Talk:Circumcision

External Links - CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com

When did the external links change? I don't see any discussion about this. I object to CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com being removed. It has been replaced cirp.org. Like I mentioned months ago when we talked about external links, all of those articles on CIRP can be found elsewhere and the website doesn't contribute anything new to the discussion. Also, and more importantly, CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com has since received HONcode certification for quality of healthcare information on the Internet. None of the Circumcision Opposition or Circumcision Proponent websites have this coveted rating. Finally, unlike activist websites, it strives for neutrality based on ethics. While we can argue (and I know some will) about the degree of neutrality, let's keep in mind that striving toward NPOV is what WP is all about. I would like to see CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com put back up. If we need to add a sixth link, so be it. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't share your view of "circumcisiondecisionmaker.com", Frank. It doesn't seem more worthy of inclusion than many of the other anti-circumcision sites. Anyway, to answer your question, it was removed in this edit, as part of a process of re-balancing the numbers of links in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:EL. To be specific, the rebalancing was necessary in response to the addition of "circumcision.org" in this edit. In my view, "circumcision.org" is not particularly encyclopaedic either, but it seems marginally more suitable for inclusion than "circumcisiondecisionmaker.com", hence the present state of affairs. Jakew (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be "anti-circumcision" at all. They recommend circumcision in many cases. It seems to be neutral, which I thought you were in favor of.--Studiodan (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan, there's really nothing to argue about. The following is fundamentally an anti-circumcision position: "The panel’s consensus is that the foreskin is a vital, functional part of the male genital anatomy—is not a birth defect—and, if there is not a strong, valid, and immediate medical reason for removing it, for ethical reasons, it should remain intact."[1] There's nothing wrong, as such, with holding such a viewpoint, but it would be disingenuous to claim that such a site is neutral. Jakew (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They recommend circumcision for newborns of Jewish parents... completely omitting the right of the child. I'd say that's clearly pro-circumcision. i.e., You can't say they are anti-circumcision when they recommend it where those against it would not. Still seems neutral to me.--Studiodan (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this page, it seems a rather grudging recommendation at best: "discuss an alternate ritual like brit shalom or brit ben ... by circumcising him, you are denying his freedom of religion ... [some Conservative Jews believe] that circumcision is inconsistent with the Jewish ethical imperative to not harm another human being." Jakew (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The page in question is clearly trying to present reasons why an Orthodox Jew should reject circumcision, or find an alternative to it - 90% of the page is devoted to that. It's quite obvious this is an anti-circumcision website, and it's really not appropriate to waste editors' time pretending anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and same goes for the vast majority of all medical websites being pro-circumcision websites because they see it as acceptable. That includes all of the "Circumcision techniques and videos." As such, I suggest we place all of those sites under "circumcision promotion" along with Jakew's website. Blackworm (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the statement isn’t anti-circumcision but rather a human rights statement of ethics. Just change the gender and that becomes evident. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a "a human rights statement of ethics" isn't very helpful, Frank. It might make sense if only one ethical viewpoint existed, but that is not the case. Authors have published analyses in which it is concluded that circumcision is ethically acceptable or desirable. See, for example, Clark PA, Eisenman J, Szapor S. Mandatory neonatal male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa: medical and ethical analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2007 Dec;13(12):RA205-13 or Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48. Jakew (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If its just a numbers game, then let’s revisit that instead of throwing out a perfectly good parental resource on the topic. We all have agreed that the information is good, we only disagree on their perspective and how many links there should be.From the discussion I have read here it seems to me that Jakew is more interested in the issue than the topic. But for most people, circumcision isn’t an issue, it is a decision or an event. They don’t view it with the same pro- or anti- polarized spectacles that activists do. Some room needs to be made for efforts that assist parents in making decisions for their children. The website has value as a resource. HONcode, is a more rigourous validation process than the consensus discussion here at WP, and its been around longer, too. Even the American Family Physicians’ website in the techniques list doesn’t’ have HONcode certification. That alone merits inclusions over and above how many links there are or if something thinks it is pro- or anti- on the issue. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Frank, I don't think we have agreed that the information is good, and I have yet to see a compelling argument for its inclusion. Rather than proposing to effectively bypass WP:NPOV by claiming that a blatantly anti-circumcision site is not anti-circumcision, it might be marginally more persuasive to propose what site should be deleted to make space for it. Jakew (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, You agreed to add it once. In fact, you added the link yourself after our discussion. Circumcision Resource Center (the work on one man) has been around for years. If it was so valuable, why wasn't it added years ago? The website shows that Circumcision Decision Maker is the work of a group. The only thing that has changed since it was originally added in December was that it received HONcode certification. NONE of the other links have this certificationi for quality of health information on the Internet. That alone merits inclusion. So, editors, let's settle this once and for all. Let's add a link to both the pro- and anti- lists. If that doesn't maintain NPOV, then let's revert to what we agreed to in December. Frank Koehler (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that "circumcision.org" is "so valuable", Frank. In fact, as I stated above, I don't think it is particularly encyclopaedic. In contrast to what you say, both websites claim to have multiple responsible persons (note that circumcision.org states "Our Directors (majority is Jewish*) and Professional Advisory Board members (one-third is Jewish*)", however the number of authors seem a poor basis for choosing external links anyway. Also, you're making a big deal of this HONcode certification, but you haven't shown that HONcode certification necessarily makes a site more suitable for inclusion as a WP:EL. Finally, we already have too many external links (I eventually plan to trim the lists to 3 for each point of view), and adding more is not a solution. We ought to have fewer than five; let's not increase the numbers. Jakew (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we're getting into a WP:LINKFARM situation here. The article is already extremely comprehensive, with almost 200 footnotes, hundreds of links, Further readings, See alsos, etc. Cutting down on the External links makes more sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not making a big deal of HONcode because it already is a big deal. It is third-party verification of healthcare information. Many parents come to this page for quality information and WP can't deliver it all, there is too much, so high quality links are the solution. Any website that has HONcode certification is bound to be much better than some of the others that are the work of just one or two activists. Frank Koehler (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What we should fix is the crazy insistance that the pro circ and anti circ websites have equal numeric representation. Note the junk already in the pro side; see jakew had to resort to Jakew's own website. There are many great information websites that are blocked from circumcision because the are labeled anti-circ. They are informational. Like an encyclopedia. What do we have here but propaganda by silly numbers.Zinbarg (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to overturn WP:NPOV then I guess WT:NPOV is probably the right place to make that proposal. But I should warn you: the chances of success are basically zero. Jakew (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that having equal numbers makes no sense. Our goal is to provide good information, not be a battleground for an issue. I see no reason to reduce external links, especially since this WP article only touches upon the subject despite its length.Frank Koehler (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you take issue with Wikipedia policy then the correct thing to do is to try to change that policy. Ignoring it is not an option. Jakew (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Frank Koehler (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Last year I originally proposed that Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (cirp.org) be removed for the sake of CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com. That was quickly accepted, but later reverted. I still feel that Cirp.org is not a good candidate since it does not have unique content, but rather republishes articles available elsewhere such as PubMed. And, this WP circumcision article cites many of the articles that are at CIRP.org, making it redundant. I move that we exchange CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com for Cirp.org. Frank Koehler (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) There has been no added discussion since my proposal ten days ago to exchange CIRP for CDM, let alone dissent. So, I will make that change now.Frank Koehler (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the change, and refer you to our earlier discussion, in which I opposed exactly the same proposal (see my comment dated 15:37, 26 November 2009). Jakew (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, please advise on this topic. The discussion JakeW makes was in November, In December, following our continued discussion JakeW himself added CDM. Granted, it was in place of Circumcision Resource Center (CRC), not CIRP. Therefore, I submit that CDM, once again, be exchanged for CRC. Thanks, Frank Frank Koehler (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose that proposal. In my view, while neither link is particularly good, circumcision.org is marginally more suitable for inclusion than circumcisiondecisionmaker.com. Jakew (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Still a stalemate on this topic. This is important, we've been discussing this for 5 months, so, I will return to my original proposal.Frank Koehler (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When I first found Circumcision Decision-Maker (CDM) back in 2009, I came here and suggested it be added as an external link, but in a new section. I still think that is the best solution. Here's why. The websites listed in the Circ-Opposition and Circ-Promotion sections are people and organizations involved in an issue. We all know that this wiki page has become one of the battle grounds for that issue. But, parents who want more information on circumcision so they can make an informed choice for their son are not activists or part of issue. They just want answers, not debate or polemics. I would guess that many of the visitors to this wiki page are parents looking for information. We should be writing with those readers in mind. Regardless of whether you think CDM is pro-, anti-, or neutral is moot. The important thing is that it address head-on the difficult task parents have in making an informed decision regarding a surgery for their child. No other external link does that; it is in a class by itself. Leaving out CDM does our readers a disservice. Therefore, I say make a new section, say "Parental Resources" and put CDM in it. Perhaps there are other such resources, like some of the fine magazine articles that have been writing for parents?Frank Koehler (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose that, as I did when you first made that proposal. To avoid repeating ourselves, I refer to my earlier comments. Jakew (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that others will weigh in on this, and in time this will be implemented. In the meantime, this might be a palatable solution for even the issue-oriented editors: I've always wondered why the Circumcision Promotion links have so many personal pages, but only one from a nonprofit organization. So, what I suggest is putting 6 links in each section. CDM in the anti- and Gilgal Society (http://www.gilgalsoc.org/) in the pro-. Gilgal Society is a not-for-profit and has literature available for readers. I don't see how anyone can complain about this solution. If your objection is that the web page is long, then obvious solution to a long page is reducing the bloated reference section holding almost 200 items. Frank Koehler (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

