Talk:Circumcision

Circumstraint

Regarding this edit, many sources discuss the Circumstraint. I know that you know these sources are easily found in the most reliable publications,[1][2] so please rather than remove easily citable information without discussion in Talk, you at the very least could post a message here and point to the issue that it is easily citable with the most cursory search, as you are clearly aware. I would ask why you want to remove mention of the circumstraint, but I believe I would be accused of asking a question to which I already know the answer. Blackworm (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The existence of the Circumstraint is not the issue. The specific claim is that the "Circumstraint [is] commonly used". Neither of the two sources cited to date have supported this claim. The first was a questionable source (being an advertising page from the manufacturer) that said nothing of the kind (as noted in the edit summary of my first edit). The second reported that, in a study involving 48 participants, the Circumstraint was used. It says nothing about level of usage outside of the study, and I cannot think of any reason why 48 circumcisions would constitute common usage. Jakew (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

At least two out of three procedures in the Stanford training clips [[3]] used the circumstraint. You can't see if it's used in the third, but the baby legs are motionless. Training films. It's commonly used Jakew.

I can't find it right now, but I read a current study finding only 30% of selected large hospital circs used analgesia. They used the dorsal block in the Stanford films, but that leaves the ventral side almost unprotected. You can't do a circ without ring block pain control without a restraint.Zinbarg (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That may just mean that it's commonly used in Stanford training videos, Zinbarg. It doesn't prove that the Circumstraint is commonly used in circumcisions. Regardless, all this is original research; to meet the requirements of WP:V, what is needed is a source that specifically and explicitly makes the same claim. Jakew (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so; we need a reliable, indepedent source that makes that explicit claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The "claim" in question is a product of Wikipedia editors. We could go Jakew's way (at least the proposed way with "origins"), and start the sentence with, "a variety of devices have been used to perform male circumcision, among them..." Let's do that. Right, Jakew? Blackworm (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite see the merit, Blackworm. It seems to me that by doing that we would lose information: that being the existing (cited) information about the clamps being commonly used. Also, I think we would need a source saying that the Circumstraint is "used to perform" circumcision, since that seems inaccurate to me. Surgical instruments (including clamps) are used to perform circumcision. Circumstraints have more of a supporting role: they facilitate the process, sure, but they don't actually dictate the surgical technique. Jakew (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize not even a scalpel or any kind of cutting edge is mentioned? Really, Jake, consider taking a step back and looking at the paragraph. It looks like it's written by a circumcision promoter, except for a few phrases at the end, which are jarring considering the rest of the paragraph's incompleteness. You're actually arguing that it's better not to mention certain devices in a more general context at all, since doing so precludes more specific information specific to some devices. That's nonsensical; why would we necessarily even lose that information? Don't you have any imagination or effort at all you wish to spend on this problem? You can write, "A variety of devices have been used to perform male circumcision, among them [...]. Today in the Western world, clamps are among the instruments commonly used, among them the [...]." Your premise "surgical instruments [...] are used to perform" is irrelevant; lots of things are used that aren't mentioned, and in fact you're arguing that because it's used to perform it, it requires mention and the Circumstraint doesn't, even though the restraint chair is also used to perform it. That logic is wrong, Jake. I wouldn't be surprised if the restraint chair was mentioned in the medical textbooks' description of the procedure. Do you think I should go look, or will you confirm or deny that?

I don't see instruments as "dictating" the "surgical" technique (again Jake, no, it's not always surgical; please abide by WP:CONSENSUS). Again, you want to inexplicably insert the medical context up front, as the introduction, without even introducing that medical context or stating that we are in a Western medical context. That's not WP:NPOV, as I've told you over and over. If one cuts foreskin off a penis (or "ablates" since you deny without reliable sources that it's necessarily cutting), they've performed a circumcision, no matter what your opinion of the skill of the circumciser or their choice of instruments. Blackworm (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We're only interested in commonly used devices, per WP:UNDUE, and the sources don't indicate it's commonly used. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of WP:UNDUE. Quote the part of WP:UNDUE that underscores your point, please. What is the "point of view" we are unduly representing simply by mentioning this device, if we start the paragraph the way I propose above? Blackworm (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I imagine Jayjg means this part, Blackworm:

• Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it to be strictly your (flawed) analysis and judgement of the significance of an infant restraint chair to the group of devices used to perform circumcision that is at issue. Clearly if that were the driving emphasis in the paragraph, the cutting edge would be mentioned.For you, it seems, the "quantity of text" putting circumcision in any kind of negative light must be as near zero as possible, and you use undue quantity of text, undue prominence of placement (rendering all negativity to subarticles, for example), and undue depth of detail (zero to circumcision in the world, and 100% on Western medical circumcision of males only). Again, explain why we focus on clamps but not on the different devices used to sever the foreskin? The stark imbalance in that aspect's quantity of text etc. is striking, and underscores that this paragraph is teeming with WP:UNDUE weight as it stands. Blackworm (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide explicit evidence regarding the "significance" of this restraint device. Explicit evidence means a reliable source explicitly stating it is significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not, as that is an invented, arbitrary criterion. It doesn't apply to Jakew's laundry list of origins that "have been proposed," and thus it doesn't apply here, as I've said. Rather than repeating yourself, do you care the address the divide between Wikipedia policy and your arguments for suppressing this information? Blackworm (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy, regardless of whether or not you consider it to be "an invented, arbitrary criterion", and all editors must abide by it. The "divide" you speak of cannot really be addressed, as it is imaginary. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What's actually quite odd to me in this discussion is that during all this, the most common device, i.e., something that cuts the foreskin, like a knife or scalpel, isn't even mentioned. Should we address that first? Blackworm (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, Jake, if you can't see the merit in discussing the devices used for circumcision, even the ones used by studies in reliable sources, perhaps you've lost a bit of sight as to what makes an encyclopedia useful, in my humble opinion. Blackworm (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a source indicating that the Circumstraint is used reasonably frequently, I have no problem with writing an additional sentence (something like "To secure the infant during the procedure, devices such as the Circumstraint may be used.") But I think it is a mistake to try to discuss devices that are actually used in the circumcision procedure in the same sentence as those that merely play a supporting role. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Jake, I'm afraid you don't understand; they actually do sometimes use the Circumstraint and other infant restraint devices. You imply that the Circumstraint is not "actually used." That's equivocal. The restraint chair is actually used in the circumcision procedure, which requires preparation, and in the infant case, restraint of the subject. Your distinction "actually used" vs "supporting role" is arbitrary nonsense in the case of restraints versus clamps. To you, apparently, the thing that first isolates the healthy tissue to be removed, then reduces bleeding after a different, unmentioned device is used to cut off the foreskin is "actually used in the circumcision procedure;" while the thing that straps the baby down so he doesn't writhe away in pain is not "actually used" but has a supporting role is unworthy of mention. It's nonsense. The people that read Wikipedia are adults; they're allowed to know that the baby is strapped in a chair and that a cutting edge is used. The information is basic and therefore shouldn't be obfuscated. Blackworm (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, do you have any comment about the sentence I mentioned: "To secure the infant during the procedure, devices such as the Circumstraint may be used"? Jakew (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As your suggestion was conditional on "reasonably frequently," I addressed that condition, rather than your suggestion. Do you have any response? Blackworm (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The gist of your post (dated 04:34, 6 February 2010) seems to be that you take issue with my distinction between actual use and a supporting role. Arguing over this distinction seems a waste of time, since writing two sentences is harmless from either perspective, so it seems more productive to do so rather than have a pointless debate. If you addressed frequency of use at all, I'm afraid I can't find reference to it. Would you rephrase your comments about frequency so that I can address them? Jakew (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's write the two sentences then, if you agree. Blackworm (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I see a source asserting some reasonable frequency of use, certainly. Jakew (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Circumstraint is well established as the "standard" restraint tool for most infant circumcisions.

