Talk:Circumcision

The problem with language deemed offensive such as "Uncircumcised"

We should always avoid using words that are considered derogatory.

DICTIONARY ALTERNATIVE WORDS FOR UNCIRCUMCISED:

• antichristian (Webster's)
• christless (Webster's)
• crusted (Webster's)
• ethnical (Webster's)
• pagan (Webster's)
• remorseless (Webster's)
• infidel (Webster's)
• heathenish (Webster's)
• heretical (Webster's)
• merciless (Webster's)
• miscreant (Webster's)
• not purified (Collins)
• pagan (Webster's)
• profane (Webster's)
• rude (Webster's)
• undeveloped (Webster's)
• unorthodox (Webster's)
• barbarous (Webster's)
• bestial (Webster's)
• heathen (Webster's)
• miscreant (Webster's)
• ethnical (Webster's)
• unchristian (Webster's)
• uncharitable (Webster's)
• unregenerate (Dictionary.com)

UNCIRCUMCISED IMPLIES:

• Unfinished
• Incomplete
• Lacking something
• Confers a sense of inferiority
• Not Yet circumcised
• No longer circumcised

POSITIONS:

• Circumcised = Positive
• Uncircumcised = Negative

WE DON'T CALL PEOPLE:

• Un-beheaded (someone who wasn't beheaded)
• Un-wheelchair-bound (a motorcyclist who isn't in a wheelchair)
• Undead (someone who isn't dead)

OTHER PROBLEMS:

• Uncircumcised isn't a non-neutral word

SAFE ALTERNATIVES:

• Not Circumcised
• Non-Circumcised
• Without circumcision

OTHER PROBLEM WORDS WE AVOID IN THIS ARTICLE (that have the same problem as Uncircumcised):

• Mutilated
• Intact

The Dutch KNMG does not use the word "uncircumcised" in their latest policy statement. It's very clear that such a word that can be considered offense is being intentionally avoided. This is also true of the British Medical Associations statement "The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors"

In addition to this. Groups that oppose cicumcision have replaced the word "uncircumcised" with alternative words, precicely because the word is deemed offensive.

"We must stop using the word uncircumcised, which suggests that circumcision is normal. [...] Defining an intact male as uncircumcised is like defining an intact woman as 'unclitoridectomized.'"

"Term [uncircumcised] commonly substituted for the correct description of the normal condition of the penis: intact. Obviously pejorative if compared to analogous terms such as "unmastectomized," "unappendectomized," and "unclitoridectomized." Also used somewhat tongue-in-cheek but descriptively by restoring men in reference to a circumcised penis that has undergone foreskin restoration."

Jake wrote: " I'm not the one proposing to treat one kind of penis as 'normal' and the other 'abnormal'."

But that's exactly what someone is doing when they propose to use the word uncircumcised. This is precisely the reason we should avoid such a word when it's not cited in a source we are directly referencing (which doesn't apply to these images).

Again, we don't use the words "mutilated" or "intact" if they are not cited in the source we are referencing. For the same reason, we CANNOT use the word "uncircumcised", otherwise we open the floodgate to allow those words ("mutilated" & "intact") as well.--Studiodan (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

sub-section break between argument and responses to it

Okay, let's address these issues one by one. First, the list of synonyms are for the "heathen" sense of uncircumcised which, as has been noted above, is archaic and obviously inapplicable.

Next, you haven't provided any sources in support of your claim regarding what "uncircumcised" implies, so there seems little point in responding to them.

Nor have you provided any sources in support of your "POSITIONS" claim.

What we don't call people is irrelevant. The English language is quirky. Sometimes the "un-" prefix is used, sometimes not.

You haven't cited any sources under "OTHER PROBLEMS" either.

The "SAFE ALTERNATIVES" are absurd since there is nothing wrong with the word "uncircumcised". Good writing requires economy.

It is quite ridiculous to allege that the KNMG and BMA "deliberately avoid" the use of the word "uncircumcised". There is no way for us to know why words are not used.

Regarding activist groups, it is quite common for those to attempt to use language to reframe debates in their favour (hence "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in the abortion debate). Since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, we should be careful to avoid doing the same.

Finally, no, using the word "uncircumcised" does not imply that one type of penis is normal and the other abnormal. It simply describes the state of not being circumcised. Jakew (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised" so there can be hardly any doubt what is "normal". Richiez (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Both must be considered as normal. Jakew (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

unmodified? Anyway, un-cir-cum-ci-sed is considered absurd here. The absurdly overlong description may be the best option. I would not object if all fotorealistic images were removed anyway. Richiez (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How about 'Circumcised penis', and 'Penis with foreskin intact'? Mish (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

maybe this: "normal circumcised penis" vs "normal penis with foreskin". Richiez (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a neutral, concise, and correct term ("uncircumcised"), there is no need to look for alternatives. Jakew (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a neutral, concise, and correct term - "normal".Richiez (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And it applies to both circumcised and uncircumcised penes, so using it is somewhat pointless. Jakew (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll go through your objections to the arguments one at a time.

Uncircumcised is commonly used to refer to a negative, unclean, godless state, in numerous biblical, religious and cultural references. This cannot be dismissed. A simple google search for "uncircumcised" turns up about 1/3 to 1/2 of all results in this religious and cultural negative (clearly offensive) context.

What uncircumcised implies is clear in the use of the prefix. According to Wiktionary, you are using prefix definition #1. However, the problem is prefix definition #2 which refers to "absent" or "lacking" (matching a specific religious and cultural definition of the word that is common throughout the world).

The prefix Un- is defined as a Negative prefix.

What we call people is relevant. Use of language is important. If it isn't, we can use language such as "intact" or "mutilated".

Obviously "uncircumcised" isn't a neutral word. This was demonstrated above.

The safe alternatives aren't "absurd" because there is a clear problem with the offensive word "uncircumcised".

What words the KNMG and BMA use and avoid are important to this discussion, as they represent trends from certain cultures that are not generally in favor of circumcision. Without taking this into account, we cannot maintain NPOV.

Activists groups are usually first to note offensive language that should be avoided. The very fact that this word has been noted to be offensive by activist groups alone may not be a good enough reason to avoid the use of the word, but with the rest of the evidence, it supports the fact that this word is deemed offensive by many.

And finally, yes, "uncircumcised "does imply that one type is normal and the other is abnormal by use (and definition) of the prefix alone, further supported by dictionary definitions of the word, lack of use in not circumcised cultures, use of language in general, and much more (mentioned above, and not mentioned above).--Studiodan (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, it has already been explained that the archaic religious sense ("heathen", etc) is inapplicable, because penes don't have religious convictions, and because the context of the article is circumcision, not religion.

Regarding the second, multiple dictionaries provide definitions for "uncircumcised" as well as the prefix-less "circumcised". Every dictionary definition that I've seen defines "uncircumcised" as "not circumcised" (or equivalent). I have not seen any that define it as "lacking circumcision". The interpretation that you're offering is contrary to established usage. Jayjg makes an excellent point above regarding "unambiguous", which means "not ambiguous", but does not imply that ambiguity is lacking or that ambiguity ought to be present.

It's negative in the sense of negating the meaning of the word, yes. That doesn't mean it's negative in the sense of implying that something is bad.

You haven't demonstrated that "uncircumcised" isn't neutral, nor that it is offensive.

Once again, we cannot read anything into words that aren't used by a source. This is basic logic.

Finally, activist groups are not neutral observers, and have an interest in changing society. They often choose to try to change language in order to achieve their agenda, and may deem words to be "offensive" if the words do not serve that agenda. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, however, and we are not in the business of trying to change the English language. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have strong objections to call 70% of worlds male population by names that a substantial share of the readers of this article can neither spell nor pronounce. I do even object if someone tries to provide pronunciation examples. I do not call you a homo sapiens even if it is a perfectly valid name for every one of us. You would be surprised how many people will be offended if you would dare to call them homo sapiens.