circumcisiondecisionmaker.com is an anti-circumcision website masquerading as a neutral resource for parents; thus, it's a very poor choice as an external link, since it will mislead readers. If it is "in a class by itself", it would only be in the deceptiveness that its authors use to feign neutrality while promoting a one-sided agenda. In that light, it's very unhelpful of you to continue to pretend that it is merely a neutral resource for parents, that it simply provides "answers, not debate or polemics", and that the fact that it is an anti-circumcision site is "moot". In addition, it's difficult to understand what you mean by a "bloated reference section". The goal of Wikipedia articles is to have complete reference sections, and as few external links as possible, since external links represent sites that do not have material that is appropriate for Wikipedia (typically because they are unreliable). We should be making the external links section shorter, not longer. In that vein, I recommend we bring the "pro" and "anti" each down to four. Now, you started by suggesting we remove circumcision.org. I'm fine with that, if others will agree. I suggest we also remove the Shraga Simmons link to balance that. That way we'll be down to 13 external links: still too many, but a good start. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that proposal, but I agree that that's still too many links. I'd therefore propose that we also delete nocirc.org (from the opposition section) and medicirc.org (from the proponents section), leaving 3 in each. Jakew (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be even better. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We all have our opinions Jakew, and no one opinion is any better than another. In my opinion, CDM is the most neutral of any of the current pro- anti- links. Or, putting it another way, which of the 10 links there is more neutral than CDM? Speaking of opinion. Why didn't you weigh in on the Gilgal Society link? I would think that you would jump at the chance to add a pro-circ nonprofit organization. I'm curious why you haven't suggested adding it? Speaking of links, I've added links to circs.org and cirp.org in the header of the Notes and References section. Since they are linked there, and of course dozens of times in the reference section, I see no reason for either of them to be in the External Links section. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Frank, I think you meant to address your comments to Jayjg, not me. Secondly, as both Jayjg and I have noted, there are too many links, so why would either of us "jump at the chance" to exacerbate that problem? It wouldn't make sense. It might possibly make sense to propose replacing an existing link with the Gilgal Society, but frankly I don't think it is significantly more worthy than any of the currently-existing links. Finally, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to include external links in other sections; the reason for standardising on layouts in Wikipedia is to make it easier for the reader to find external links, since they are always in a predictable place and with a predictable heading. I suppose it's probably fairly harmless to include the extra links that you've added, but this would be poor justification for removing them from the EL section. Jakew (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank, in addition to Jakew's comments, Wikipedia is not a guide for new parents, it is an encyclopedia. The goal of Wikipedia is not to direct people to other websites, but rather to contain all relevant material on Wikipedia. That is why external links should be reduced, not increased. In addition, we're not playing games here. As is both obvious and has been conclusively shown, circumcisiondecisionmaker.com is anti-circumcision. It's bad enough that circumcisiondecisionmaker.com deceptively pretends to be neutral; but for you to bald-facedly abet that deception is even worse. Any statements predicated on dissembling about this will be ignored as being obviously in bad faith. If you want to make a case for your anti-circumcision website, please make it honestly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying WP being an encyclopedia and that point is well taken. I disagree that CDM is as "anti" as NOCIRC or Intact America. I would agree that it is pro-baby, but then that's not the same thing as anti-circumcision. It does not oppose the practice of circumcision, but rather advises against it under many, but not all circumstances. The polar divisions that Jakew and Jayjg insist upon making here are not helpful to the reader, and would be more persuasive if this was the "Circumcision Issue" Wikipedia page, but it isn't. This page is not about the issue. It is about the topic. And I think these discussions would be easier if this perspective was adopted. Frank Koehler (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank, Jayjg and I aren't making this classification for the fun of it. Circumcision is a controversial subject, making it especially important for Wikipedia to maintain neutral and balanced coverage, and that includes external links. Applicable policy requires us to maintain balance between external links representing different points of view, and we cannot do that unless we identify the point of view of a site. That's not because we're trying to focus on the "issue" rather than the "topic" (to use your terminology). It's because we don't have the luxury of ignoring either; one has to be sensitive to the "issue" in order to maintain neutrality.

