedures that happen on a daily basis in the US ranging from unecessary surgery to improper amputations. Yes, this was a terrible incident, but I see nowhere that supports the claims that:

1. Most claims go unreported.
2. Assuming #1 true *(strike 1) the reason is due to the cost of litigation or existance of a settlemnt.

All that article can support is that there exists one instance of a horrible result that occured during a hospital-performed circumcision. Not only is that patently NOT the claim made in the article, the question arises is it even notable? Do we list any specific individual instance of birth defects caused by doctor malfeasence in the article on obstetrics? -- Avi 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR seems a valid reason to delete the first two sentences only. Level of detail appropriate to this article may be a valid reason to delete the third sentence and the reference. --Coppertwig 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, should we start listing the thousands of circumcisions that occur without incident daily too ? Of course not, I agree that is rediculous. However, I am uncertain as to the importance of the above news report to the encyclopædic article at current. -- Avi 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That many go off without medical complications is not the issue - many drunk driving incidents occur without anyone being hit. The question is how frequently complications do occur. The article above can be used to support the case that they do occur and can have horrible results, which seems important, but not as important as how often they occur. I am not aware of research saying that they occur frequently, but others may know differently.

Edwardsville 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that often circumcision is considered a "routine" or "simple" procedure. The sad fact is that terrible complications can and do happen-even today. Also, the Mogen Clamp is well known for severing the glans. The problem is that you have to look underneath the clamp to ensure the glans is not in the way of the blade. Even Stanford Medical School teaches the Mogen Clamp incorrectly. The way it is taught will result in severing the glans: http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html

areseepee 10 August 2007

I can't find anything in the link you supplied that supports your claim that it is taught incorrectly. Jakew 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nandesuka: In answer to your claim that the citation has "nothing to do with" the material inserted with it: The third sentence is, in my opinion, an accurate summary of the article cited, and "WP:NOR" in the edit summary was not an adequate explanation of why that sentence was deleted. Furthermore, the first two sentences do have something to do with the citation. The citation provides partial evidence supporting those sentences. I acknowledge that further evidence would also be required. --Coppertwig 14:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that, if one were willing to speculate wildly, one could see the citation as providing a basis for an argument that the first two sentences were true. However, since WP:NOR requires that "Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis" and "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article", it does not constitute evidence for our purposes. The problem is not that further evidence would be required; the problem is that the argument is completely absent from the cited source. Jakew 14:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, that was a terrible, terrible addition to the article. It was a soapbox original research that was masquerading as a cited third party opinion. It was deceptive. Removing it was the only sane thing to do. When a pig covered in mud and feces starts running around the kitchen, you don't just hose it off and try to make it cleaner: you get the pig out of the kitchen. Nandesuka 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this newspaper article is irrelevant to the circumcision article. I don't agree with Nandesuka's violation of WP:AGF ("It was deceptive"), and her apparent comparison between a Wikipedia editor and a "pig covered in mud and feces," which is a clear violation of WP:NPA. The intimidating tone and open acknowledgement of Nandesuka's desire for the editor to be silenced ("get the pig out of the kitchen") is also completely uncalled for. A Wikipedia administrator should hold himself or herself to a higher standard. Blackworm 06:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper article may not suit the level of detail desired in this article, however it is certainly not "irrelevant". It's about circumcision; it's specifically about injury during circumcision, and was placed in a section of the article about risks of the procedure.

It could be argued that Nandesuka did or did not violate WP:NPA or WP:AGF. The words "It was deceptive" and "pig out of the kitchen" could be understood as applying to the edited words, not the editor. However, anyone who understands human nature should see that an editor whose edits are described in that way is quite likely to take it personally. The remarks violate the WP:CIVIL policy and the WP:BITE guideline at least, in my opinion. Also, it was unnecessary to refer to someone's edit (which the user was likely proud of) as a "terrible, terrible addition". And the original edit summary, which says "WP:NOR" but does not give a link to that page nor explain that it is a page or a policy nor tell how to find it, also violates WP:BITE. Come on -- let's be welcoming to the newcomers, whether or not we're able to remember what it was like when we did our own first few edits. --Coppertwig 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The pig in my analogy is the edit, not the editor. I fully believe that the editor loves their pig, but it still doesn't belong in the kitchen. Nandesuka 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly was not irrelevant.