Did you realise that wikipedia has a page called uncircumcision? So this is absolutely not acceptable. Richiez (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)

Is that an argument? It makes no sense, sorry. Jakew (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So Jakew you say it is best to describe the a penis that has not been circumcised as one that has underogone uncircumcision. Is that your logic? Richiez (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Uncircumcision appears to be a redirect to foreskin restoration, though this appears to be incorrect. "Uncircumcision" is actually a noun, meaning the state of being uncircumcised (see here). "Uncircumcised" means "not circumcised". Jakew (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What is "wrong"? I can follow your argument. On the other hand you can not deny that a penis that has undergone uncircumcision is uncircumcised by definition. Richiez (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What's "wrong" is your misrepresentation of my argument. I would certainly agree that a penis that has undergone foreskin restoration has a restored foreskin, but I would question whether "uncircumcision" is the correct term to describe such a procedure, and I would think that using "uncircumcised" to describe such a penis would be unwise, due to the well-established sense of "uncircumcised" to mean "not circumcised". Foreskin restoration does not appear to be listed as a meaning of "uncircumcision" in the dictionary entry that I cited. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcision" is not my invetnion - PMID 9623850. "uncircumcised" is not identical to "not circumcised". The definition is lets say ambiguous. Richiez (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps it is a neologism that hasn't yet achieved mainsteam usage. Either way, I haven't been able to find a dictionary listing "having undergone foreskin restoration" as a sense of "uncircumcised". Jakew (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of dictionary listings, this one here appears seriously confused. Think about it twice - does that make any sense to you? Richiez (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------

Jake. Every single one of your arguments here fail.

Your first point is a non-sequitur to this argument. The point is that the word "uncircumcised" is an offensive word under many definitions, and they are COMMON definitions as well!

The problem with your second point is that the word "uncircumcised" is already avoided in many settings because of its offensive implications.

Calling my point an interpretation is ridiculous. I'm not offering any special interpretation by saying the word is offensive, because it's already established in the dictionary. Its offensive context is already in established use as a negative term and has been for thousands of years. Additional problems with implications of the meaning via its prefix (and the thousands of people who have a problem with the word for that reason) only add to the problem.

It's a negative in both contexts, which have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your argument is that the word is the common word, and I've shown that it's often avoided. You missed the point.

I never said wiki is a vehicle for activism. The word is already established beyond a reasonable doubt to be offensive. The very fact that it's deemed offensive by activist groups as well only builds upon the rest of the facts. It's not a special case.--Studiodan (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2010

First of all, the reason why my first point is relevant is that the list of possible synonyms you mention all derive from the "heathen" sense. Since this sense is inapplicable, so too are the synonyms.

Regarding your second point, you haven't provided any evidence in support of your assertion that 'the word "uncircumcised" is already avoided in many settings because of its offensive implications'.

In spite of dictionary definitions failing to support your position, you're asserting that the word means something else entirely. Hence "interpretation".

Most of the rest of your post merely contains empty assertions, which is not the same as providing evidence or even arguments. Jakew (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" is misleading terminology, and doesn't belong in WP because of NPV reasons. The proper term is 'normal' or 'intact.' Same goes for other terms like amputated and unamputated. A normal, health, intact arm is just that, normal, health, and intact. It is not unamputed. Unless of course your hidden agenda is to remove arms. How often a term is used is moot, since an encyclopedia attempts to tell the truth, not be a reflection of culturalism. The intact penis is normalcy. To describe it as noy yet having been circumcised is prejudicial. I ask that all instances of the word 'uncircumcised' be removed in this article an replaced with accurate and neutral teminology. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

While I share your perspective, this enclyclopedia makes no claims to be about the truth, as that can differ between people, cultures, ages, ideologies, beliefs - and may be unknowable. That is why it has clear guidelines on accuracy, reliability and notability, etc. Mish (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank, as has already been pointed out, "normal" and "intact" are ambiguous terminology, and, in this context, "intact" in particular is specialized activist (or "intactivist") terminology, not general terminology. Speaking of ambiguous, is the term "unambiguous" misleading because it implies that "ambiguous" is normal? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unambiguous" means "not ambiguous". "Un" means "not". Another term for "activist" terminology would be "politically correct" terminology. "Un" means "not". I could say my leg is "unamputated", and that would be a good thing, yes? "Un" means "not". It's neutral, it's descriptive. "Normal" and "intact" are POV-pushing words that don't belong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan and others are correct to point to "uncircumcised"'s pejorative meanings, as documented in reliable sources. If a neutral alternative exists, like "non-circumcised," why resist it? "Normal" is perhaps not accurate enough, even though we accept its use in the female genital mutilation article; but I can't see any reason why "intact" or "non-circumcised" would be opposed unless one insists on "uncircumcised" for its pejorative undertones. There is nothing ambiguous nor non-neutral about either term. Blackworm (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "uncircumcised" is pejorative. It reverses normality, making an adulterated penis the norm, and not being circumcised abnormal. To me, 'normal' and 'intact' are acceptable and neutral. To support this position note that both are medical terms. Frank Koehler (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Non-circumcised" means exactly the same thing as "uncircumcised". The alleged "pejorative" is true of both. "Uncut" is the colloquial. They're all the same thing. "Uncircumcised" neutrally describes a condition. "Normal" or "intact" are POV-pushes. The fact that some consider "uncircumcised" pejorative is their problem, not wikipedia's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the implied analogy with female genital mutilation is bogus. The proper comparison would be if you got "Bobbitted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that while "normal" and "intact" are PC terms and not acceptable, "natural" could work. That seems neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A natural penis as opposed to — what — an artificial one? The trouble is, all penes are natural, in the sense that they're formed as a natural product of evolution (or God's work, if you prefer), and the fact that one kind has been modified does not make it artificial. To be completely unambiguous, we need to specify precisely what is meant: a penis that has not been circumcised. And the correct, neutral, established term for that is "uncircumcised". As noted previously, avoiding that term by using contrived English such as "non-circumcised" has the effect of making Wikipedia look illiterate. Jakew (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Merely a natural foreskin. But you're right. In fact, in my day, nearly all males in the U.S. were routinely circumcised (presumably for health and sanitation reasons), Jewish or not. In gym classes, the very few that were uncircumcised were the ones that didn't look "normal" to my uneducated eyes (i.e. before I had ever heard of circumcision). "Normal" is a subjective judgement. "Uncircumcised" is the proper term here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. So far every one of the proposed alternatives (normal, natural, intact, etc) has been problematic, and I suspect that's because those words don't actually mean "not circumcised". In the context of this article, however, we usually employ the term "uncircumcised" for the precise purpose of describing a penis that hasn't been circumcised, as compared with one that has been (if we don't need to compare, we'd likely just say "penis"). My hunch is that any word that means something other than "not circumcised" is likely to prove problematic, for similar reasons to those words which we've considered previously: they fail to distinguish between circumcised and uncircumcised, an uncircumcised penis might not be "intact" (etc), they're POV, etc. Furthermore, as Jayjg points out, if we accept the arguments against "uncircumcised" then we must also accept that the word "unambiguous" implies that ambiguity is the norm, that unambiguous words are lacking ambiguity, etc. Clearly those are absurd arguments. "Unambiguous" just means "not ambiguous", without such connotations. Similarly, "uncircumcised" just means "not circumcised", exactly the meaning we require, and the claimed negative connotations are illusory. Jakew (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Sure, a circumcision cannot be compared to a cliterodectomy, for which penectomy is the closest male equivalent. However, the forms of FGM that are erroniously referred to as 'circumcision' include other things that do parallel male circumcision - infibulation or the cutting down of the labia, for example. I appreciate that most males in the USA may have had their genitals surgically modified and before they became aware of their penises being any different from penises in their 'natural' state. But this is an international encyclopedia; this practice of surgically modifying male genitals tends to be a cultural and religious phenomenon in some countries, but in many countries, apart from minority communities that retain the religious practice, it is not a medical practice that affects the majority of the male population. In Europe, including the UK, it is not as common, and so not the 'norm' (i.e., not normal). I feel that referring to an 'uncircumcised' vs. a 'circumcised' penis has as many problems as referring to a 'normal' vs. 'abnormal' penis - because in some countries uncircumcised penises will be abnormal, and in others circumcised penises will be abnormal (abnormal in the dense of deviating from what is normal). With another hat on, I try to avoid terms like normal and abnormal, preferring typical and atypical - but clearly what is typical in this case varies between countries and cultures. One thing that can be said is that an penis that has not been surgically modified is 'natural', and the individual concerned has retained their genital integrity - and I guess the reverse of this is that a penis that has been surgically modified is not natural, and the individual concerned has not retained their genital integrity. These are not value-laden words, they are statements of fact - however, I have no illusions that such terminology will not be welcome on a page that is of such emotive significance to people who have been circumcised. Personally, I feel that people who have been circumcised, or who are professionally associated with the practice, are not the best people to be editing this page. It is very hard for people to detach themselves from the content when they have such a deep connection with the topic. - MishMich - Talk - 11:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mish, please try to discuss the subject rather than other editors. To propose that circumcised males should not edit this article is both offensive and illogical. Jakew (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Describing arguments as absurd, whilst useful in a polemic, as a rhetorical device, should be avoided - it can be inflammatory, and construed as uncivil. The analogy breaks down comparing ambiguity with circumcision, because one is a process and the other is a state of being. The problem is that the derogatory use of uncircumcised has developed by labeling people who have not undergone the process - it has been used as an identity. Here it is a term used to describe a penis that has not been circumcised, not a person. There may be ambiguity, and disambiguation, but no process of disambiguating a person, nor a part of their anatomy. When somebody with ambiguous genitalia, this is not referred as disambiguation - either at a personal or genital level - it is referred to a masculine or feminine confirmation. For 'uncircumcised' to make any sense, there would have to be a process it relates to; there is no process it can refer to, because no process has taken place; 'circumcised' is derived from the process 'circumcision', and a penis that has gone through that process - it is a penis minus foreskin; 'uncircumcised' does not relate to any process of 'uncircumcision', it is a hybrid of 'not' and 'circumcised'. I can be disambiguated, but not ambiguated, but I am ambiguous or unambiguous. A person is circumcised, but nobody is uncircumcised - apart from in those very few cases where they have surgery to try and restore the appearance of not being circumcised. The word uncircumcised is meaningless, as it is intended to refer to penises (and people, derogatively) who have not been circumcised - but those it it intends to refer to have never undergone 'uncircumcision'. - MishMich - Talk - 12:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To address these issues in order, first, when constructing an argument of the form reductio ad absurdum, it is entirely legitimate to identify the result as absurd. Second, your distinction between processes and states is irrelevant. The word "uncircumcised" describes a penis. The word "unambiguous" describes a word. Neither word describes a process. If attaching the prefix "un-" to circumcised implies that circumcised is the norm, then attaching the prefix "un-" to ambiguous must imply that ambiguity is the norm. Finally, you appear to be unfamiliar with the definition of the word "uncircumcised". It does not mean "the result of a process of uncircumcision", but rather means "not circumcised", deriving from the prefix "un-" and the word "circumcised". Jakew (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