Now, it doesn't matter whether CDM is less "anti" or more "anti" than other sites; what matters is that it is an anti-circumcision site. That much is obvious: it is authored by people who are unanimous in their belief that "if there is not a strong, valid, and immediate medical reason for removing [the foreskin], for ethical reasons, it should remain intact". Obviously they're entitled to that position, but if you ask such a group of people, you'll get an anti-circumcision site. (If they wanted a neutral site they would doubtless have recruited authors with a more balanced set of beliefs.) And, as you acknowledge, they advise against circumcision in most situations. That's characteristic of anti-circumcision sites.

It is becoming very tedious to argue this point. Jakew (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

JakeW, Your polarized perspective is clear; it is an issue you believe strongly about, and others are either with you or against you. And yes, this is tedious. You can always retire.  ;) I'll grant that CDM is pro-intact, but not anti-circ. This might help our dilemma. I tried to contact the webmaster of cirp.org regarding a bibliographic question only to find that he had walked away from that project. Cirp.org is not being maintained, and the last updates to the content were in November, 2008 and February, 2009. I propose that we substituted CDM for Cirp. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank, don't discuss other editors here. Regarding your claim that "CDM is pro-intact, but not anti-circ", that is a classic distinction without a difference. Again, we're not playing games here, and that includes semantic games. cirp.org has the advantage of being vastly more comprehensive than circumcisiondecisionmaker.com, and in any event, its advantages over circumcisiondecisionmaker.com have been explained before. Rather than repeating old statements, please make new, more compelling arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirp.org is defunct. It is not being maintained. It has been over a year since new content was added. Therefore, it should be removed. WP is linking to a poor source. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. I just heard, following my previous inquiry, that there are plans to update cirp.org and keep the information current. My apologies. Frank Koehler (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is real. Anti-circ means you are oppossed to circumcision for any and all purposes. CDM does not make that claim. Instead, it states there are times when not circumcising is better than circumcising. That makes it pro-intact. We both know that some people promote circumcision for a variety of reasons. Some of them would be better called anti-foreskin. These distinctions are important since the issue is not cut and dried, but, like most of life, continuous shades of gray. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank, please read the previous comments, and try again, ensuring that your statement this time includes no semantic games. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read your comments and I am not playing games. I am making an important distinction. I do not accept that a website or organization is either/or, pro/con. I'm saying responses to this topic run the gamut.Frank Koehler (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review the previous comments, which were very clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank Koehler, I agree with you that there are distinctions that can be made among points of view; it's more complicated than just pro-circ and anti-circ; there can be large numbers of points of view. I'm sorry that I missed how this applies to this discussion. I also agree with Jayjg further above that circumcisiondecisionmaker.org is essentially an anti-circ (or pro-intact, if you prefer; or anti-circ in most situations, etc.) website which presents itself as if it's neutral.
I don't think it's the type of site Wikipedia should link to. Wikipedia normally links to sites that provide information, not to sites that primarily tell people what to do. I tried circumcisiondecisionmaker.org. I clicked on "his general wellbeing" and got "Leaving your son intact is an overall better choice than circumcision for a number of important reasons: ...", and nothing about reduction of risk of sexually transmitted infections, UTIs etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Coppertwig, There is a much, or more, information on CDM than is on, say, Circumcision Resource Pages. See the general information pages on the main navigation bar. Also, the "decisions" they provide in their troublshooting-type format combine to create an overview of the topic. It appears that you clicked on the first link provided (well-being), but didn't explore the rest of the website. If you want to read about STDs or UTIs, then you should navigate to those pages. Here is the link: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/decide/infant-circumcision/health/prevention/ Check it out. There is more here than meets the eye. The portal style theme is misleading. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've just reverted some highly dubious changes. To explain:

1. The {{POV-section}} tag was inappropriate. It is intended to be used when there is an NPOV issue with that particular section (the lead section), and directs readers to a corresponding discussion on the talk page. No such discussion exists — it refers to an old discussion that has long since been archived.
2. Inclusion of File:Picture_of_circumcision_operation_on_child.gif was entirely inappropriate, partly because of the apparent usage as a "shock tactic", but also because it is a copyright violation. According to this press release, the same image is copyrighted by the Saturday Evening Post.
3. Inclusion of an additional external link in the opposition section was made without discussion and without attempting to maintain the numerical balance of links.
4. Inclusion of a video was also inappropriate, because this video is not encyclopaedic. Careful watching reveals that the sound and picture appear to be unrelated to each other; the screaming appears to have been added after the picture was filmed.
5. Creation of a new external links subsection entitled "Circumcision studies and polls", containing a news article about an unnamed study, though presumably that of Lander et al., our 119th ref. This is utterly incomprehensible: the body of the article is the correct place to cite studies, not the external links section, and in this particular case it seems that we already cite the study anyway. Jakew (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I request that this picture be put back for three reasons. First, it was removed without discussion. Second, any 'shock' is a byproduct of the truth; that is how babies look being circucmised. Third, because the SEP has given permission for that set of images to be used.Frank Koehler (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm mildly curious, where did the Post do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Years ago I was given a duplicate set of all the images the SEP photographer took during that photo session in order to convert it to digital. I corrected the images for color cast at that time, the Ektachromes had shifted color with age. The image that was posted here looked to be one of those I had converted. At that time I contacted the SEP (now owned by Curtis in Indianapolis) and they gave permission to use that image without restriction or attribution. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That would not qualify as permission for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia would need direct conformation from the Saturday Evening Post, which is no doubt why the image was deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

Zinbarg said "You are bound by Wiki rules to leave the POV tag in place." [2]. Zinbarg: what rules specifically are you referring to, and how do they apply to this particular situation? The last time I looked, as far as I remember, I didn't find rules that seemed to clearly support keeping tags. I agree with Jakew that the tag should be removed if it doesn't refer to any currently active discussion. This has been discussed previously at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 53#Straw poll: should tags be removed?. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an old poll, though I found several issues there that are still problematic. Seems like the poll decided to leave the tag in place. I'm referring to Wiki rules on the how and why of POV tags.

In the short time I've worked on Circumcision, Discussion has tried and failed to fix several POV (pro-circ) issues. Specific to just the introduction: For example, HIV doesn't belong in the lead (this isn't a 'in the news' blog); HIV is a topic that's well covered in the body. On and on we find that it's a single UNAIDS/WHO article, why is it listed as two (pro-circ) publications?? The dates on the AMA and CDC UNAIDS/WHO are unusual for the article, but Jakew insists on including them to suggest the AMA is an old conclusion. Actually, I showed the medical assoc positions are unchanged and current, and the AMA statement is a current representation of the facts. But, listing all the relevant dates is blocked. Removing misleading dates is blocked. Use of the common term (and specific to the cited reference) genital mutilation is blocked. I could go on and on and on looking at prior Discussion pages. We've got lots of (pro-circ) POV in just the lead.