"Restraint involved strapping each newborn to a standard circumstraint board" [4]

"The new Olympic Circumstraint is even more versatile and functional than the popular model purchased by over 11,000 hospitals throughout the world... Circumstraint has become the infant immobilization standard..." [5]

I don't see the need to remove something which is well known and established as one of the primary tools in infant circumcision for more than a decade. I think it would be wiser to argue about questionable article material instead of things like this (IMHO).--Studiodan (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't access the first link, but the sentence you quote above doesn't indicate that the Circumstraint is the standard restraint device. Rather, it indicates that infants were restrained using a standard (as opposed to modified, or otherwise non-standard) device. (Similarly, "Circumcisions were performed using a standard swiss army knife" would not imply that swiss army knives were the standard method, but would simply indicate that the knives were standard-issue.) The second link is an example of a questionable source, since it is promotional in nature. Jakew (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you are well aware that the Circumstraint is the standard restraint device used around the western world. Are you actually disputing that?--Studiodan (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's in bold in the original for a reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That burden has been met. These reliable sources show that the circumcision restraint board is a device that has been used to help cut off foreskins, and has been used in studies in reliable sources. I'm also afraid the article information is quite visible on the linked page, as are the other sources presented. Blackworm (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Olympic Medical's Circumstraint infant holder is widely used for infant circumcision."[6]

"Infants were then moved from their isolettes to a standard circumstraint board"[7]

"Restraint involved strapping each newborn to a standard circumstraint board"[8]

"Circumstraint has become the infant immobilization standard'..."[9]

Everyone here already knows it's the standard. What are we arguing about exactly? Come now... This is quite the waste of time.

--Studiodan (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The first of the sources you list is a patent application, written by the manufacturer with no editorial oversight. It is therefore insufficiently reliable. The second uses the term "standard circumstraint board", which as I explained above simply means unmodified in this context. The third and fourth I've already commented on in my post dated 21:02, 8 February 2010. So do you actually have any reliable sources that assert that the Circumstraint is regularly used? Jakew (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan, you need to provide reliable secondary sources that explicitly state that it is "the standard restraint device used around the western world". Both are required, reliable secondary sources, and explicitly stating it. So far you've provided none. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to provide anything which explicitly says this, because nowhere in the article did it say this... I'm saying it here, because I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. What I have provided is four sources which show that it's at least one standard. I've asked before, but I'll ask again... Are you (and/or Jake) actually implying that you are not aware that the Circumstraint is the standard restraining device used in infant circumcision? I'm curious what the actual reason is for wanting this omitted.--Studiodan (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite positive that not "everyone knows it" regarding this product. There are almost 7 billion people in the world, and I can confidently state that the overwhelming majority have never heard of it. The actual reasons for wanting to "omit" mention of this device are exactly as stated above, and relate entirely to policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cannot believe what I'm reading here. All infant medical circumcision uses a restraining device, of necessity, with the Circumstraint being the most popular since the 1960s. There is surely no argument over this obvious fact. The wording in question is devices "such as", surely not too bold a claim. Johncoz (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Have made the addition, with a link to a description of the device, so that the reader knows what is being talked about. Johncoz (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted, since the source you cited is promotional material from the manufacturer, and is thus a questionable source of insufficient reliability. Jakew (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the source. "After the infant was placed on the restraint board (Circumstraint, Olympic Medical, Seattle, Wash)"[[10]]--Studiodan (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a better source, but it doesn't support the claim attributed to it. It doesn't state that the Circumstraint is commonly used, or anything of the kind. It only mentions the Circumstraint once, indicating that it was used for the 119 circumcisions performed as part of the study. I guess it might support a claim such as: "In a study involving 119 circumcisions, the Circumstraint was used." Jakew (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, the "source" was merely illustrative of what a circumstraint board looks like. The text simply says that infants are restrained as part of the procedure, as indicated in the main source (Holman) and innumersble others, and Circumstraint is one of those devices (almost certainly the main one, but the peer-reviewed lit won't tell you that because it's just taken for granted). It is simply a preposterous misuse of Wiki policy to seek to delete all mention of restraint devices. Johncoz (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source that supports the claim attributed to it, and it won't be deleted. Jakew (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

REPEAT: Infant restraint is not an issue (already in Holman). All the text is saying is that the Circumstraint board is one of the devices used, and the sources back that up. Johncoz (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYN. What is needed is a single reliable source that explicitly states that the Circumstraint is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't patronise. No claim is made about "commonly used". The text says "such as", ie the Circumstraint board is an EXAMPLE. Johncoz (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some further examples of the Circumstraint being used. These are just a few from a quick Google search with 10,700 hits.