obviously you haven't understood me, otherwise you would have addressed what I said. 'Circumcision' is a process, when a penis has been through that process, it is said to be 'circumcised', there is no process called 'uncircumcision' that applies to any penis other than one that has been circumcised previously, so it would be an error to describe a penis as 'uncircumcised', as no such penises exist (apart from previously circumcised penises). There are two main types of penis, those that have been circumcised, and those that have not had anything done to them. They are not 'uncircumcised' penises, they are just penises. I am unclear why we need to describe something by what it is not, rather than what it is. One is a penis with a foreskin, and the other is a circumcised penis. It is not rocket science. Your last point is completely irrelevant - circumcised is derived from having undergone the process of circumcision - so what you are calling a penis in its natural state is shorthand for 'not a penis that has been through the process of circumcision' (as you have agreed that there is no process of uncircumcision it could possibly go through prior to circumcision). That is a very convoluted way of describing something that has had nothing happen to it. Better to leave the 'uncircumcised' bit out, as circumcision is irrelevant where a penis that has not been medicalised is concerned. Just call it a penis, or if you really have to qualify as a particular type of penis (which is only necessary here because it is about circumcised penises, and not penises generally), then call it a 'penis with a foreskin'. - MishMich - Talk - 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Mish, it is not an error to describe a penis as "uncircumcised", because, as I said, "uncircumcised" means "not circumcised". Your argument makes no sense because it is predicated on the understanding that "uncircumcised" means something other than its dictionary definition.

Moving on, your statement that "There are two main types of penis, those that have been circumcised, and those that have not had anything done to them." is incorrect. Consider an uncircumcised tattooed penis: it fits in neither group, since it is not circumcised, but has had something done to it. A more correct statement is: "There are two main types of penis, those that have been circumcised, and those that have not been circumcised." Jakew (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The process of somehow restoring a foreskin (which I've heard there are ways to do) would only be called "uncircumcision" colloquially. The proper term would probably be de-circumcision or some such, i.e. of performing some kind of surgery to simulate reversing the process. As far as "types" are concerned, that "type" only pertains to circumcised vs. uncircumcised. There are lots of other ways of defining "types". And there is a third type, where they somehow managed to botch the original surgery, and additional surgery may be needed at some later time, assuming its owner cares to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided to try using a dictionary, and it looks like we are all wrong. In the four I am familiar with, half yielded no result, and those that do define it is as an adjective to refer to a person.

• Oxford - adjective - (of a boy or man) not circumcised [1]
• Cambridge - word not found (not in Cambridge American English either) [2]
• Merriam-Webster - adjective (14th century) - 1: not circumcised, 2: spiritually impure [3]
• Collins Dictionary - word not found [4]

In Google, the top hit for the word is this encyclopedia, followed by [5]

Uncircumcision is used medically to refer to the restoration process: [6]

Where it is included, in the above definitions, it refers to the traditional use as an adjective for a person, with note on one about it being derogatory - no mention for its use as an type of penis. The use here seems contrary to normal use, and is WP:OR, and given the Google result we are in danger of promoting a usage that is uncommon. It does appear that medical people still use the term, despite its ordinary usage (or lack of it), but it can hardly be argued as being a 'medical term', as it not being circumcised is not a pathology. It is about as medical a term as 'arse' (which one gastroeneterologist referred to mine as once, before making a diagnosis of Crohn's) - MishMich - Talk - 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Mish! The two dictionaries which contain the word both define it as "not circumcised", and you're claiming that to use the word to mean that is original research? That's a contender for the most ridiculous argument I've yet seen on Wikipedia. We're using the word in accordance with dictionary definitions, and checking Google and Google Scholar confirms that this is common usage, both in reliable sources and elsewhere. Jakew (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of four major dictionaries, two give no definition, two define it as an adjective meaning "not circumcised" - one says this is an adjective that applies to a person, the other does state that it is an adjective, but not who/what it applies to. It certainly does not say it is an adjective that applies to a penis. None of the four dictionaries state that. Lots of people use 'gay' to mean rubbish - but we do not use it that way here. If a usage becomes significant enough to warrant it being defined in a reliable dictionary that way, then we follow that usage - we do not seek to emphasise an unusual usage in a way that we help establish that usage. Please remove 'uncircumcised penis', and replace with 'penis with foreskin' - which is what it actually is. It cannot be uncircumcised, as it has no relationship with circumcision whatsoever, other than to illustrate what a penis that has not been circumcised looks like. And please stop trying to emphasise dubious terminology in a way that makes circumcision appear normative. - MishMich - Talk - 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised penis" gets almost 1/2 million ghits, and over 2600 gbook hits. It is common, every day English, not "dubious terminology". Please stop inventing every more ridiculous argumentation and phraseology. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Natural: adj. 2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature 8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature 11 b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society 13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature c : having a form or appearance found in nature.Dictionary link. (A few people, who fervently advocate circumcision, find the non-circumcised penis to be unnatural[7], and thus might object to this usage based on that minority POV.)

Intact: adj. 2 of a living body or its parts : having no relevant component removed or destroyed.Dictionary link. (Some people, who fervently advocate circumcision, view the foreskin as useless,[8] irrelevant, and thus might object to this usage based on that minority POV.)

Uncircumcised: adj. : 1 : not circumcised 2 : spiritually impure : heathenDictionary link. (Many people, such as the majority of all males (who are not circumcised), may believe that not being circumcised does not make one spiritually impure, and thus may object to this usage based on that majority POV.)