Then there's the general problem of insistance on pro/con equal representation. Jakew enforces an equal number of pro and anti circ positions in the article, though often not factual in nature. See Schoen's false claim for circ timing, for example. Also, see the silly list of external links, where lousy dregs of pro circ is presented while quality informational circ websites are blocked because Jakew finds them anti circ, and insists on equal representation. He's even got his own OLD personal lousy website listed as a pro circ link! See the discussion on bringing in additional links (Jakew finds anti, and blocks). Simply POV.

Please also look at Jakew's version of Sexual effects. I think he purposely makes it confusing frequently hogwash. He blocks a normal introduction, prevents presentation of the Sorrell's sensitivity graph, and enforces a table full of confusing junk studies (not stastically relelvant).

I'd be glad to work on those issues, and the POV tag must remain (by the rules).Zinbarg (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

---

(Note: I'm changing the indentation of the following comments, for readability. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

It's very difficult to understand the above, but as far as I can tell the issues seem to be:

• Inclusion of HIV in the lead. You state that "HIV is a topic that's well covered in the body", but this is not an argument against its inclusion in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD, which clearly indicates that important aspects should be discussed in the lead: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. ... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." (emph. added)

  Unindent reply: Please review the purpose and substance of introductions. HIV is text material, and is already covered in the intro by discusssing pro medical reasons (Schoen).Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Zinbarg, please read what you are replying to. I've quoted passages from WP:LEAD that state what an introduction should include, and they clearly note that the lead should include the important points of the body of the article. HIV is one of these points. (Also, I've asked you before not to insert your replies in the middle of my comments.) Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  When you reply in such length this is the only way to follow the discussion. Please be brief. Medical issues including HIV are already in the lead pro con by Schoen and Milos. HIV is a part of medical. I was suggesting you refer to a writing manual to see the purpose of an introduction.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mention of the authorship of the WHO/UNAIDS ref. That is a joint statement, authored by both organisations. If we only listed one organisation it would be misleading.

  Wiki lists as publications. You have it listed as two publications for pro-circ purposes. It's one joint statement and publication, and should be cited as such.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I've no objection in principle to re-phrasing the sentence. Please provide the text that you propose to use instead. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  HIV does not belong in the intro. The single publication should be listed as such in the text.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Inclusion of dates. This is necessary, at least for the AMA statement, because that statement refers explicitly to "all current policy statements". The date is therefore necessary to allow the reader to know when that was written. Dates for the other statements are probably less important, though it is helpful for the reader to know that they post-date the AMA statement.

  No, the dates are not normal (its' very rare to see dates in text) for Wiki; You force the exception because they mislead. The reader is mislead to think the medical assoc postitions are post CDC UNAIDS/WHO. Many are not (as I listed for you), and all include discovery about HIV. You mislead.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  As I stated, it is necessary to date the statement since the reader needs to know what the publication date in order to process what "current" means. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  No, current relevant is not 1999, but the dates of the individual assoc statements. Many are post HIV (CDC WHO/UNAIDS)findings, and all include essential HIV findings.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Describing circumcision as "genital mutilation" would violate WP:NPOV.

  That is THE common term, and it's what's employed by the cited reference; so it is not NPOV.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  No, Zinbarg, the common term for circumcision is "circumcision". Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  The term used by the cited reference is genital mutilation; so that term needs to be applied in the lead. Or find a better con representative (that doesn't use the term, good luck) It is also commonly used, and understood.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• You appear to object to including equal numbers of pro- and anti-circumcision positions. Again, see WP:NPOV.

