Talk:Circumcision

Prevalence map

Emilfaro: Attention! I uploaded the first version of the map on the 21st June. I am sure about this because I always upload and edit the page at the same time. My edit was: 16:45, 21 June 2008 Emilfaro (102,543 bytes). And now it looks like I added the image that DIDN NOT EVEN EXIST at that time. Can anyone explain that? (By the way my original colors were: Green=Yes, it's there; Red=No, it's not there. And they were inverted on the 23rd June image by RasterB. I am not RasterB.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilfaro (talk • contribs)

Re this addition of a map: I think such a map can enhance the article. However, I'm doubtful about the copyright status. Also, the figure caption should probably explain the colour-coding. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This map is somewhat confusing. Is it the current circumcision *rate* or *prevalence*? Because I'm pretty sure Canada's and Australia's circ rates are below 20% now, although obviously its prevalence is higher since the rate used to be much higher.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Having just looked at the WHO paper it isbased on : http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/JC1320_MaleCircumcision_Final_UNAIDS.pdf , I believe it is the prevalence rate than the current rate. I'll change it now to reflect this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremello22 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It also conveniently says "circumcision" everywhere instead of the phrase "male circumcision" used by its source. Good job, perfect timing; keep the fraud going. Blackworm (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The source (pdf) given in the footnote from the map says "male circumcision" sometimes and "circumcision" sometimes. This article does the same. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It says it in its title, to disambiguate, and then uses it intermittently inside the article, reminding the reader of the sex of those people being circumcised. It repeats "male circumcision" more often than circumcision with no qualifier. I recommend we do the same here, especially with regard to the title. For some reason I haven't comprehended, you oppose the proposal with your "vote," while specifying that you actually support that change but are worried about other further changes not under discussion, which could not be enacted without further discussion. Is that an accurate summary of your position? Blackworm (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm concerned about what seems to me a likely possibility that people might change a Circumcision redirect, if it existed, into a disambiguation page or short article with little or no prior discussion. To clarify: I'm not implying that anyone involved in the current discussion would do that. There is also the possibility that an article titled Circumcision would be found more easily by search engines; I'm not sure how search engines handle redirects. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "no," but you effectively confirm that it is an accurate summary, since the potential subsequent change you are worried about would be impossible without consensus. You are effectively using an unrelated premise to support your sudden change of position on the move as it came to a vote. Not impressive. Similarly, putting worries about search engines over issues of neutrality and ambiguity in this encyclopedia also seems misguided. Blackworm (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with the colours used on the map. I think green has positive connotations whereas red has danger connotations. Being uncircumcised isn't dangerous. Also the prevalence varies from 1/6th to a 1/3 , according to which source you use so I think it is wrong that the higher amount is used. So I'm removing it. Tremello22 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nijelj, red/maroon - it still signifies danger. so you needn't have bothered. Also the prevalence varies from 1/6th to a 1/3 so why should we use these particular stats?Tremello22 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just taken another look at the report UNAIDS/WHO FEB 2007 and it seems something has changed. I am pretty sure on page 14 of the pdf file where the map is it gave a ref for the "other sources" used to compile prevalence rates, but they has mysteriously disappeared. Now it just says "For other countries, estimates were made from other published sources" but it doesn't give what sources they were. Very strange - I remember seeing the sources at the bottom among the refs. So I vote to remove the map because the source cannot be verified. Tremello22 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As promised in this comment, I have revised the map to use more neutral colours. I chose blue and magenta, since as far as I'm aware these are free of connotations. I'm happy to change the colours again if a better choice of colours is suggested. Jakew (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Who says "blue" is neutral at all? The colours are a hodgepodge and ridiculous. Use a grayscale instead, darker for areas of circumcision and lighter for areas of no circumcision. Right now the colours look ready to give a seizure. Revasser (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated it to use shades of grey, as you suggest. Jakew (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, great work: I believe you are owed thanks for your hard work getting this map into this article. I think it should definitely read "Male Circumcision" however, especially since the source's title says Male Circumcision, and similar maps from other UN organizations also specify Male Circumcision in the captions of their figures [1], and yes, even in their Male Circumcision Prevalence Maps. This addition was JUST IN TIME to boost the image that "circumcision" without qualifier to describe male circumcision is common, normal, neutral, and has consensus -- at a time where this ambiguity is hotly disputed. Sorry, it cannot stand in its current form. It should read "Male Circumcision," as its source's title does, and as other sources paying attention to neutrality and lack of ambiguity do. Blackworm (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No doubt footnote no.1 correctly ascribes the information on the map to the WHO but clearly the WHO is not the appropriate authority given that the UN as we all know deals with countries' self-reporting. May I point out that Malaysia and Indonesia, which are described as Muslim countries (as they officially indeed are), contain very substantial Christian, Buddhist and