So all the terms seem problematic to some. There is no reason to always insist on the exclusive use of the only word that has pejorative undertones documented in reliable sources. There is no reason for the absolute banning of any other term, including obviously neutral ones like "not circumcised" or "non-circumcised," regardless of whether or not they are used in reliable sources. How some editors can continue to argue this escapes all reason, besides violating Wikipedia's policies on minority and fringe views. At the very least, all the terms appearing in the reliable sources we cite should be used. Blackworm (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained multiple times by multiple people, archaic meanings like "heathen" are not relevant to modern usages, and we don't determine common or neutral usage by pointing to unusual or out-of-context dictionary definitions. This has all been explained before, and it's unhelpful to ignore this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries list archaic terms with "archaic" (c.f., thou), and obsolete meanings with "obsolete" (e.g., siege) and this is not the case with uncircumcised's listed meaning of spiritually impure, or heathen. Also, I have heard the word used with that meaning multiple times in both direct speech and in writing. So, in a word, no. Blackworm (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For comparison I'd also like to point out that a Google search on "circumcision mutilation -female" (discussing male circumcision, excluding discussion of female circumcision regardless of whether it also discusses the circumcision of males, and using the word "mutilation") returns about 350,000 hits -- and yet some have seen fit to ban the word "mutilation" as "non-neutral" from this article for years, despite its use in reliable sources as well. Clearly there is a double standard at work. Blackworm (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jayjg We do not determine terminology through google searches, we defer to reliable sources, such as dictionaries. If you wish to establish that uncircumcised is the best term to use, you need to avoid WP:OR in tallying up google searches, and provide a WP:RS that verifies that this is the most widely used and established and 'correct' description. It seems very odd to describe a penis that has not been circumcised in a way that relies on circumcision as its description, 'penis with foreskin is a more accurate description. It is not uncircumcised, it is a penis that has not had anything done to it. All I am hearing is why uncircumcised is such a good term to use for a penis that has never had a scalpel come near it - not why 'penis with foreskin' is a problem. It is accurate, it is neutral, and not significantly longer. What I fail to understand is why it is people who are sympathetic to circumcision who tend to seek to use a term that incorporates circumcision to denote a penis that has not been circumcised. The neutrality of this term cannot be defended, especially when there is the possibility of truly neutral terminology that can be utilised. If I were pushing for the addition of 'normal', or 'intact', or 'natural' I could understand it - but I have gone to some effort to avoid this in order to try and facilitate a compromise, yet retain an accurate description of the type of penis that has had nothing to do with this process. - MishMich - Talk - 01:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We certainly do determine common usage through google searches (among other means). This pretense that "uncircumcised" is poorly understood, or "dubious terminology", or means something else than it plainly means, based on specious original research, is not a good faith argument. If you have reliable sources that indicate that "uncircumcised" is inappropriate, unusual, or poorly understood, bring them forward. Until then, common usage, including the overwhelming usage in reliable sources, will guide our terminology here. And if you feel a need to repeat any of your already debunked arguments, instead please just review the previous comments on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "If you have reliable sources that indicate that 'uncircumcised' is inappropriate [...]" Done. It is used pejoratively to describe the spiritually unclean aspects of persons of non-circumcising faiths and belief systems.[9] Other completely neutral and completely understandable terms exist without this meaning ("non-circumcised"), so what possible reason could one have to resist their use, insisting on the word that has documented pejorative meaning? This becomes especially relevant when applying the adjective to males and not penises. Considering that there are myriad other terms dubiously banned as "non-neutral" from this article by the same editors insisting on the use of "uncircumcised," (e.g., "mutilation," "severed," "cut off," "intact," "natural," "normal"), and with contrastingly no reliable sources indicating any issues, it is clear that the standard simply changes depending on whether male circumcision is cast more or less favourably. Blackworm (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jayjg. Using he Oxford Dictionary is WP:OR, but a Google search isn't? I'd laugh, if that wasn't sad. Try taking that to WP:RS/N and see how far it runs. Even our own dictionary gives the definition as applying to a person, not a thing. As usual you have avoided addressing my point. Do not say anything else now - just tell me what the problem with the neutral, accurate, descriptive term is, rather than inaccurate, non-neutral, medical colloquialism you seem to prefer. - MishMich - Talk - 08:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mish, you're grasping at straws here. One of the dictionaries you cite lists "uncircumcised" as an adjective applying to a person, but that does not mean that it does not apply to a part of a person. Similarly, several dictionaries define "blond" as applying to a person, but it is equally valid to apply it to a part of a person (eg., his hair). In addition, as you admit, one of the dictionaries you cite lists "uncircumcised" as an adjective meaning "not circumcised"; this flatly contradicts your own argument that it is original research to use it in such a way. Furthermore, your argument that it is not common usage is clearly false. As Jayjg points out, there are large numbers of Google hits for "uncircumcised penis" (interestingly, there are more hits for "uncircumcised penis" than for "uncircumcised man" or "uncircumcised boy"). Jayjg is right: if you have sources to support a credible argument, bring them. Jakew (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When it's stated that a person has or has not had [X] done to them, it's assumed that the organ is or was attached to that person. For example, if I get a tattoo on my arm, I'm likely to say "I got a tattoo", although it was my arm that got the tattoo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

How is that relevant? The analogy with a tattoo would be more appropriate for somebody who doesn't get a tattoo. We don't refer to people without tattoos as having an 'untattooed arm', do we? Like, "he offered her his unatattooed arm as he began to escort her to the theatre". When somebody has had some form of body modification in some way, we tend to refer to the modification, but not the absence of modification. But, again, you have avoided answering my question. What is the problem with stating something that is accurate and neutral and uncontroversial? I can see that this will need to be escalated for feedback from impartial editors and admins. - MishMich - Talk - 11:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral, and uncontroversial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Jakew (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that you have no consensus on that - clearly not everybody sees it this way, and when this happens, it suggests it is either not neutral or accurate in some way. You thinking it is neutral doesn't mean it is. And again, you have avoided answering my question. This is a common tactic used by activists and politicians, to ignore the question asked, and answer a different question. I am taking your silence as meaning that it is accurate and neutral, but you have a preference for your own term. That is not how this encyclopedia works. - MishMich - Talk - 14:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What silence? And what valid sources state that "uncircumcised" is broadly considered to be offensive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

MishMich, your question was "What is the problem with stating something that is accurate and neutral and uncontroversial?" Baseball Bugs et al argue that "uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral, and uncontroversial. Do you have any references to support your belief that "uncircumcised" is inaccurate, non-neutral or controversial? TFOWR 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is already lots of discussion about this, I have no intention re-hashing this. The question is "what is wrong with calling a penis that has not been circumcised a 'penis with a foreskin'"? Quite simple really - but the answer I get is that there is no problem with 'uncircumcised penis', which is not in the question. Obviously there is some problem with it - otherwise it would not be so important to editors (to keep it or remove it), and there would be consensus on it. So, still no answer then? - MishMich - Talk - 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors being offended by a term is not relevant. Our opinions are not "valid sources" for wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A simple diff will do, or better yet a reference showing that "uncircumcised" is inaccurate, non-neutral or controversial. In the absence of that, I'm minded to say that there is a consensus: the broad majority of editors here agree that "uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral and non-controversial, and that the editor who disagreed was unable to demonstrate a compelling case. TFOWR 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An answer to my question, not some other question I didn't ask, would be appreciated. It is not rocket science. "What is wrong with 'penis with foreskin'"?

• search = Yahoo - Google - Bing - Scholar

• penis = 156,000K - 52,500K - 523,000K - 256K
• penis foreskin = 2,650K - 6,660K - 10,100K - 10.4K
• penis -foreskin = 153,000K - 315,000K - 517,000K - 256K
• penis circumcised = 1,420K - 2,980K - 4,870K - 16.4K
• penis -circumcised = 155,000K - 317,000K - 538,000K - 243K
• penis uncircumcised = 1,090K - 4,130K - 9,280K - 4.5K
• penis -uncircumcised = 155,000K - 317,000K - 510,000K - 256K
• penis foreskin circumcised = 583K - 5,380K - 2,120K - 5.8K
• penis foreskin -circumcised = 2,090K - 5,530K - 8,100K - 6.8K
• penis foreskin uncircumcised = 327K - 4,550K - 5,280K - 2.5K
• penis foreskin -uncircumcised = 2,210K - 5,750K - 7,980K - 7.9K
• penis circumcised foreskin = 561K - 3,770K - 3,250K - 5.7K
• penis circumcised -foreskin = 869K - 2,280K - 1,640K - 11.8K
• penis uncircumcised foreskin = 327K - 1,640K - 5,410K - 2.5K
• penis uncircumcised -foreskin = 660K - 3,060K - 4,140K - 2K
• penis foreskin -circumcised -uncircumcised = 1,920K - 5,170K - 5,870K - 6K
• penis circumcised uncircumcised -foreskin = 123K - 682K - 268K - 1K
• penis circumcision uncircumcised = 301K - 3,730K - 3,880K - 6.5K
• penis circumcision -uncircumcised = 3,680K - 4,490K - 5,430K - 24K
• penis circumcision foreskin = 838K - 6,620K - 4,160K - 7.8K
• penis circumcision -foreskin = 3,240K - 4,080K - 3,400K - 22.5K
• penis circumcision circumcised = 657K - 4,420K - 2,750K - 20.5K
• penis circumcision -circumcised = 3,470K - 4,300K - 4,740K - 21K