"Restraint, which involved strapping newborns to a circumstraint board for 20 min"

Adrenocortical and behavioral responses to limb restraint in human neonates.

Dev Psychobiol. 1985 Sep;18(5):435-46. PMID: 4065431 [[11]]

"The infants were then strapped to a circumcision board (CIRCUMSTRAINT; Olympic Surgical Co., Seattle, WA) and prepared and draped in a sterile manner."

Topical Lidocaine-Prilocaine Versus Lidocaine for Neonatal Circumcision: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Obstetrics & Gynecology: May 1999 - Vol 93 - Issue 5, Part 1 - p 775-779 [[12]]

"The restraint device that was used remained the Circumstraint (Olympic Medical Corporation, Seattle, WA), a rigid molded-plastic platform that restrains the infants’ extremities in a position of extension."

"data from this study clearly demonstrate a 50% reduction of distress during the procedure from the use of a physiologically designed, cushioned soft circumcision chair over the rigid plastic restraint (Circumstraint)."

Beyond Dorsal Penile Nerve Block: A More Humane Circumcision

Pediatrics 1997;100;e3 DOI: 10.1542/peds.100.2.e3 [[13]][[14]]

"Circumcisions were performed...restraint of the infant by a circumcision board (Circumstraint, Olympic Surgical, Seattle)"

Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine–Prilocaine Cream for Pain during Circumcision

The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336:1197-1201, April 24, 1997, No. 17 [[15]]

"...restrained on a circumcision restraint device (Circumstraint, Olympic Medical, Seattle, WA)."

Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision

Journal of Perinatology, April/May 2002, Volume 22, Number 3, Pages 214-218 [[16]]

"After the infant was placed on the restraint board (Circumstraint, Olympic Medical, Seattle, Wash)"

Neonatal Circumcision: Randomized Trial of a Sucrose Pacifier for Pain Control

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 152 No. 3, March 1998 [[17]]

"The Olympic Circumstraint is manufactured by Olympic Medical of 4400 Seventh South, Seattle, Washington. This is one of a number of medical supply houses that produce equipment that will secure a male infant..."

Circumcision: The Pros And Cons

Originally published, Journeymen Magazine, Fall 1992 [[18]]

"'Circumstraint' board: used for infants."

BC Health Pays to Restore Man's Foreskin

The Tyee, Amanda Euringer, 25 Jul 2006 [[19]]

"a circumstraint, the immobilizing device used in hospital circumcisions"

Text of Talk to Rabbi Nathan Segal's Congregation

American Circumcision and Brit Milah in 2003, Mark D. Reiss, M.D. [[20]]

"how a typical medical circumcision is performed. First the child, after 9 months in the fetal position, is tied down spreadeagled and straight-backed in a circumstraint..."

Male Circumcision in the USA: A Human Rights Primer

Rich Winkel 12 May 2005 [[21]]

"A molded plastic board with Velcro straps called a Circumstraint board is used to restrain the baby."

Circumcision: Techniques, Results, Complications

Anonymous letter to Dan Savage, sex columnist, October 2004 [[22]]

"Such As" is clearly demonstrable, just pick a source.--Studiodan (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The same problem continues. None of these sources, as far as I can tell, satisfies the requirements of WP:RS and state that the Circumstraint is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Such As" not "Commonly Used". The following source shows that an infant must be restrained (listing a device "such as" is complimentary to that).

"Infant will be placed on restraint board or chair with extremities restrained using padded Velcro straps."