Hindu minorities. (See the CIA World Fact Book [2].) Moreover, many such minorities are considerably to be identified by region. North Borneo and New Guinea, for example, are very large geographical areas in Malaysia and Indonesia which only have a marginal Muslim presence; the Moluccas in Indonesia are at least 50% Christian; Bali is famously Hindu. Overall, Malaysia is some 60% Muslim and clearly does not belong in the plus-80% circumcised category as it appears on the map. But given the geographical spread of these countries and vast disparity of cultures and religions across the Indonesian Archipelago, it is surely meaningless to describe these countries in such a way. One is reminded of the generalisation in a former version of this article as to aboriginal Australians based, it seems, on certain academic studies of remote communities which did not at all constitute a valid observation as to aboriginal Australians as a whole. Masalai (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the map anymore, but I had similar concerns about it. Mainly I wasn't sure if it was showing circumcision rates currently or percentage of extant males whose status is circumcised. Because obviously rates are much lower than they were in the past in some countries and vice versa for others.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you won't have time to answer this question, but I wonder which version of the map you were looking at. More recent versions said "prevalence" in the figure caption, which I believe is meant to clarify that it's the percentage of extant males (see prevalence). I agree with you that if the map is present, the caption should clarify which quantity is being displayed. The map was removed in this edit. I support including the map if there are no copyright issues with it. I think it provides important information and significantly enhances the article. Blackworm, would you accept the inclusion of the map if the caption is edited to say "male circumcision"? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If the caption, and the legend in the image are edited to say "male circumcision" that would remove my objection on that basis. Unfortunately though, I now notice that the source used says "DRAFT DOCUMENT," which as I pointed out long ago calls into question its reliability. I'd be inclined to reject that source on that basis, especially since it seems internally inconsistent (as I describe here). A draft is a document that is a 5 c: a preliminary sketch, outline, or version <the author's first draft> <a draft treaty>.[3] I presume the document is prominently marked as such precisely to warn the reader that it hasn't been properly reviewed and published, and may contain errors (as indeed it seems to). A better source would be UNAIDS 2007 [4], which although they seem to build on the WHO's estimates and silent, unexplained extrapolation of estimates from males 15+ to all males, at least it doesn't directly source a "DRAFT DOCUMENT." The map would need to be attributed to UNAIDS, however, not the "DHS and other sources" since that is the source we reference and rest on. Otherwise, if the consensus disagrees with me and decides to keep the WHO's "DRAFT DOCUMENT" as a reliable source, then the WHO should be cited as the source, not the DHS (as we are using the WHO's interpretation of DHS data). I would also prefer, in that case, that we make clear in the caption that the source is a "DRAFT DOCUMENT," letting the reader decide on the reliability of the source. Blackworm (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re this map: Image:Forbidden Knowledge.png which was added by Emilfaro: I think such a map can enhance the article. I don't know about copyright concerns, e.g. if it's too close a copy of a map by the WHO. Emilfaro seems to be raising some other copyright concerns: Emilfaro was the one contributing the map originally as far as I know, as mentioned in the first post in this section. Re readability: two of the colours look almost identical to me and the legend is too small to read easily. A figure caption might help. Thanks for your work in contributing this map, Emilfaro! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Emilfaro, I am not a fan of edit warring. You still have yet to address my concerns. Why are the rates in the map from highest to lowest ? In the original map (which is a direct copy except different colours) the infobox has the rates from lowest to highest. That is not my only concern - I want you to explain to me where the WHO are getting there figures from - are they reliable? They say "DHO and other sources" . I have looked at the dhs website (there doesn't seem to be a page for male circumcision figures). Then I sent an email inquiring about the male circ figures used for this report, but the lady wasn't exactly helpful and she didn't provide me with any figures. So what does that tell you? Also - why do they neglect to name these "other sources" - who are these other sources - just random people in the street, asked to guess the amount? Finally, having said all that, why should we use these particular figures for a map? Why not other figures that put the circumcision rate lower?Tremello22 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Emilfaro, if you believe an image at Commons violates your copyright, may I suggest you first decide what you would like to be done, and then contact an administrator at Commons to help you? You might try commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or commons:Commons:Help desk or commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Alternatively, it might work for you to edit the image page and put your name there, as apparently RasterB ought to have done. You could also state more clearly here whether you are claiming that an image violates your copyright, and ask us not to use a particular image or images for that reason. Do you also have another concern besides copyright? And are you sure your image doesn't violate the WHO's copyright? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. But the point is I don't hold any copyright as I gave it away for anyone to do anything he wants with the image... Funny :-) The sad point is: there is someone, who can modify the Wikipedia archives. Emilfaro —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what words exactly you used when you gave it away, but even if that means that you can't use the force of law to demand attribution, I see no reason why you can't ask for attribution as a courtesy, and I see no reason why Wikipedia wouldn't respect that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't bring us to the real thing we need: the map on the page. Emilfaro