As you can see, there is quite a discrepancy between the same searches on Yahoo, Google & Bing. It looks like Google is the one yielding odd results - for example, there are over 300 million hits for penis excluding foreskin, but just over 50 million hits for penis alone. The Yahoo & Bing results seem to make more sense, numerically, there is limited consistency between the three engines. They do seem to suggest that foreskin is more prominent than uncircumcised both in connection to the penis and circumcision. This is why I said that Google searches prove nothing. If they had any significance, they would not throw up bizarre discrepancies, and would more or less concur with other search engines. I have included Scholar, which also seems to point to 'foreskin' being better represented than 'uncircumcised'. However, without reading all the articles and establishing the context, this sheds little light on actual usage. I also said I am not going to re-hash arguments already stated. I suggest you try reading the thread, and other threads in the archive, that are relevant. I am not arguing it is derogatory, unless used to describe a person, I am saying it is innaccurate and non-neutral. I have wasted enough time on this already. - MishMich - Talk - 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An answer to my question, not some other question I didn't ask, would be appreciated. It is not rocket science. "What is wrong with 'penis with foreskin'"? What's wrong is that the consensus is to continue using "uncircumcised", as you've failed to show that "uncircumcised" is inaccurate, non-neutral or controversial. Filibustering can't go on forever: at some point we have to say drop it. It's over. I'd suggest mediation or an RFC if you want to keep arguing against "uncircumcised", but this article has to move on. TFOWR 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article cannot move on, because it isn't going anywhere - and a look at the archives will reveal why. It is not me who has a problem with 'uncircumcision' - but I do have a problem when people try to present this as neutral. It is as neutral as 'intact', which is not allowed for some reason - and now it seems we are not supposed to refer to a penis that has not been circumcised as a 'penis with foreskin'. I see 3-4 for 'uncircumcision' and 2-3 against. There is no consensus here on 'uncircumcision'. So, why not use 'penis with foreskin'? Nobody has made any objection to that. I know it sounds too easy - but sometimes solutions to entrenched problems are simply things we have overlooked. - MishMich - Talk - 22:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request on consensus for 'uncircumcised'.

I'd suggest that if there's no further objection to "uncircumcised" within, say, the next 24 hours we move on. That gives editors who regard "uncircumcised" as non-neutral, or whatever, a chance to add their voice to yours. If there's a clear consensus, great, otherwise let's move to mediation or an RFC. TFOWR 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified three of the contributors to this thread who did not agree that this term was appropriate that you are suggesting there is a consensus, with 24 hour deadline to comment. This is made more difficult as I now see that one of them has been banned from Wikipedia for a week because of an edit war on this page. I would suggest that if you seriously want to get a sense of opinion, you make a new section, calling for input, and notify all those who have edited on this topic that their input is requested. - MishMich - Talk - 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or not, they still need to find sourcing that demonstrates that "uncircumcised" is broadly considered to be offensive. Citing dictionary definitions doesn't cut it (pardon the expression), as that's called "original synthesis". This megillah originally turned up in WP:ANI a week or two ago, which is how I got yanked into it, and if PC-types try to impose their views on this article, it could easily go back there and find a wider audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As for StudioDan, whom you canvassed a few minutes ago, he was put on ice for a week and seems to have disappeared, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: TFOWR's statement: "The broad majority of editors here agree that "uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral, and uncontroversial" -- that is patently false. In this section I count Jakew, Jayjg, Baseball Bugs, and apparently TFOWR as agreeing, and Studiodan, Richiez, MichMich, Frank Koehler, and Blackworm as disagreeing. If we look at the last Talk archive, we could add JoshuaZ as agreeing and Exploding Boy as disagreeing. In total, that's a minority agreeing, not a "broad majority." This "ok, let's all agree there's a clear consensus for 'uncircumcised'" thread and 24 hour ultimatum is thus completely absurd.

Baseball Bugs' assertion above of "original synthesis" is similarly absurd. We ban all possible terms that could put male circumcision in a less-than-optimal light or suggest that the foreskin is actually a part of the penis rather than something "attached to" or "with" the penis (among the words banned: "mutilation," "normal," "natural," "cut off," "intact," "severed," "amputated"). The arguments banning those terms used no reliable sources at all, not even a dictionary, to show any kind of non-neutral usage.

This discussion should center around the article's current exclusive use of terms preferred by pro-circumcision advocates (including the medical profession that profits directly from it), and absolute banning of all terms preferred by those opposing circumcision, or even those that may not venerate the act enough or fail to suggest the fringe view that the foreskin is foreign to the penis like a mole, tumor, or parasite (e.g. "cut off," "severed" and "amputated" vs. "removed"). "Uncircumcised" may not be completely non-neutral, but it is controversial especially in the context of the other myriad banned words here. Blackworm (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I discounted Studiodan and Richiez as {{spa}}s who both seem to have been inactive for the past week, but if they're still about and still feel that "uncircumcised" is wrong, that's great too. The "24 hour ultimatum" is a suggestion, before we take this to WP:DR. This issue has dragged on for a long time, and already it's hit ANI (which is where I first encountered it). But if 24 hours is too short for you, how much time do you think we'd need to reach a consensus? 48 hours? 72? Or do you have an alternative suggestion for resolving this? TFOWR 07:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, no I do not. The discussion of which terms are acceptable and which aren't has dragged on much longer than you think; for years in fact. Invariably, the terms preferred by pro-circumcision advocates replace all other terms, with the claim being there is "no consensus" for anything else. Since this article was essentially re-written using these terms preferred by pro-circumcision advocates about four years ago, that de facto state cannot seem to ever be changed, since those eho prefer the exclusive use of those terms remain here tirelessly to argue for that exclusive use to this day, while others come and go. I don't know how many editors you need to overrule a "consensus" held by four or five editors who watch this article daily, but I've never seen enough other editors here. In any case, it is clear from this and many prior discussions that no consensus on the neutraility of terms exist, and thus this article should be flagged with POV-disputed tag, indefinitely if necessary, to indicate to the reader that editors do not agree that it's NPOV. This unfortunately is also banned by the editors preferring the terms preferred by circumcision advocates -- these editors deny that this entire dispute even exists (which I claim demonstrates incredible hubris). As far as I know, there is no mechanism in Wikipedia to address this (or maybe I simply have not seen it at work, but then it's been going on for at least four years without end in sight). Blackworm (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a mechanism to address this and issues like this: it involves taking the issue to dispute resolution. If this is, as you claim, a POV issue then I'd suggest the NPOV noticeboard would be a good first start to draw more editors into the discussion. The other WP:DR fora I suggested earlier are also appropriate venues. Indeed, I'd suggest that any mechanism which draws more editors is a positive move. TFOWR 07:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC has been tried, and it generally results in few outside editors commenting, and no consensus coming out of the discussion. Thus the de facto consensus from four years ago remains in the article. I don't object to trying it again, or the other avenues you suggest, however. Thank you for your interest in resolving the dispute, I hope you have more luck than those who have tried in the past. This is such a polarizing topic, with so many preconceived opinions of the topic, that it seems that especially in outside discussions NPOV gets thrown out the window with wild, unsupported claims; so please forgive my pessimism. One mechanism that serves not only to inform the reader that the article is disputed, but also to draw in more editors is the POV tag -- which as I said, is resisted by the editors who have the article written the way they prefer. Blackworm (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfCs tend to be quite broad; NPOVN is more focussed in some respects. I'd still be keen to wait a day or so, but if everyone's happy with WP:DR I'd suggest we make a short post detailing the issue. Something like:

The term "uncircumcised" has drawn criticism at Talk:Circumcision. Editors are unable to agree as to whether or not it is a neutral term. The arguments advanced for and against this view are: [brief summary describing why "uncircumcised" is not neautral] and [brief summary describing why "uncircumcised" is neutral]

Waiting a day or two gives us a chance to fill in the two gaps above, which I'd suggest we do in the new sub-sub-sections below (I'd also suggest that the two sections below should be used simply to summarise: argue elsewhere! ;-). TFOWR 08:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And what about the terms "intact," "non-circumcised," "natural," and "normal?" That's the whole point of the dispute; not just whether "uncircumcised" is non-neutral, but whether the prior terms must all be replaced with "uncircumcised" due to their non-neutrality (or other reasons). Blackworm (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the status quo is OK, it's OK. If it's not, we move on and consider an alternative. I don't see any need to bombard NPOVN with multiple issues immediately when we can potentially deal with the issue with a minimum of drama. TFOWR 08:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Intact" and "normal" are ambiguous, and "natural" is kind of vague also. "Non-circumcised" is a word apparently coined by wikipedia editors, and which if it were a real word would be a synonym of "uncircumcised". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is still a lack of valid sourcing that "uncircumcised" is somehow non-neutral or offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the "status quo" is the banning of all terms except the one that also has a pejorative meaning. That is the only issue, ONE issue, and whether some other issue is "ok" or not is irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