PROCEDURE FOR: Circumcision

NICU/NBN – Unit Practice Manual[[23]]

The University of Connecticut Health Center

I will add this citation.--Studiodan (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it shows that infants are restrained as standard practice in circumcisions performed by the University of Connecticut Health Center, which is not the same as showing that they are restrained in all circumcisions. And it does not refer to the Circumstraint at all, so since we cannot perform synthesis, it tells us nothing about whether the Circumstraint is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That citation does not mention the Circumstraint, it mentions restraint, which is why I put it right after "restraining device" (not Circumstraint). The point is that it shows that the infant must be restrained. After that, the Circumstraint is listed as a "device SUCH AS". It does not say "commonly used". I only mentioned "commonly used" on the talk page here (because it's common knowledge among those who talk here), it's not in the article.--Studiodan (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I have moved the citation to group with the others, since all that is being claimed in relation to Circumstraint is that is an example of a restraining device, the general existence and necessity of which is confirmed by Holman Johncoz (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is presented as an example of a device that is commonly used, and since none of the sources support this, they will all be removed in accordance with policy. Jakew (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is presented as an example of an infant restraining device, which it is. Therefore, no conflict with policy. Johncoz (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It says "...commonly used, together with a restraining device, such as a Circumstraint." It doesn't say "commonly used, such as a Circumstraint." It says "together with a restraining device" and then "such as". The current claim in the article is that a restraining device is commonly used... not that the Circumstraint is commonly used. The Circumstraint is an example, hence the "such as".--Studiodan (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, a second reversion by you would be verging on edit warring, given the good faith attempts by others to improve this section of the article. Any positive input about how to discuss infant restraint would, I'm sure, be appreciated. Johncoz (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand. When you say "a second reversion by you would be verging on edit warning" are you speaking of something I've done, or preemptively warning me? And are you speaking of reverts or edits or both? My apologizes for not understanding... I'm a little confused, Thanks.--Studiodan (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, comment was to Jake, not you Johncoz (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To assert that A is commonly used together with B is to assert that B is commonly used. The Circumstraint is then given as an example of a restraining device that is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What is commonly used, according to the sense of the sentence, is an infant restraining device (and quite frankly under NPOV this is a statement equivalent to the sun will rise tomorrow). Then COMMA "such as". Personally, I have no idea about the relative frequency of different makes and models of such devices, nor do I care. But we have lots and lots and lots of evidence that the Circumstraint is pretty common, not just in Connecticut, or some study, or wherever. So using it as an example seems not particularly extraordinary, and certainly violates no known policy that I can see.Johncoz (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence structure is such that it is implied that the Circumstraint is commonly used. Making such an assertion (even by implication) violates WP:V without a source that explicitly says so.

Given the apparent difficulty in finding a reliable source that asserts that the Circumstraint is commonly used, I would suggest that an alternative might be to find a source asserting that restraining devices are commonly used (this might be somewhat easier, I imagine). We could then write: "For infant circumcision, devices such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen clamp are commonly used,[Holman] in addition to a device to restrain the infant during the procedure.[New ref]" Jakew (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Holman explicitly deals with infant positioning and restraint, or does it not to your satisfaction? The Circumstraint board is merely an example of this. I suspect it's the most widely sold device, but there's no way of knowing for sure, and certainly no source to that effect, so I'm happy to leave it as an illustrated example of the sort of device in use (the others are pretty similar eg Sten chair, a moulded plastic board with strap limb restraints) Johncoz (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find any reference to restraint in Holman. Would you mind quoting the passage you mean? I can find a reference to positioning of the infant ("Measures for creating an aseptic field, anesthesia and positioning of the infant do not vary with the technique selected.") but it would seem difficult to use. I suppose we could add a sentence along the lines of "measures may be taken to position the infant", but that seems so vague that I'm unsure it would be worthwhile.

The most usable source that I can think of is Wiswell's Circumcision Circumspection (Wiswell TE. Circumcision circumspection. N Engl J Med. 1997 Apr 24;336(17):1244-5), in which he describes circumcision techniques in general use in the United States, stating "The infant is typically strapped to a restraining board..." That would seem to support the contention that a restraining device is commonly used, though of course it does not name the Circumstraint specifically and should not be used to suggest otherwise.