I introduced the first version of the map in this edit dated 21st. My original map was later somehow replaced with another one with inverted colors. Now it appears as if this image was created by RasterB on 23rd. How could I add image that didn't exist for two days? Later Jakew in this edit changed the image to grayscale version. And now I accidentally find out all this and make the indigo version. None of colors are recognised as neutral thus consensus is not possible at all. The map is being intentionally removed. I beg everyone who can to get out the word on this situation. Keep in mind that it is the one and only map on the subject. There is no alternative that I know of. This subject is very political. Emilfaro —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what truth you are trying to show here but you must follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Specifically WP:Consensus is being ignored by you at the moment. All this is going to do is get you blocked. If you wish to pursue this either gain consensus here on talk or follow WP:Dispute resolution procedures. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a map of circumcision rates can enhance the article, but I see the following problems with this particular map:

• The colours are too similar to each other, so it's hard to interpret the map.
• The legend is too small and is not readable.
• Per Blackworm, it should say "male circumcision" (if that's what it is), not just "circumcision", to avoid ambiguity.
• I'm not convinced that this map doesn't violate the WHO's copyright.
• The name of the file is not NPOV but is WP:SOAPBOXy.
• The figure caption or image description file do not state clearly where the data is from. Although there is a link to a WHO document, it doesn't say why the link is there: the link could be marked "Reference" or "Data has been obtained from" or something to clarify this; it would be good to give complete citation information, not just the web link, since the web link might stop working at some point.
• The figure caption should state where the data are from, in such a way as to give the reader some idea of the accuracy of the data.
• The figure caption "Colour: neutral" seems meaningless to me. (Sorry.)

Please don't re-add the map before addressing these concerns.

Re your question, Emilfaro, about modifying Wikipedia's archives: I don't know what you're talking about: I don't think you've given enough detail for anyone to know what you mean. Apparently the image you originally uploaded to English Wikipedia was deleted on the grounds that a similar image (apparently based on it) existed at Commons. You said you had given away the rights to the map, so there's no basis for a complaint; and if you have a complaint or request then this page is probably not the place to take it up. I suggested some places at Commons where you could pursue the matter. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pleasant editing environment?