Edwardsville 14:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

FDA Warning

I would like to see this added to the article. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/circumcision.html Also keep in mind that no circumcision device in the USA has been approved by the FDA.

areseepee 10 August 2007

This one might be a useful link as a footnote, perhaps at Medical analysis of circumcision, as this article is already too long, as discussed above. Thanks for finding an interesting citation that might be useful in improving these articles! --Coppertwig 14:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I put it in at Medical analysis of circumcision. --Coppertwig 22:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if areseepee can support his claim that no circ device is FDA approved, it should be somewhere in the main article. Nothing in the link he provides supports that claim. Blackworm 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Avi, you posted regarding whether the FDA needs to approve devices. That never occured to me and I don't know the answer. Good catch. Now, you wrote "Nevermind, there may need to be reference to this letter" in your edit summary. Where is this need? Could you please discuss it here? Blackworm 06:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the claims that the FDA is reponsible for approving such devices and that they have approved no circumcision device can be supported, then they belong in the article. 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 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This link looks to me like an FDA approval of a circumcision device: [21] --Coppertwig 13:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that FDA approval is needed to market circumcision devices, but areseepee is out of relevant claims in my opinion. Areseepee what do you think? Can we close this one? Blackworm 07:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

General Comment From the AMA about Policy Statements

The section on the policy statments of medical organizations should include a section that states:

The American Medical Association states that "virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."

Reason: It is important that virtually all current policy statements from specialty socieites and medical organzizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice. Someone reading the article might mistakenly suspect that the organizations listed there have been cherry-picked, so that only ones who do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision have been listed and quoted. The article as it stands gives specific examples of what societies say, but doesn't say anything about the big picture. The quote above should prevent any such misunderstanding - it gives a good general picture of the state of things.

Placing: The quote should appear before any discussion of what particular medical organizations say, to put them all in context. It shouldn't just appear in the US section, because its subject matter is much broader thanthat.

Edwardsville 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I suggest having a subsection with a name like "Overview" or "Consensus statements", to contain that quote and also to discuss statements which are supported by more than one medical assocation (which up until now we've had trouble finding a good home for). --Coppertwig 16:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it might simplify the article to include this quote instead of the (similarly-worded) extracts from the individual statements (thus allowing the individual sections to discuss other points), there is a repetition and WP:SOAP problem with including both. Jakew 16:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

One solution might be to have only a general section in this article, with that quote and the statements supported by more than one association from different countries, and to have the individual country's policies on the Medical analysis of circumcision page. This would help with the overall plan to shorten the article, as well as giving the reader a way of quickly finding out what such assocations generally think, without having to read about each country one at a time. --Coppertwig 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That might work. Incidentally, I also found another secondary source discussing these statements - the following (World Health Organization) quote:

The complication rates cited in some medical society statements also tend to be higher than observed for neonatal circumcision (for example 0.2%-2% in the Canadian statement, 1%-5% in the Australasian statement), and the Australasian and American statements have been criticized for being unduly negative towards circumcision and down-playing the benefits of circumcision on infections including UTIs, penile and cervical cancer, and HIV 144, 145.[22]

Jakew 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not a WHO report, it is a WHO/UNAIDS report. It is in UNAIDS' interest to promote circumcision, since its mandate says nothing about neutrality toward circumcision, but everything about reducing AIDS. Their position is interesting, and is worthy of mention as their position. But the attribution should be clear: WHO/UNAIDS. Blackworm 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Could perhaps provide NPOV balancing for a general section such as I describe. What's the status of the document, though? It's marked "Draft document".

By the way: I see your point about repetition. A certain amount of repetition is normal: the leadin is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole, and I assume that paragraphs can have topic sentences which can sometimes be a summary of the paragraph. But I guess it might be too much to give a general statement about medical policies and then also list them. --Coppertwig 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we say "Organisations W, X, and Y say Z. Organisation W says Z. Organisation X says Z. Organisation Y says Z," it creates the impression that we're not so much supplying information as machine-gunning the reader with it. That can seem rather like a soapbox rant, and while there are plenty of websites doing just that, we have other standards. Jakew 23:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This suggests that when we check over the "main article" pages to see whether they contain all the information from this page, they don't actually have to contain all the same quotes or references. It's more a matter of whether they contain all the same general ideas (plus they can contain additional detail not present here). --Coppertwig 13:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The general claim should be listed, but there should also be listings for individual countries. For instance, someone from Australia should be able to look up Australia in the article and see that the medical organizations in their nation say that routine circumcision should not be performed.