As for the Circumstraint itself, the current sentence structure implies that the Circumstraint is commonly used, and as noted that violates WP:V because none of the sources make that assertion. I did consider proposing that the Circumstraint might be mentioned in a separate sentence (eg., "An example of a restraining device is the Circumstraint."); however I decided against proposing that as it would shift the problem from a WP:V problem to a WP:UNDUE one. If we lack reliable sources asserting that the Circumstraint is widely used then the best approach is simply not to mention it. Jakew (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just gone back to Holman myself, and I agree. Happy to use Wiswell, thanx for the suggestion (do you want to add the citation?). Which leaves us with Circumstraint, and I would maintain that the current sentence carries no implication beyond illustrative, ie it is merely an example of such a restraint and it is restraint in general which is "commonly used". Johncoz (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't think that the problems with that sentence could be solved by merely adding the citation; I think a rewrite is needed that removes the existing sources and replaces them with one making the actual claim. Although the intent may be to illustrate an example, the implication is that the Circumstraint is commonly used (mostly this is implied by the sentence, but also of course it would make little sense to cite an example that is infrequently used, so the fact that it is used as an example at all has implications). That represents a WP:V problem, and one that must be addressed. Wikipedia is an NPOV encyclopaedia, not a marketing agency employed by the manufacturer, and we should not imply that the Circumstraint is the standard device, or otherwise give that product such preferential treatment, unless we have reliable sources that make an assertion about its frequency of use. Jakew (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Wiswell gives us restraint as a general proposition, so we are now dealing with the sentence fragment ", such as a Circumstraint." which seems to me to be no more than an illustration. That's what the sentence means, and to read into this "preferential treatment" for a manufacturer is quite frankly absurd. The reader has right to know what we are talking about, concretely, and we have a responsibility to tell them as best we can. It's hardly an endorsement (which is presumably why you fighting so hard to exclude it) Johncoz (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Will be AFK for a few hours, will return to this discussion later. Johncoz (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would we highlight the Circumstraint™ device, if it's not commonly used? We're not here to advertise for these products. And to answer previous question, no, I have no idea if it's commonly used. But if you're looking for personal experience, I can say that I have witnessed several circumcisions, and never seen it used. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the accumulated evidence from the literature (see above discussion) is that it is exceedingly common, though for obvious reasons you won't find a single secondary source to say so, since it is just part of the "background" equipment, as it were. Solution is to refer to it as an example of such a device (and of course not simply used for circs) while remaining neutral on how commonly used it may be. Johncoz (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The "accumulated evidence from the literature" is original research based on the use of a few Google links as primary sources. And by the way, an anonymous letter to a sex columnist, posted on an anti-circumcision website, is not a strong source no matter how you look at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, how many non-religious circumcisions of newborns have you witnessed in a hospital? No one has suggested that a Circumstraint is used for a brit milah. DanBlackham (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And why are we advertising Plastibell™ or Gomco™ without evidence of how commonly used they are? Because we are actually know that these devices together with the Circumstraint, form part of the standard equipment for most infant circumcisions. Johncoz (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the citation used explicitly states that those devices are commonly used. That would be completely different from the case above, where you advertise a product, and actually link to the vendor's marketing material. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How commonly? Mogen in hospitals? Let's apply some common sense here. Neonates need to be restrained during the procedure, the literature clearly shows the Circumstraint board is widely used, and we provide a link to show what this thing (and indeed all similar devices) look like. What's the problem? Johncoz (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Johncoz, Wikipedia's primary content policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, and all articles must adhere to them. That's the problem. Now, per those policies, please provide explicit evidence from reliable sources that the Circumstraint™ device is widely used. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I find it interesting that you would edit-war in the mention of the Circumstraint™ device, with the admonition please do not edit war. Was the irony there intentional or unintentional? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Found proof so we can say common [[24]] In the second sentence under Technique find "After the infant is restrained," and we only know of the circumstraint to restrain.Zinbarg (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The source never even mentions the Circumstraint™ device. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Circumcstraint (when capitalized) is a patented, trademarked commercial device. Mentioning it might turn the article into a advertisement. To complicate things, the circumstraint(not capitalized) has become the generic term for all infant limb restraint devices, even when used for other surgical or medical procedures. While most infants circumcised in a medical setting are restrained with some sort of device, we can't say this is always true. Some clinics might very well still use the aid of a nurse to restrain the infant. Prior to circa 1955 this is how all infants were restrained, and many are still restrained this way in traditional circumcisions in the US and around the world. Frank Koehler (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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."[25] 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)

Wilson

Please leave this as a new discussion.