Please, everyone, let's make this a pleasant editing environment for all participants, on the talk page and in edit summaries. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be pleasant indeed if we did not edit each others comments. I have had to replace multiple post back to their relavant locations after being split incessantly. This goes against policy and threatens the sanctity of the page. Everyone makes mistakes, (I just split Blackworm's with my last one, sorry) but it's hard to assume good faith with such deliberations. Please respect each others comments. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I apologize for editing your comment. After editing, I remembered this from WP:NPA: "for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack."; therefore the words I removed were not a personal attack. Furthermore, Blackworm brought this part of WP:CIVIL to my attention: "Only in the most serious of circumstances should an editor replace or edit a comment made by another editor. Only in the event of something that can cause actual damage in the real world should this be the first step..." I hope this doesn't set us back too far in the process of moving towards resolution of existing problems. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Coppertwig, I know you intended well. Garycompugeek, I think "sanctity" goes a bit far, but I agree that inserting comments in the middle of the discussion above previous replies to the exact same comment can easily be taken as disrespectful. Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, these days I don't much care what this page is named or whether it contains the word "surgical" or not, etc. What does concern me deeply is the level of discord: whether editors feel free to edit this page without finding themselves targets of what they perceive as uncomfortable or intolerable levels of incivility. I feel that I myself have been lucky to have very little of that sort of thing directed at me, but it pains me to see my fellow editors suffering.
Of course, perceptions differ, and what to one person is an acceptable and relevant comment, to another is a personal attack.
One pattern to try to avoid is mathematically equivalent to the following:

• Editor A: "It was uncivil of you to say that."
• Editor B: "It was uncivil of you to say that it was uncivil of me to say that."
• Editor A: "It was uncivil of you to say that."

and so on, infinitely. This pattern can be difficult to recognize because of the many different words, actions and non-actions people use to express those messages, and because of the different perceptions.
I'm thinking of three behaviours to try to avoid, behaviours which tend to contribute to that sort of infinite regress. I've made the mistake of doing at least two of these three things myself within the past few days:

• Not using the most diplomatic possible manner when complaining about incivility.
• Interpreting a complaint about incivility as itself being an incivility.
• Failing to respond in a productive manner to a complaint about incivility.

A productive way to respond to a complaint about incivility could include:

• apologizing
• changing one's behaviour
• clearing up a misunderstanding
• possibly, arguing that what one did was OK might be a productive response, but possibly only if it's done in such a way that the other person is actually likely to respond productively
• possibly, complaining about the way the other complaint was formulated might be a productive response, but possibly only if it's accompanied by a suggestion as to how the complaint could have been communicated acceptably, and possibly only if also accompanied by another productive response to the complaint itself.

I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this.
By the way, to Blackworm: thank you very much: I really appreciate the AGF. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of a circumcised penis with a skin bridge

Why do they only have a picture of a circumcised penis with a skin bridge? This implies that all circumcised penis' have some problem. I have a circumcised penis and it does not have a skin bridge or anything else wrong with it. I see this as a biased view, having the uncircumcised penis as health, while the circumcised penis isn't.

I'm happy you believe there is nothing wrong with your circumcised penis, but are you aware that there is controversy over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the genital cutting?

I pointed out that it seemed odd to include this a while ago. Blackworm (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the images I'm aware of that are currently available on Commons, I think the image we have is good. Ideally, I would like to replace it with two images: one of equal or better photographic quality showing a circumcised penis with no skin bridge or anything else unusual, both flaccid and erect; and a separate picture clearly showing a skin bridge. I find the skin bridge hard to see in the current picture. There was a website with a lot of pictures of clear examples of skin bridges, but I can't find it right now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't find it because it doesn't want to be found. Blackworm (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I had intended to reply to this, "Yes, that's the one! Thanks!" ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Defintions

I got into a discussion with User:Blackworm on his talk page. It was about general editing principle, but he provided the example of this article he has worked on. The question came up of what should be a primary article and what should be a redirect (and to where), particularly among Male circumcision and Circumcision. I believe a portion of that discussion that exhibits some sources might be valuable to other editors on this article. I have not been involved in this page, and have no particular opinion, but I did a little bit of research. LotLE×talk 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

[...]To circumcise is to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female).[5] By definition, the general term for the topic of circumcision is "circumcision," not "male circumcision." Blackworm (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The defintions seem mixed. Obviously MW describe two sexes. However, look at http://www.answers.com/topic/circumcision. That summarizes several dictionaries and reference works:

1. Medical Encyclopedia: Male only
2. Surgery Encyclopedia: Male/female
3. World of the Body: Male only
4. Children's Health Encyclopedia: Male/female
5. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Male only
6. Columbia Encyclopedia: Male only (but secondary description of "so-called female circumcision")
7. Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia: Male/female
8. Health dictionary: Male only
9. Veterinary Dictionary: Male only

I skip Wikipedia itself since... y'know. Based on the sources, it seems like it could go either way whether the primary meaning is inclusive of FGC. I'd lean against that, but both seem plausible. LotLE×talk 03:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, could you please format the text I wrote above in such a way that it is clear that I did not post it to this page? I offer my help if you like. Blackworm (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

HIV

Can someone please link me to the discussion or consensus that justifies Twiggy's reversion of my sourced edit marked "NPOV". forestPIG 02:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where the discussion alluded to by Coppertwig is, but I'll chime in on the proposed addition. 1) The Van Howe paper was published in 1999, while the three RCT studies mentioned in this article were published in 2007. Therefore, the Van Howe citation does not support the claim that "the African studies [which, as written, implies the RCTs from '07] may be confounded by a variety of factors," since it pre-dates them by 8 years. Furthermore, both the circumstitions and MGMbill websites appear to be editorial in nature, and, therefore, do not provide sufficient support for claim that the African RCT studies were confounded or had flawed methodologies. There may also be questions regarding the reliability of these sources, but I will withold judgement at this time since I haven't fully reviewed their content. 2) The policy statement of the Australian Federation of Aids Organizations simply states that the "African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way." It does not "appear to contradict the African Studies" as the proposed text indicates. While the AFAO policy statement does offer a critique of the use of circumcision to counter HIV transmission in Africa, all but one of these claims are unsupported by actual data or citations, and the one critique that is supported with citations (i.e. washing under the foreskin to prevent STD and HIV infections) has been contradicted elsewhere. I'm certainly not opposed to the inclusion of material which challenges the RCT results or the WHO interpretation, but I think a more robust set of references is needed to effectively support these claims. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 04:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as it's clear that we attribute claims made by the reliable sources, i.e. something to reflect The policy statement of the Australian Federation of Aids Organizations simply states that the "African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way," then neutrality is served. That critique should be presented as a counterpoint to the WHO's and other media's extrapolation of the results to sitations outside Africa, as evident, introduced by the phrase in the article: In March 2007, WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an effective intervention for HIV prevention, [...]. Blackworm (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be the discussion I'm thinking of: Talk:Circumcision#HIV part 2 on this talk page. There's undoubtedly other previous discussion too. Sorry, I'm in a hurry right now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The earlier discussion is archived here. The edit I reverted is here. Thank you everyone: for beginning this discussion, ForestPIG, for your thorough analysis, AlphaEta, and for your suggestion, Blackworm. I suggest the following modification to Blackworm's suggestion: as the second-last sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the HIV section, "The Australian Federation of Aids Organizations stated that the "African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way." [6]" I don't see this briefing paper labelled as their "policy"; I don't know if there's another reference for that somewhere.

By the way, re keratin, I suggest replacing the McCoombe et al. ref, which is merely an abstract, with this one which is a review study. Both McCoombe et al. and this study mention both the thinner keratin layer on the inner foreskin, and Langerhans' cells; currently the article does not mention Langerhans' cells. I suggest changing to "Szabo and Short suggest the inner surface of the foreskin as a probable viral entry point, stating that it lacks a keratin layer and is rich in Langerhans' cells, which contain receptors thought to be targets of the HIV virus." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Circumcision promotion" link

From one of our External Links, under "circumcision promotion" (click on "No Clamps")[7]: The most commonly used clamps are the Gomco® and Mogen® type clamps. These clamps completely crush and sever the skin, the nerve endings and the blood vessels in a lengthy procedure causing extreme pain and trauma to the child. This may even cause the child to withdraw into a state of neurogenic shock in response to the sudden and massive pain. Great promotion of circumcision there. Should we move it to "circumcision opposition" or simply remove the link? Blackworm (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove or move to the GITMO torture page. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AUA position re HIV