Edwardsville 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making a reasonable case for keeping the current state of the article, but a poor one for changing it. Jakew 14:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should someone from Australia be able to look it up within the same article? There could be a link marked like For policies of specific national medical associations, see ... with a link to Medical analysis of circumcision where there is a proposal to copy (and another proposal here to move) that information. --Coppertwig 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be losing sight of the original point about including the general statement. I want to defend the claim that people should be able to look up their nation and see what its policy is, but it might be better for that issue to have its own section. Are we going to include the general statement from the AAP?

Edwardsville 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. A suggestion was made to allow the general statement to be included while addressing Jakew's point about repetition, by having the specific countries at a different article. It's not clear whether you support or oppose this particular suggestion. --Coppertwig 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would like the general statement included and I don't think that the specific countries should be listed in a different article. Both seem to be extremely important and so both seem to belong in this article. The general statement gives the general picture and then individual countries can have their policies briefly listed. If the section on general policies is too long, some of the stuff under US could be cut, leaving the recommendations and conclusions of the AMA and AAP. The article should definately let the reader know which countries do not recommend circumcision, which ones recommend that it should not be performed, and which (if any) recommend that it should be performed. What medical science has made of the research is even more important to present than giving the reader research details and asking them to work it out for themself.

Just David 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the general statement should be included and the statements of individual national organizations should also be listed. That wouldn't be repetition, since the general statement would give the big picture, while individual statements would give detail that the general statement does not. It is particularly important to list individual policies since the policies of national medical organizations in Canada, Australia and New Zealand don't just not recommend circumcision, they say that routine circumcision should not be performed.

If we are concerned about the length of the article, the policies of national medical organizations is not the place to cut detail - it is the most significant part of the article.

Edwardsville 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of phimosis

I feel uncomfortable about including a single definition of phimosis. Two articles (in one file) may be found here.

Let me quote in reverse chronological order. Richters asks:

• For example, what is ‘phimosis’? The definition used by Medline is broad: “The inability to retract the foreskin over the glans penis due to tightness of the prepuce”. Morris et al. complain that others use it to mean a much more specific pathological condition. However, in their reporting of study results they do not indicate which definitions are used in each study. In debates about circumcision, definitions of phimosis are chosen for tactical purposes."

This is in response to Morris et al, who argue:

• The foreskin should dislodge and retract over the glans by age 5. If not, the cause could be a narrow foreskin orifice. This is termed ‘phimosis’. It affects ~10% of uncircumcised men. The RACP Statement in saying the rate of phimosis is ‘at least 1%’ is referring to secondary cicatrisation of the foreskin due to balanitis xerotica obliterans (i.e. pathological phimosis in which the orifice is constricted from skin dryness, shrinkage and atrophy),55 as opposed to an anatomically narrow orifice, which is what is usually meant by phimosis.56, 57

I believe that the above demonstrates that there are at least two definitions of phimosis. If we include any definition, we should be careful to attribute it and note that others exist. Jakew 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I had inserted "(nonretractility of the foreskin)" immediately after the word "phimosis" in the leadin. All of the definitions you mention above are forms of nonretractility of the foreskin, so I don't think that's inaccurate. I feel that the reader needs some clue about approximately what type of malady phimosis is, so they won't think it's a type of cancer or infectious disease or something. If a longer definition or set of definitions is required, it can go at the beginning of the section on phimosis. I suggest "inability to retract the foreskin, or a more specific condition", either immediately before or instead of the definition by Rickwood, which does not seem to correspond to the other definitions given. --Coppertwig 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that nonretractility of the foreskin is a common factor. However, the debate appears to be over whether the term should have a general or more specific meaning, so I think we need to be cautious.