Here's Blackworms prior comments (cited by Jakew below, so pasted here) :

You're right, you didn't introduce the cite. You did move it though, which implies agreement that it is a reliable source. It is a reliable source, and not "blatant POV" to be banned from this article because it uses the word mutilation. Correct? In any case, there is potentially another big, big problem. You changed the article text from saying that it persisted from an evolutionary standpoint due to it having reduced adultery (de facto), to it having begun that way as a means to reduce adultery. I'm not sure that's a proper reflection of the source. First, it seems that MGM and circumcision are not used synonymously by this source. That poses a problem for us. It describes circumcision as a form of MGM:[6] Male genital mutilation (MGM) is any permanent modification of the external genitalia that involves the ablation of tissue and is normative for all males within a society (Murdock, 1967). MGM is present in a substantial minority of pre-industrial human societies and predates recorded history (Dunsmuir & Gordon, 1999). The form of the prescribed mutilation varies among societies. The least extreme is superincision: a longitudinal bisection of the dorsal foreskin. Superincision occurs in Southeast Asia and the insular Pacific (e.g., Shapiro, 1930). The most widespread is circumcision: the ablation of the entire foreskin. Thus unless they're specifically discussing circumcision and adultery, and as a proposed origin, not something that made it persist, your edit is not accurate. The word "adultery" doesn't appear in the source at all. They discuss polygyny, though: Although MGM is indeed predicted to reduce the frequency of EPCs ["extra-pair copulations" -BW] by reducing their payoff and desirability, it is also predicted to arise disproportionately in societies with an inherently high underlying expectation of EPCs due to frequent polygyny and distantly residing co-wives. Thus the talk of "adultery" seems like free added POV, which you apparently didn't add, but copied without reading the source, and well, I can't any talk about reducing adultery being proposed as an origin for male circumcision; the reliable source discusses Male Genital Mutilation, one form of which is male circumcision. Where did you read that reducing adultery was proposed in the article? Do you have a quote?

Blackworm, Here's a good quote for the word adultery: "Wilson, who works with Paul Sherman, Cornell professor of neurobiology and behavior, says that genital cutting may limit extramarital sex."[[26]]Zinbarg (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't what I removed when I mentioned Blackworm's objection. This was my actual edit. See Blackworm's comment in this section, dated 07:26, 4 February 2010, in which he stated:

In any case, there is potentially another big, big problem. You changed the article text from saying that it persisted from an evolutionary standpoint due to it having reduced adultery (de facto), to it having begun that way as a means to reduce adultery. I'm not sure that's a proper reflection of the source.

Since the section of the article is entitled "origins", it is clear that material discussing persistence, rather than origins, does not belong. Jakew (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I read Wilson again, and new articles about the research. It's about BOTH origins and persistance. Signal theory, and "compliance with social assignment for reproduction" speak to origins. Here are two relevant quotes:

The signaling theory of ritual (Irons, 2001; Rappaport, 1999; Sosis, 2004) was developed as an evolutionary explanation for ritual behavior that is physically or financially costly. Irons (2001) noted that the considerable costs incurred by many ritual behaviors may allow them to function as honest signals of commitment to a social group. Only truly committed individuals are prepared to pay the costs, which can be recouped through the increased willingness of group members to trust and cooperate with the signaler. Cheating is prevented because the benefits of trust and cooperation extend only to those who have conformed with the costly ritual. Sosis and colleagues have provided empirical support for this view (Sosis, 2000; Sosis, Kress & Boster, 2007; Sosis & Ruffle, 2003). I propose a hypothesis that integrates the signaling theory of ritual with principles of sexual selection. (page 3, [[27]])

And in the Conclusion,

..."function as hard-to fake signals of compliance with the social assignment of reproduction. Genital mutilations may impair the evolved capacity for extra-pair fertilizations, decreasing paternity uncertainty and reproductive conflict, and garnering trust and social investment from powerful married men."