I suggest reverting this edit because I don't see that information on the AUA's position re HIV anywhere else in the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy statement covering circumcision says there are pros and cons. We do not need to detail their position by stating each pro and con in the statement. Obviously lower transmission rate of STD's is a pro point and covered by initial statement. No need to illustrate this one pro point unless we balance out with con which gets cumbersome and unnecessary. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you consider that quote to be: a pro or a con? I think it contains the important information that an American authority thinks the African data doesn't necessarily extrapolate to the U.S. Does that information appear anywhere else in the article? I think it's much more informative than simply saying there are risks and benefits– the reader could have guessed that already. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider linking circumcision to STD/HIV transmission reduction a pro point. Bottom line is the AUA are sitting on the fence regarding circumcision. They do not recommend for or against, which is what we should be stating. They list many pros and cons of circumcision just like we have. The last paragraph talks about the 3 studies done in Africa. They note convincing evidence shows circumcision reduces HIV transmission rates but say the data may not extrapolate to US then go on to say circumcision should not be the only strategy offered to combat HIV. All of this is covered in the HIV section and to bring it up in the AUA policy section only clouds their position further. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I add a link in the "external links - circumcision opposition"

Can I add a link in the "external links" section to a new website that provides a forum/discussion board for opponents of circumcision under "Circumcision Opposition?" Spindled (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, item 10 of Wikipedia's external link policy generally discourages forums and discussion groups. Thanks, AlphaEta 04:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, although it seems that they are more so referring to general forums/discussion groups, this whole site is specifically made for discussions regarding circumcision. Right now it is very new and pretty empty, but in principle it seems like a nice place to discuss this topic. Duly noted tho. Spindled (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Going down the list of things to avoid, I'd say this falls under 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming. Blackworm (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

AMA quote in lead

After much discussion, the following sentence was retained in the lead in June, 2008 to address POV concerns:

The American Medical Association stated in 1999: "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."[13]

Specifically, it was added to balance the WHO/CDC information regarding HIV:

The World Health Organisation (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.[14][15]

Because the WHO/CDC was removed from the lead, it seemed appropriate that the AMA statement should also be removed to restore balance. This information still appears in the body of the article.

The question then becomes, should the AMA statement remain in the lead? We've made good progress toward streamlining the introduction, and re-adding the quotation will likely cause a new series of POV and notability issues. I vote to leave the AMA quote and information regarding HIV out of the lead. AlphaEta 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The AMA statement summarizes the views of medical organizations, and doesn't have anything to do with HIV. I think it should stay in the lead. If the current WHO advocacy is a contrast, we can summarize it with: The United Nations (World Health Organization, etc.) advocate mass male circumcision, stating that it reduces female to male transmission of HIV.[WHO 2007 ref] In Africa, mass male circumcision programs are now underway that have been described as "nominally voluntary."[BBC ref] [8] Blackworm (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize the two items are unrelated. As absurd as it seems in retrospect, one, the WHO paragraph, was used to support the inclusion of the other, the AMA policy statement, in the lead. I still think we should keep detailed information out of the lead, but if the AMA statement is deemed important enough to be summarized in the intro, the HIV information certainly also deserves mention. Again, I'm not saying the two are related, but each carries about the same gravity. If the AMA material stays, perhaps we could re-add the WHO material as follows?

The American Medical Association stated in 1999: "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."[13] The United Nations (World Health Organization, etc.) advocate mass male circumcision, stating that it reduces female to male transmission of HIV.[WHO 2007 ref]

The second sentence of Blackworm's proposal appears to incorrectly attribute the actions of the Rwandan health ministry to the WHO, and is pertinent only to the Rwandan military, not Africa as a whole (according to the BBC reference). Regards, AlphaEta 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support the following -

"The American Medical Association stated in 1999: "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision." in direct contrast to the World Health Organization's advocation of mass male circumcision to reduce transmission of HIV.[WHO 2007 ref]

I do not think it necessary considering the AMA states "Virtually" meaning not all but most. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Male Genital Cutting

I think to keep this article neutral the term male genital cutting should be used in the introduction just as female circumcision is called female genital cutting. Both subjects are controversial and Wikipedia should treat both with the same neutrallity. Signsolid (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A template at the top of this page says "discuss substantial changes here before making them". You may have felt that changing a few words was not "substantial": fair enough; however, once they were reverted, I think you should wait for discussion. Waiting 27 minutes is quite inadequate. I suggest several days. Some editors might argue that 24 hours is sufficient; I don't think one could justify any less than that.