I think your suggestion is reasonable, but slightly ambiguous. For greater clarity I propose "defined by some sources as an inability to retract the foreskin, while others use it to mean a specific cause of such a condition". I appreciate that this is a little clumsy, and if you can improve it please do so. Jakew 22:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds OK. I suggest deleting the Rickwood definition and inserting after the 1st sentence of the paragraph, "Phimosis is defined by some sources as an inability to retract the foreskin due to tightness of the prepuce, while others use it to mean a specific cause of such a condition". --Coppertwig 23:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that wording because a reader would easily infer, given the context, that the "specific cause of such a condition" is having a foreskin, i.e. not being circumcised. I propose "defined by some sources as an inability to retract the foreskin, while others use it to mean a form caused by a specific disease (balanitis xerotica obliterans)." Assuming it can all be sourced, of course. Blackworm 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the age limit of 5 also seems relevant, since the circ article mostly discusses neonatal circumcision. Thus I propose, "defined by some sources as an inability to retract the foreskin, others by that occuring after age 5, and still others by a form of the first source's definition caused by a specific disease (balanitis xerotica obliterans)." This seems the most accurate, concise, and neutral POV definition possible with the source under discussion. Blackworm 02:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me [Coppertwig, not BW -BW]. What do you want to do about the lead section? Jakew 23:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest inserting in the leadin "(a condition which concerns retractility of the foreskin)". Perhaps you can think of a short phrase. "(retractility issues)" may be too informal. --Coppertwig 23:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a possible phrase. How about (see [[#phimosis|section]] below)? :-) Jakew 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The following quote from the article on phimosis is a very good, neutral explanation and should serve as an example for this article. "Phimosis is a medical condition in which the foreskin of the penis of a male cannot be fully retracted. ... The term is confusing because it is used to denote both a physiological stage of development (i.e. not a disease), and a pathological condition (i.e. a condition that causes problems for a person)." -- DanBlackham 20:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That quote seems to have multiple issues. We should avoid stating that it is confusing (which would require sourcing), avoid endorsing a wider (or narrower) definition, and avoid characterising conditions as diseases or not (when there is apparent controversy). Let's just stick to the facts. Jakew 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction to the phimosis article does "just stick to the facts" and it presents those facts from a neutral point of view. That is why I suggested using it as a model for this article. -- DanBlackham 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan, the first issue I raised is a WP:OR problem. The second and third are WP:NPOV problems. Instead of simply repeating your claim that it uses a neutral point of view, please address these issues. Jakew 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(see [[#phimosis|section]] below) sounds OK, though I'd prefer a brief definition in the leadin (or even using a term such as "inability to retract" instead of "phimosis"). Another possible idea for a definition within that section: Phimosis means inability to retract the foreskin, though the term is applied by some only to certain age groups or causes of the condition; inability to retract the foreskin is normal in infancy. I think mentioning age somehow is important.

I can go along with either suggestion, but the last does seem to dedicate a lot of words in the lead to a topic that's really tangential to the subject of this article.

In hope of guidance, I had a look at WP:LEAD. Unfortunately it wasn't particularly helpful. It says "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." But: "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions." Finally: "Work magic; do the impossible."

Ok, I made one of those WP:LEAD quotes up. ;-) Jakew 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

By "that section" I meant putting that longer definition in the "phimosis" section. --Coppertwig 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision prevalent, not necessarily customary

"Circumcision is customary in Muslim countries, the United States,[7] the Philippines,[8] South Korea.[9] and Israel." The cited studies on the Philippines and South Korea were not easily available online, but it's possible they dealt with national customs. The cite given to include the United States seems dubious, since it discusses "prevalence" rather than custom. An examination of whether circumcision is "customary" is a social examination, not a straight observation of its prevalence. For example, would one say it is "customary" for cancer patients to die within the first twenty years? No, unless one could find a culture in which it is a custom. One could say it is prevalent, and cite source. I propose changing the word "customary" to "prevalent." And since it's plainly true that it is prevalent in Israel, I wouldn't even complain that the claim is unsourced. Blackworm 07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

'Prevalent' is ok. We can actually replace these individual sources with a single source supporting the same claims: "countries with substantial prevalence of non-religious circumcision (Angola, Australia, Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Uganda, United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania, United States)."[23] Jakew 10:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The leadin has been edited and now contains some unsourced claims about prevalence. I'm therefore replacing this text:

Circumcision is generally performed in Africans countries, in North America (United States and Canada), in Australia, on the Pacific Islands, throughout Asia (in countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea), in the Middle East, and in Israel.