...but most editors here don't accept that "uncircumcised" is pejorative. Hence the move to WP:NPOVN - to determine whether "uncircumcised" is a neutral, acceptable term. TFOWR 10:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is non-neutral

I do not have strong feelings about this myself, although I do have issues about promoting words as being a sole form of reference when there are neutral alternatives. This is particularly the case when its use draws editing that can end up disruptive on occasions, because people find it offensive. I regard it as non-neutral, because it uses a word th refer to something that is connected with the procedure the word is derived from. People with foreskins have not been circumcised, and to describe their penis as 'uncircumcised' implies that circumcision is the norm, and a penis that has not been circumcised is deficient, it can be interpreted as 'non-circumcised', or as lacking circumcision. We do not describe the arm of somebody without a tattoo as an 'untattooed' arm, simply as an arm. We could refer to penises that have not been circumcised as what they are, a 'penis with foreskin', rather than what they are not - which is what 'uncircumcised penis' is doing.

More recent policy statements outside the US, such as the The Dutch KNMG, do not use 'uncircumcised' in their recent policy statement (2010). This is the most recent such statement available to us, Most of the statements cited from the US are about ten years old, so use language that was deemed unproblematic a decade ago. The BMA's statement "The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors" also avoids the term (2006). This suggests that in some countries there is a move away from the use of the term 'uncircumcised'.

Groups opposed to infant circumcision have also substituted other words to replace 'uncircumcised'. because the word is seen as offensive. Elizabeth Noble at the 2nd International Symposium on Circumcision, said: "We must stop using the word uncircumcised, which suggests that circumcision is normal. [...] Defining an intact male as uncircumcised is like defining an intact woman as 'unclitoridectomized.'" The Southern California branch of NORM states: "Term [uncircumcised] commonly substituted for the correct description of the normal condition of the penis: intact. Obviously pejorative if compared to analogous terms such as 'unmastectomized', 'unappendectomized', and 'unclitoridectomized'". They point out that it is "Also used somewhat tongue-in-cheek but descriptively by restoring men in reference to a circumcised penis that has undergone foreskin restoration." Groups involved in lobbying governments and public education are often the first to highlight language that can cause offense and needs to be avoided. Both the use by groups advocating alternatives to circumcision, and the omission in recent statements by prestigious national medical associations, indicate that the terms is not universally acceptable, and in this light, persisting in its use represents a leaning towards a particular POV, which this encyclopedia needs to protect itself from. - MishMich - Talk - 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is neutral

• It is somewhat bizarre to find oneself defending the neutrality of the word "uncircumcised", like defending that of the word "penis". Consequently, my argument must consist largely of a response to that of Mish.
• Let us consider the context of this discussion. In the circumcision article two images are displayed to illustrate the differences between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis. The word "uncircumcised" is used in the caption to the latter. To state the obvious, the word "uncircumcised" means "not circumcised".[10] The argument that we should avoid describing "what [a penis is] not" is fundamentally flawed in this context: the whole point of displaying the image is to show what a penis that hasn't been circumcised looks like, for comparison. In other words, the fact that it hasn't been circumcised is precisely the fact that we wish to highlight. It does not imply that circumcision is the norm, that an uncircumcised penis is deficient or "lacking" — if that were the case then the word "unambiguous" would surely have similar implications.
• Regarding policy statements, it is fundamentally illogical to base an argument on words that aren't present in a source. For example, neither source uses the word "scalpel", so should we interpret that as a "move away from" the use of that term, or as "avoidance" of it? Of course not — such an interpretation would be absurd. Moreover, it seems particularly unwise to rely upon the language used in the statement from Holland, since English is not the native language of that country. Finally, cherry-picking is a poor basis for an argument: policy statements by the American Urological Association (2007)[11] and the World Health Organisation (2007)[12] do use the word "uncircumcised".
• Regarding activist groups, it seems safe to say that such groups have an interest, not so much in identifying offensive words, but rather in identifying words that are inconsistent with their agenda. I have no doubt that replacing "uncircumcised" with POV language such as "normal", "natural", or "intact" would serve that agenda well, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, and must not be used in such a way. Jakew (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN: it is done

 Done here. Can I encourage everyone to keep comments on this page? I've directed the NPOVN folk here, and I believe my post there is as bland-as-bland-can-be, so we should be able to keep their board's watchlist free from further activity. TFOWR 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

call for feedback on consensus on 'uncircumcised'

I see, so what you are saying is that even if there is no clear consensus within 24 hours, that is irrelevant. So, why is there a call for editors to show that there is no consensus? I am not arguing it it is offensive - which again you have ignored. I am arguing it is not neutral, and inaccurate (which you ignore, presumably because you cannot account for that). More filibustering on your part, I guess?

I said I have notified several contributors to this thread who did not agree that this term was appropriate that you are suggesting there is a consensus. When there is a call for feedback, notifying interested editors is not canvassing - the person who suggested this should have done that, and notified impartially - I did not make that call, so feel no need to notify everybody; I am simply responding to it. I have only encouraged discussion, not sought to hinder it by harassing people on their talk pages, or seeking to have them banned.- MishMich - Talk - 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CANVASS, Mish. I note from your contributions that you have canvassed three editors who previously stated an objection to the word "uncircumcised".[13] [14] [15] Unfortunately one-sided canvassing is harmful to consensus, and hence is disallowed by policy (to quote the "nutshell": "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." (emph added)). Jakew (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As I stated quite clearly here, I did not place the call with a 24 hour deadline, I notified other editors here who had raised objections to the term presented as having consensus, because the assertion was that there was consensus. There would be no point notifying those who have recently come into the thread - as they are already present, and their views have been taken into account in the assumption of consensus. It is not my responsibility to notify editors of this call, that is up to the person making the call. You are free to notify people who represent what is claimed as the consensus that they do support this consensus if you like. But as you (and recently Bugs) have made clear, consensus is irrelevant if you can make what you regard as a superior argument for overriding consensus. I reject the allegation that this was canvassing. I asked for comment - and at least one of the editors does not hold views I personally subscribe to. Yourself, Jayjg and Bugs have all been active within the 24 hours prior to the call, so I saw no point notifying you or them; I can see no other editor who has been active on this thread. the only other person who has been active lately is Coppertwig, but he has not been active in this thread, so I did not contact him. If you want to fine. I am also quite disturbed that yet another contributer to this article who disagrees with you has been banned - and that editors active on this page were not only not notified that he has been banned, but were not invited to contribute to any discussion about this. That can only be described as underhanded. It seems that most editors who disagree with you and two or three other editors all end up getting banned. - MishMich - Talk - 12:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not free to "notify people who represent what is claimed as the consensus" (as you put it), because that would also violate WP:CANVASS. (And, since I have just explained that policy to you, it would be a knowing violation and it would arguably violate WP:DE as well; in any case I would not be surprised to be blocked for doing so). Furthermore, I have never claimed that "consensus is irrelevant if you can make what you regard as a superior argument for overriding consensus", and I would be grateful if you would refrain from misrepresenting my views. Also, having been "active within the 24 hours prior to the call" appears to be irrelevant (unless you're applying that criterion very strictly); Blackworm edited approximately 24 hours before you canvassed him. Finally, I cannot comprehend your accusations of "underhand" banning of unspecified editors. I presume you refer to Studiodan, who was blocked (not banned) in response to a 3RR report. He was notified on his talk page (which is courteous but not mandatory), but it is unconventional to discuss editor behaviour on an article talk page, so it was not raised here. It is often unwise to raise such issues in a highly partisan atmosphere, as what is needed is objective assessment from those external to the dispute. That's why the 3RR noticeboard is there. If you think I, or any of the involved admins, behaved inappropriately, I'd welcome criticism at my talk page or at WP:AN. Jakew (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is how I uderstood you here, when it was suggested you were in a minority...