  Facts are facts, and are not subject to counts. You evidently don't know what WP:NPOV means Jakew.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  We're not talking about facts, remember; we're talking about arguments. And to remain neutral we need to give equal weight to the various viewpoints. This is absolutely fundamental to WP:NPOV: please review that policy. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  We're taking about verifiable facts. Well supported arguments. You push viewpoints (opinions), which is different from presenting facts.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• You again object to including a claim of Schoen's, with which you disagree. As multiple editors have explained, it doesn't matter whether we think a claim is true or not. Please see WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

  I don't disagree. I presented a detailed study clearly finding Schoen statement wrong. Schoen is expressing his opinion, he cites no reference, and he's not based on fact as shown. Wiki is about verfiable facts. I've verifiabibly shown he's wrong.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  No, Zinbarg, you haven't shown that Schoen is wrong, nor have you presented a study that finds his statement to be wrong. All you have done is presented a study giving a different conclusion, but that doesn't prove that Schoen is wrong. Other studies (eg. Weiss et al) support Schoen's viewpoint. In any case it isn't our place to prove sources right or wrong; it is verifiable that he makes this argument, and that's all that matters. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Peer reviewed double blind research is more factual than an unsupported personal opinions. Weiss compares neonate with children, not neonate with infant (as with the study I presented).Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, re external links, you object to balanced coverage. See WP:NPOV. (Incidentally, I do not endorse the inclusion of circs.org, which was done by editors other than myself.)

  You and a few other editors evidently work as a team, so you get all credit. I object to suppressing facts and pushing false statements in the name of "equality." Most of the websites you find anti circ are simply informational ie not pro or con. You just want to push false pro info. Your website has very limited fact, all pro propaganda material, for example.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Zinbarg, it is extremely tiresome to deal with these repeated and absurd accusations regarding my motives. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I simply point to your actions. Let others judge motivations.

• You make vague accusations to the effect that I'm deliberately making another article "confusing frequently hogwash" (to quote your curiously nonsensical claim). I'm not going to bother to respond here, because it's completely irrelevant.

  You block an introduction to Sexual effects, evidently (from your statement) fearing presentation of clear facts!!! Your inclusion of studies that did not find statistically relelvant info should not be presented as relevant.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  None of which is relevant to this article. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Wiki has a similar problem (intro and biased content) in Sexual effects for the same reason (Jakew).Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, although it is clear that you're unhappy, you haven't shown any evidence of NPOV violations here. Jakew (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg, tags aren't methods of defacing articles when one has come out on the losing end of a Talk: page discussion. And one certainly cannot slap a WP:NPOV tag on an article because one wishes to violate WP:NPOV, but have been unsuccessful in doing so. The purpose of the NPOV tag is to (ideally) help remove violations of NPOV from articles, not, as you are proposing, to introduce them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I seek to work to make the article neutral. I have shown good faith trying. The article is currently propaganda, for the very specific reasons cited. The reader needs to be aware of disagreement among editors on specific issues. I have presented (and the poll agreed) several problems that I'm willing to work on. If Jakew and Jayg refuse neutrality, the tag remains.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg I don't think you have made a case for there being significant POV in this article, and there is discussion over any substantive points you have raised. Just hold off for a bit to decide what you think are major problems and post them here. Having the tag in the article benefits neither editors or readers at present. |→ Spaully ^τ 16:07, 14 April 2010 (GMT)

Spaully, do you think the current HIV paragraph belongs in the introduction? You'll find other reasons for the tag in the poll statements Talk:Circumcision/Archive 53#Straw poll: should tags be removed?. The vote came out in favor of the single tag. Those reasons remain as well.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Length of references

This article initially appears pretty lengthy but I notice that is largely due to the huge references section, almost half the page. I see that there are significant quotes from sources including peer reviewed journal articles in the list. I have not seen this to nearly the same extent in other articles and I am concerned that it increases the length while potentially posing problems with misrepresenting the source and infringing on their copyright.

In certain cases, such as reference 16, sections have been edited presumably to show what the author thinks are the salient points. This again raises problems with original research and synthesis.

The job in writing this article is, as far as is possible, to create a neutral summary of the information supported by sources but written as a summary. Using large quotes also brings the possibility of undue weight, especially where parts of the quotes are boldened.

I would suggest that people wanting to follow up on the sources should follow the links and have the opportunity to read the full paper and as such these quotes should be removed from the sources either altogether or used within the text if they are particularly informative. |→ Spaully ^τ 13:04, 14 April 2010 (GMT)

You will find Avi and Jakew responsible for creating the huge reference section. It serves their pro-circ propaganda purposes. It's another reason for the POV tag.Zinbarg (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we can probably get rid of most of the quotations in the references section without causing any problems. Jakew (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)