with what Jakew suggests (edited slightly, e.g. "are"). One reason I quote this text here is so I or someone else can later check whether any valuable references here are missing from the prevalence page. One advantage of this edit is that it reduces the number of references on this page, which I believe will help the page load a little faster. --Coppertwig 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made that change quickly to get rid of unsourced claims, but I don't think it actually looks all that good: too long a list of countries for the leadin, and doesn't mention countries with religious circumcision. I suggest something like: Circumcision is prevalent in parts of Africa, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, the Middle East and the USA. (I used alphabetical order except that I put the Asian countries immediately after "Central Asia".) --Coppertwig 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"parts of" is meant to apply only to Africa. Maybe mention Africa last to remove that ambiguity. --Coppertwig 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to an earlier version of the sentence but put "prevalent" instead of "customary". I realized that actually the quote Jakew provided is ambiguous or out-of-date: it has Canada in there under "substantial prevalence". So I don't think it's a good quote to put in, at all maybe or at least not without immediately putting other material to balance/interpret it. (I think the rate in Canada is well below 50%.) --Coppertwig 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I still suggest replacing with:

Circumcision is prevalent in Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, the Middle East, the USA and parts of Africa.

--Coppertwig 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, you are using 'prevalent' to mean neonatal circumcision is widespread today. Another equally valid meaning is 'the majority of males are circumcised'. Either way, fortunately we don't have to (and must not try to) evaluate whether sources are correct, because "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Jakew 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Central Asia, Indonesia, and parts of Africa are no longer included as places where circumcision is prevalent? I'm not sure about the first two, but there should definitely be something about parts of Africa. Just wanted to inquire before changing anything in the intro. ~ Homologeo 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The list of countries is arguably a little long for the lead, though perfectly reasonable for the 'prevalence' section. We need to work out how to summarise better. Jakew 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think the list I suggested above is too long, how about Circumcision is prevalent in the Middle East, the USA and parts of Africa and Asia?.

There is a source giving a low circumcision rate for Canada (lower than 50%). Therefore, giving a quote in the lead that merely says it's "prevalent" in Canada would not be balanced or NPOV, or would be too open to misinterpretation. A 2003 article indicates that Canadian neonatal male circumcision rates are 10 to 30%. from Prevalence of circumcision. --Coppertwig 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you must be reading the word 'prevalent' as 'with a prevalence of > 50%'. I'm not aware of such a meaning, but I may be mistaken. Perhaps substituting 'common', as you suggest below, or 'frequent', would address this perceived ambiguity? Alternatively, what would be the consequences of simply removing the sentence from the lead? Jakew 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version to take out Canada or any other countries I/we are not sure about. Sources can easily be found at the Prevalence of circumcision page to support the list of countries I suggest above. I might find them later, or someone else can. It's OK with me to put back in those countries, but not Canada or other questionable ones. (Any statement about it being "prevalent" in Canada would have to be explained/balanced with mention of the neonatal rate, which would probably take up too much space for the leadin.) --Coppertwig 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I self-reverted, taking "prevalent" out again. I looked up "prevalent" on Wiktionary and one of the definitions is "superior, dominant". Oops. I think we'd better try to avoid that word, at least in the leadin. "Customary" isn't very good either. How about "common"? --Coppertwig 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that the sentence about parts of the world has been removed completely from the leadin. I think it's important to have a sentence like that in the leadin, because it's important information about circumcision and is the type of information I think a reader expects to find in a place like the leadin; it sets the context for the information given in the rest of the article. Some alternative versions of the sentence include "Circumcision is widespread in ..."; "Circumcision is common in [list countries/continents] and in some places almost universal". I suggest that the earlier version of the sentence (with "customary") be put back in until consensus can be reached about the wording. I see no reason to leave the sentence out altogether. I think we may be able to quickly come to a consensus about the wording. (You don't have to wait for me to agree before editing, if you're putting in a version of the sentence not containing any details I've specifically objected to.)

The interpretation of "prevalent" as "greater than 50%" is a natural result of its definition as given at Wiktionary. While others may interpret it differently, I'm guessing many others will interpret it as I tend to. In the New Shorter OED (1993), it gives two definitions which are marked "Now rare" and which include things like "having the advantage", and then a third definition which is "Generally occurring or existing; in general use; usual." Given even only that third definition, I think it would be misleading[open to misinterpretation] to describe circumcision in a country with a less than 50% rate (either adult or neonatal) as "prevalent" without also giving additional information to clarify the meaning, set the context and/or provide a balancing POV. I also thought of the word "frequent" but unfortunately it sounds odd to describe a once-in-a-lifetime event with that word. The word "usual" suffers from the same problem as "customary". --Coppertwig 13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

After thinking it over: because the OED marked certain definitions as rare, I think it's OK to use the word "prevalent", although, as I said, not for countries with rates under 50% unless further clarification is given. --Coppertwig 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)