And a new proposed sentence for Origins, please comment:

Wilson states that circumcision arose and persisted because it serves evolutionary purpose by reducing the incidence of extramarital sex.Zinbarg (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything about origins in there. Can you show me where you mean? Jakew (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also don't support the inclusion of this comment, I don't know who this wilson guy is but this comment seems to be a fringe position and unless there is some support from other experts in the field the comment should not be inserted. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look into the "signaling theory of ritual" Jakew; It's origins. And in the conclusion, "compliance with social assignment" likewise is active and speaks to origins. I've keep from adding controversy (not using MGM, for example).

Off2riorob, please read the Wilson article so you can comment accurately. Wilson hails from a great university, the research is peer reviewed and published in a great periodical. Easily meets Wiki standards. As for "support from other experts," that's easy; please see news articles about the study:[[28]][[29]][[30]]

Here's the actual study: [[31]]Zinbarg (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where Wilson discusses origins, Zinbarg. Jakew (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. I already did above. See the qoutes from Wilson. Signaling theory of ritual is active. Circumcision began as a ritual that signals "social assignment" in a group. Circ then persisted because it provided evolutionary benefit. I really can't see why you object to Wilson. I've made sure the sentence is neutral.Zinbarg (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is he respected and supported by other experts or is his a fringe minority opinion? In one of the reports above is the claim you are wanting to insert that circumcision is beneficial to men having less extra marital affairs but wilson's comments are broader than that and talk of genital mutilation as resulting in this and not simply circumcision. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Neither of the quotes refer to the origins of circumcision, nor how it began. Does Wilson refer to either explicitly? Jakew (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riobob, I'm sorry, I may not understand your second sentence. I think the answer is that there are other behaviors that originated and persisted because they have the same anti adultery effects. The fact that he finds analogous rituals helps confirm his hypothesis. Wilson is respected by other experts, as you see in the news articles.

Jakew, please see the last sentence in Wilson's Hypothesis section "I propose a hypothesis that integrates the signaling theory of ritual with principles of sexual selection." Signaling behavior was the origin, then integrated with the idea of evolutionary benefit.Zinbarg (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg, I have read that sentence, and it says nothing about origins. It doesn't even mention origins. Now, let me repeat my earlier question: does Wilson refer to the origins of circumcision explicitly? Jakew (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wilson refers to origins explicitly by using the signaling theory of ritual.Zinbarg (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You know I see a point you're making, because the sentence should include that term to fit "Origins". Or, we could change Origins back to just History. How's this sentence?

Wilson states that circumcision arose as a signal of commitment to a group, and persisted because it serves evolutionary purpose by reducing the incidence of extramarital sex.Zinbarg (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Wilson does not make any specific reference to how circumcision arose, so I think that would be a misrepresentation of the source. Removing the "Origins" subheading would probably help, and would address my primary objection to citing Wilson, but it would still be necessary to accurately represent his hypothesis. Jakew (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. Wilson makes specific reference to how circumcision arose in 2. Hypothesis:

"The signaling theory of ritual (Irons, 2001; Rappaport, 1999; Sosis, 2004) was developed as an evolutionary explanation for ritual behavior that is physically or financially costly. Irons (2001) noted that the considerable costs incurred by many ritual behaviors may allow them to function as honest signals of commitment to a social group. Only truly committed individuals are prepared to pay the costs, which can be recouped through the increased willingness of group members to trust and cooperate with the signaler. Cheating is prevented because the benefits of trust and cooperation extend only to those who have conformed with the costly ritual. Sosis and colleagues have provided empirical support for this view (Sosis, 2000; Sosis, Kress & Boster, 2007; Sosis & Ruffle, 2003). I propose a hypothesis that integrates the signaling theory of ritual with principles of sexual selection."

Wilson explicitly states that circumcision arose as a signal of commitment to a group (when he integrates with signaling theory). We should remove Origins, and just leave it History. See the latest sentence under the new heading. If not, Please suggest a sentence you will accept.Zinbarg (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)