• Jakew said: [QUOTE]As WP:CONSENSUS clearly states, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Jayjg and I gave clear, arguments explaining why the image violated applicable policy, and these arguments have not been refuted.[END QUOTE]

Given you act as gatekeeper of this page, and thus as arbiter of whether your argument is 'better' than any other on this page, I don't think the way I described this was off-the-mark. - MishMich - Talk - 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere have I proposed that consensus is irrelevant, nor have I suggested that it is legitimate to override consensus. Consensus is paramount, but it is not the same thing as a simple majority vote. I haven't suggested that consensus is irrelevant, nor that it can be overridden — quite the opposite. Please do not misrepresent my position again. I would prefer that you use an exact quote, if you must. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've wrapped it in quotes, to make it clearer that it is a quote. - MishMich - Talk - 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

break to separate from Jakew's digression

I will also re-iterate my position. Out of four of the most well-known dictionaries, in their on-line format, two give no definition for 'uncircumcised', and of two that do, one states the adjective applies to a person, not a thing, while the other gives no indication of what it applies to.

In an extensive search of Yahoo, Google, Bing and Scholar, the word 'foreskin' is more prevalent than 'uncircumcised' in connection with the 'penis', including when 'penis' is connected with 'circumcision'. I have also argued that it is strange to describe something that has not undergone a process by the negation of process it has not undegone - for instance we do not usually describe appendages that have not undergone body modification by the modification they have not had, citing an arm that has not been tattooed is not usually described as an 'unatattooed' arm. We do not generally describe things by what they are not.

I am also suggesting that where there are claims that the use of 'intact' is non-neutral, then 'uncircumcised' is no more neutral than 'intact'.

I am proposing that it would do no harm to describe the penis that has never had medical intervention as a 'penis with foreskin', and that it would avoid this article being a magnet for disruption.

Most (if any) of these points have not received any response, instead, it is repeated dogmatically that 'uncircumcised' is a normative term, which is neutral, (and by implication, I guess, that this is preferred terminology that should be used rather than any (other) neutral terminology). - MishMich - Talk - 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" is a commonly-used word that describes the situation. It is merely descriptive, it is not POV-pushing like the ambiguous term "intact", and you don't need a full sentence to describe it when a one-word synonym will do. The primary definition in the dictionary describes the status of someone, be they circumcised or uncircumcised. It's descriptive. It doesn't push an agenda the way words like "intact" do. Even if you're circumcised and had a vasectomy, you're still "intact" and "normal" unless you also got "Bobbitted". Or, if you were born with the urethra coming out the wrong place, as can happen, then that's "abnormal", but it can be fixed by surgery. Also, I don't see how "foreskin" and "uncircumcised" can be compared in a search. One is an object, the other is a condition. Apples and oranges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that rather than let this drag on forever we move to resolve it: "If there's a clear consensus, great, otherwise let's move to mediation or an RFC". TFOWR 06:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR. If people were less invested in polemic, this could move on - the problem is when activists make statements like this: "you don't need a full sentence to describe it when a one-word synonym will do". Note, "uncircumcised penis" is two words and it has 18 characters + 1 space, while "penis with foreskin" is not a sentence either, but it has three words, and is only 17 characters + 2 spaces. So, it is inaccurate to say it is any longer.

Bugs. The point of the search was to show that these engines yield diverse results, so simple statements that rely on Google searches cannot be trusted - I am not the one who tried to 'prove' that uncircumcised is widely used by doing a search on Google. What I was pointing out was that foreskin is more likely to appear in articles that mention the penis, even on the subject of circumcision, than 'uncircumcised'. I appreciate you don't understand why I did this - because it has become glaringly obvious that you do not actually read what I write, and so persistently provide responses to things I have not written, rather than things I that I have written. That is exceedingly rude and lazy, especially as I have gone to some length to construct my statements, and explain myself.

I am not calling for 'intact' to be used, because I am sensitive to the fact that people find it offensive (I do not demand sources to 'prove' this, because I understand why it might be). My point is that 'uncircumcised' can be regarded the same way, yet the good faith I have shown in this is not reciprocated. The circumcision activists Those sympathetic to the position of 'circumcision activists' and 'professional proponents of circumcision' here insist that this term is neutral and widespread, and there can be no other term - not even 'penis with foreskin'. They do not discuss what is wrong with 'penis with foreskin' - instead they use all sorts of arguments about things I have not proposed. That is because they are promoting an agenda which seeks to make circumcision normative, when in most countries it is an unusual treatment; the language chosen presents it as a medical procedure, yet hides that the process involves the removal of healthy tissue in a way that runs contrary to medical ethics. How can that ever be said to be neutral? - MishMich - Talk - 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If people were less invested in polemic, this could move on - the problem is when activists make statements like this: "you don't need a full sentence to describe it when a one-word synonym will do". I agree. Let's move on. Let's stop labelling people with counter-views as "activists". Let's take this to the applicable WP:DR board and let uninvolved editors consider everyone's views. TFOWR 09:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, discussing editors rather than edits is unacceptable. Mish, if you strike out references to "activists" and speculation about "promoting an agenda", I will tell you what is wrong with "penis with foreskin". Jakew (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to play that game. You have had plenty of time to respond to a question I have clearly laid out several times prior to that comment. When your cabal ceases being rude and dismissive of contrary views, and accommodates the same courtesy regarding use of terminology as I have, then I might consider that a sign of good faith and reciprocate; however, I have modified my statement in to be more accurate. - MishMich - Talk - 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my offer of explanation is conditional upon you following core behavioural policies and guidelines; if you insist upon labelling editors as "activists", speculating about their motives, and making claims of a "cabal", I am unwilling to discuss the issue with you. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not now, nor have I ever been, any kind of "activist" in connection with circumcision. I have my opinions on it, but in reference to the article, the term "circumcision" is clear and unambiguous. Whether I like circumcision or not doesn't figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I already changed that bit, are you saying you are not sympathetic to the views of pro-circumcision activists and professionals? I have been clear about my position as per WP:COI. I consider this a human rights issue, and am a member of three human rights organisations covering issues affecting LGBT, Christian and intersex people, one of which includes this issue specifically (although that is not the reason I am a member - I am more concerned with non-consensual intersex genital modification), and a former member of Amnesty International. Perhaps if a few others were clearer about their own WP:COI, instead of presenting themselves as neutral, this article might not engender so much bad feeling. I can categorically state that I have no personal connection with campaigning on this specific issue, but am part of an organisation that is formally associated with an organisation that supports an organisation that does. - MishMich - Talk - 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As an actual issue, I basically do not care about it. I'm a Gentile who was circumcised like most American males were in those days, typically for hygiene reasons, and when I read about smegma and such I'm glad it was done. But as far as getting on some bandwagon about it, either way, I don't care, and I don't see what the issue is. It's not like female mutilation, where they take the clit away. The equivalent would be to chop your "head" off, which is not what circumcision is (unless you get a really, really incompetent mohel). What I'm concerned about here, and how I got yanked into this, is to argue against the imposition of politically-correct terminology in wikipedia. As "human rights" issues go, this is way, way down the list of important stuff. Mass killings in the civil wars in Africa are important. Starvation is important. Degradation of women is important. The ritual removal of a smidgen of skin from a male is, by comparison, not important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is more important, but irrelevant in terms of this article, which is about circumcision and should (briefly) cover all aspects, medical and religious, as well as ethics and human rights. I have no issues about political correctness - I have no time for bigotry or derogatory/demeaning language. That is not political correctness, it is about having respect for people. - MishMich - Talk - 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" has not been demonstrated to be bigoted, derogatory, or demeaning. It is merely descriptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

MishMich, it's rather ironic that you continue to try to classify various editors here who disagree with your views as being "activists" or "sympathetic to the views of pro-circumcision activists and professionals", while never commenting on other editors who happen to agree with your views. But if you want to see which editors here focus on a very narrow ranges of articles, it's easy to compare:

Editor	Edits	Unique pages
User:Jayjg	84212	14736
User:Avraham	43554	12678
User:Baseball Bugs	52318	5594
User:TFOWR	18371	4823
User:Jakew	11575	1432
User:MishMich	7215	520
User:Blackworm	4102	307
User:Richiez	639	135
User:Studiodan	398	32
User:Frank Koehler	59	5

Can you see any difference between the first five editors in the table and the next five? Well, apparently the editors with a very broad experience on Wikipedia, having edited from 1400 to over 14,000 Wikipedia pages, have one view of this article, and, in general, the word "uncircumcised". On the other hand, those editors who have very limited experience on Wikipedia, having edited from 5 to just over 500 pages, and, for the most part, focused mostly or exclusively on circumcision and related topics, (what are often called Single Purpose Accounts on Wikipedia), have the opposite view. So, which editors here are more likely to be using Wikipedia for the purpose of "activism" on the topic of circumcision? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a seriously erronious assertion. It is true that I am a more recent editor, but I am not primarily concerned with circumcision (or topics related to it), and came here because of its association with certain other topics I do focus on. I am primarily interested in LGBT studies and sexology, and these are the topics I tend to focus on, because that is related to the academic discipline my thesis was located (which was on medical experiences of intersex and transsexual people). However, I have edited a number of articles outside the LGBT & Sexology projects (apart from this one) such as GWR and other locomotives, because I have interests beyond LGBT studies. My background in IT (academic and professional) has led me to edit articles on IT. The only reason I am here again now is because my input was requested by one of the editors you (eventually) managed to ban. I apologise if the handful of editors who gatekeep this article are not a cabal - but it does look that way at times. Now, I have stated my background so you know, not to claim some expertise. As you will be aware, it doesn't matter how many edits on how many articles an editor has made, it does not make them a more 'superior' editor than another. I focus on fewer articles for specific reasons - my time is limited, and I would not be able to contribute productively to lots of articles, particularly ones I know nothing about. The only reason I am here (having given up on it once already because it is next to impossible to edit in any way that does not meet with Jakew's approval) is because I am concerned about the bias in it.