I oppose the edit. I don't think the term is widely used. A Google scholar search turns up only 50 hits, and the first two actually say "fe- male genital cutting". Female genital cutting and male genital cutting are not the same thing, because the genitals are different, among other reasons. There's no need to try to artificially force the two concepts into the same mould. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Substantial changes? No I don't think that is a fair description for adding 3 words to the article. If someone reverts my edits and tells me to take it to the Talk page I expect them to do so as well, hence I reverted the article back to my version due to them not taking the subject up on the Talk page. As for the term not being used it may very well not be as widely used as the term female genital cutting but this encyclopaedia is supposed to be neutral, and to be so it must treat both male and female circumcision with the same point of view, as both subjects are controversial. As for opposing the change because male and female genitals are different that's pretty obvious but in what way does it make the circumcision of either different? One is more widely accepted than the other? Or they are circumcised differently? As for being circumcised differently both have external skin on the genitals cut off so there's no major difference in how the circumcision is performed, only what parts of the genitalia they cut off due to the different shape of male and female genitalia. Signsolid (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Again reverts are made to my edits without any discussion made on the Talk page. I think it's obvious that this is a plain case of pro-circumcsion editors dominating the article and preventing any criticism of circumcision. The reason why is most of these editors are usually American men who have been circumcised themselves and because there's nothing they can do about it now they vigoursly defend it as a good thing as so not to admit it's a bad thing that happened to them and they were operated on against their will as a baby for no medical benefit only because the US private medical health care system means medical companies make a lot money out of it, rather than in countries like the UK where health care is entirely goverment funded so non-beneficary operations are not carried out because no companies would make any money from them.

US medical companies would routinely circumcise girls too if it wasn't for the fact feminism in the US prevents them from doing so but no such movement protects boys as the US government states males are second class citizens to females, hence US government led affirmative action against them. US men wishing to ignore the fact their government sees them as second class citizens simply dismiss it rather than confront it because unlike women have the feminist movement to help them confront anti-female issues men have no such ally.

As for medical benefits 70%-80% of the world's men are not circumcised yet where are all these penile diseases they are supposed to have? I live in Europe where almost no men are circumcised yet any penile diseases are almost unheard of and HIV rates are lower in Europe than in the US. Part of the reason the US circumcises its males is because it doesn't wish to offend it Jewish population, which if much higher than in Europe. The other reason is the US has never fully lost the crazy 19th century biological hygene idiologies made by such likes as John Harvey Kellogg. Big companies kept those idiologies alive to make money. Strange that the founder of one of the largest US companies who makes breakfast cereals also started the process of circumcising all American men. You may think I'm being anti-American but actually politically I very much support US foreign policy and George Bush.

But hey circumcision's your problem not mine so support it all you want, I'm not the one who got a piece of my manhood cut off against my will at my most vulnerable as a baby for no other reason than to make some money for a company. Notice they only circumcise helpless babies, might be because they would tell them where to get off to if they tried it on when they're an adult and they would know the whole catching infections thing is about as likely as catching infections under your eyelids and having to have them cut off when you're a baby to stop it happening when you grow up. Signsolid (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:TALK. I realize statements like Coppertwig's Female genital cutting and male genital cutting are not the same thing, because the genitals are different, among other reasons may be incredibly frustrating and offensive to those who believe no one's genitals should be cut up without consent, but it is a common argument, similar to arguments about slavery 200 years ago (blacks and whites aren't the same thing), or women's right to vote 100 years ago (men's brains and women's aren't the same thing). Blackworm (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you prick us, do we not bleed? -- W. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice Act III Scene I. Blackworm (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

SIgnsolid, please feel free to discuss the edits in question, but please immediately stop commenting on other editors' penises. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)