I have reviewed the edits made over the past couple of months by the 'top four' editors, (excluding TFOWR from that as his is a new name to me, and I had not included him in my assumption). First, if I appeared to include Baseball_Bugs in my reference to a cabal, I must apologise - his input here is not frequent, and he has a wide-ranging scope of edits of which this page is not particularly notable. That leaves Jakew and two editors who appear to support Jakew's moderation of this page. They do not appear primarily concerned with articles associated with circumcision per se, and are primarily involved in editing articles on Judaism. The only editor amongst these three who focuses predominantly (and significantly) on circumcision and articles associated with it is Jakew, and this pattern of editing was present from the start of his time as an editor. Searching on numbers of edits and articles edited is not very revealing without statistics to show the range and frequency per article of articles edited. I do not have such tools. Rather than making hypothetical statements about editors' focus (as you have mine), it would be more helpful to utilise tools that can demonstrate the range, focus and frequency of edits. You will see from my contribution history that this is the ONLY article connected with circumcision I have attempted to edit, and does not feature significantly compared to the majority of my edits, which are within LGBT studies and Sexology projects, and only is mainly connected to these as an aspect of body modification and the parallels with genital surgery of intersex infants. You will also note that I have a very good record when it comes to editing, in terms of complaints etc., even though I edit pages that are more volatile and sensitive than this page. As I said before you posted the above, this is a page that is not a primary concern of mine; it is the gatekeeping and moderation that I have witnessed here that is the reason I am here. - MishMich - Talk - 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the two editors who are still here in the lower part of your list, Richiez is primarily interested in female medical issues, with relatively few edits on circumcision. Blackworm is the only editor who comes anywhere near as close in focus to articles associated with circumcision as Jakew, although his/her edits also indicate a range of articles that encompass other topics like FGM and bodily modification generally. - MishMich - Talk - 00:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, can we move on from this ad-hominem nonsense, as only two editors in that list are possible contenders for the characterisation you make, both with markedly different perspectives. Please focus on the request, and refrain from dragging editors who disagree with you (or Jakew) to some disciplinary board or other - for now, at least. - MishMich - Talk - 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

MishMich, it was you who started this ad-hominem nonsense, first by characterizing editors as "The circumcision activists" and then as "Those sympathetic to the position of 'circumcision activists' and 'professional proponents of circumcision'", "cabal", and "handful of editors who gatekeep this article". That's ad hominem, and you still haven't apologized for it, much less retracted it. In fact, you continue to characterize editors (rather than discussing content), even as you decry it in others. Well, if I were to characterize the editors here, I would characterize the two groups as, "five editors with a combined total of over 210,000 edits" versus "five editors with a combined total of over 12,000 edits". The first group is 17 times more experienced on Wikipedia than the second group. And, if I were to characterize editors here, I would suggest that the first group is committed to the whole Wikipedia project, and knows that uncircumcised is the most commonly used, neutral, informative, and accurate term, while the second group is here to push obfuscation in the service of some bizarre intactivist agenda, based on no reliable sources whatsoever. So it's a good thing I'm not actually characterizing editors, isn't it? From now on, I assume we'll see no more mention of editors at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. One thing that editors with a broader base of experience have is that they have seen many single-purpose or narrow-focus accounts come and go. The pattern tends to be that SPA's arrive with a specific agenda, and when they meet resistence, they accuse the more general editors of being part of some conspiracy. I've been accused of being a NASA employee; a BP employee; various other employees I can't think of just now; a conservative; a liberal; a Republican; a Democrat; a Christian; an atheist; and most recently a member of a circumcision activist cabal or some such. (It's too bad I haven't kept better track. That would be a dandy item to add to my user page.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong statistics (should use global info) and everyone knows how deceiving statistics are. Classifying me as circumcision activist is the most bizare assertion I have seen for some time. I am using my limited time to improve medical articles that need some love and do substantial edits. Regarding "uncircumcised" I see no need to use that word. I have looked over the discussion archives of that deleted entry and it is obvious that some folks were keen to have it and other to delete it merely for POV view reasons. The word has an archaic religious meaning that is not appropriate in the picture context and is ambiguous as it can denote the result of "uncircumcision". Finally there is no shortage of alternatives and I see no point to have any of the images at all in the article. Richiez (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcision" as a "restorative" process is a colloquialism not likely to be found in a dictionary. "Uncircumcised" unambiguously means "not circumcised". You may a good point about the religious definition being archaic. The modern meaning is "not circumcised". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have not removed my assertion, just as you have not removed yours - even though apart from the two at the bottom of the list, it is blatantly false. Jakew is primarily focussed on this issue, and the other two of you appear to have some issues around this article, occupy a paradigm where circumcision is seen as normative, and take that as meaning you have a NPOV on the issue - and when any editor comes here who comes from a culture where circumcision is not normative, their input is regarded as non-neutral. This has to stop, it really does. This insistence on the dominance of one form of discourse is what causes so much disruption on this article. - MishMich - Talk - 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mish, it has to stop. That really is enough. Discuss content, not contributors. Jakew (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bloody picture is scary

That bloody picture with the needle in it is scary, at least that was my first thought. Is it necessary? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean File:Dorsal penile nerve block.jpg? It doesn't seem necessary to me. Jakew (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"I don't like it is not a good reason for removal", but, I am quite strongly motivated to eliminate all images of children's genitals from Wikipedia - we have no way of knowing whether the individual concerned has consented to such an image being used this way. Mish (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this image isn't a good addition. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any image actually depicting what male circumcision is and what it involves is infinitely preferable to the myriad images we have depicting cultural celebration of male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

removal of images

Somebody keeps removing Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg and Image:Erection Homme2.jpg, most recently because of the children (and for several other, even less compelling reasons). They've been in the article for some time with no problems. Does anybody else object to them or shall I just restore them? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Restore - There is a policy somewhere that Wikipedia does not exclude such material under the circumstances claimed. It's WP:CENSOR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Without a valid reason for removing them, restoring them seems the obvious response. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, we do not censor when there is a good reason for something being included. The images are not connected with criminal behaviour. Mish (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

MRSA

Jakew find a sometimes lethal MRSA infection in circumcised infants somehow of minor signifikans. But he problem is widly known and relativly common. The infection kan be deadly and is far more serious than mostlly benign balanitis you write så much about. Its amazing to see your removal of many additions that not share your opinion. You don´t possess any article. (yes, my English is far from perfect) jmak (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you do need to provide WP:RS to verify that it is a notable complication arising from the procedure. If it is so significant, then there should be papers that discuss this, prevention, consequences, incidence. It is up to the inserting editor to provide this, other editors do not have to prove this is not so.Mish (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no shortage of information about MRSA in the literature, but very few reliable sources have linked it to circumcision. I can think of only two published sources, Nguyen et al, who conducted an observational study and found an odds ratio of 12.2 associated with having been circumcised, and Van Howe, who published a speculative piece about the "possible role" of circumcision in this respect. By comparison, to use Jmak's chosen issue of balanitis, searching PubMed reveals 170 studies when using "circumcision balanitis" as a search string. This suggests that MRSA has not really received enough attention in the literature to warrant much weight. I would therefore suggest adding a sentence or two to the detailed article instead. Jakew (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There doesn't appear to be much about it in the literature, and if it is mentioned at all, it should be in the more detailed article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)