Talk:Circumcision

Use of foreskins cut off by circumcisions

Foreskin-based medical and consumer products[edit]

Foreskins obtained from circumcision procedures are frequently used by biochemical and micro-anatomical researchers to study the structure and proteins of human skin. In particular, foreskins obtained from newborns have been found to be useful in the manufacturing of more human skin.[55] Human growth factors derived from newborns' foreskins are used to make a commercial anti-wrinkle skin cream, TNS Recovery Complex.[56](subscription required) Foreskins of babies are also used for skin graft tissue,[57][58][59] and for β-interferon-based drugs.[60] Foreskin fibroblasts have been used in biomedical research.[61]

This section above,currently in the foreskin article really belongs here in the circumcision article, as these uses of foreskins arise from circumcision and not from the simple existence of foreskins. (Also the long section in the foreskin article that at least references the arguments about sexual pleasure for men and women with and without a foreskin attached belongs here too. !)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, by my count this is at least the eighth time in less than a year you have advocated for this, previous attempts by you were 12/2012, 12/2012, 02/2013, 02/2013, 02/2013, 06/2013, and most recently 09/2013, just last month. In particular, the importance of quality sourcing and encyclopedic themes was pointed out to you here, and the lack of quality sourcing was explained to you here. Why would things be any different now? Have you identified new, high-quality sourcing that was not available previously, or no? Or are you actually simply re-proposing the exact same edit based on the exact same sources? If you're simply re-proposing the same edit based on the same sources for the eighth time in less than a year, can you please explain how this can be anything other than tendentious editing, a form of disruptive editing? Zad68 13:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your use of the passive form of the inferred first person plural is fascinating Zad, as is the zealouusness with which you document oppositions to the particular flavour of article you garden here. But if you are capable of putting down the wikilawyering baton (bludgeon overkill) the simple facts remain that all of this research and medicine and commercial sale and use of circumcised foreskins still occurs, whether we wikilawyer our way to continuing to exclude it from the article or not.

In your comment counts have you kept a similar tally of how many dozen times you have advanced the "oh but it is not a secondary medical source tsk tsk" for so many editors who have proposed making the article more real ? As you well know, or ought to, common sense trumps the rules in Wikipedia. Pointing this out is not disruptive editing. Labelling it as such shows a profound misapprehension of our purpose here. Try to address the issue not the messenger. Are you denying that these activities occur?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, all sorts of activities "occur" in the real world that are of absolutely no interest to Wikipedia; the only thing that Wikipedia considers to be relevant to "making [an] article more real" are what reliable secondary sources say on a topic. As I've said to other editors here, rather than starting with one's own personal views of what is important to discuss on a topic, to write a good article one must instead start by reading high-quality secondary sources on the subject (in this case WP:MEDRS-compliant), then summarize what they say, whatever that happens to be. That is the relevant issue here which must be addressed. Continually suggesting identical edits that ignore WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE (supported by appeals to "common sense" and claims of "wikilawyering"), is, in fact, disruptive editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this response to mean that once again there will be no satisfactory sources forthcoming. Zad68 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Zad :you can't get no satisfaction and the article suffers--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Jayjig - Of course all sorts of things happen in the real world that have no relevance to particular wikipedia articles. But that fact is a red herring here. You are also quite mistaken in saying that the only thing WP considers relevant are secondary sources. Please re-read carefully the reference text that you have cited above. And read the fundamental references elsewhere to common sense trumping narrow rule interpretation. You are also quite wrong in ascribing a personal view motive in this case ( another oily red fish) I hope that you are not doing these things to avoid attempting to gainsay the reasonable logic of including in an article about cutting something off the body, the information details about what the cutters do with the cut off stuff. It is really a no-brainer. The concerted resistance to including it with due weight (and calling that resistance consensus !) is a most interesting development.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A persistent and oft-repeated argument has been made on this talk page that material should be included in the article because it it is a "fact" or "real". It is no "red herring" to point out that being "factual" or "real" is not nearly enough to qualify material for article inclusion. For example, it is a fact that this individual was killed in a car accident last week - and it's also supported by reliable sources. It's also quite important, certainly for the individual and his loved ones, friends and acquaintances. And, without doubt, it is "relevant" to Wikipedia's traffic collision article. That does not mean, however, that the material should be added to the traffic collision article. Reliable secondary sources are the arbiters of what belongs in Wikipedia articles, and in what proportion. Appeals to any other authority, particularly the highly subjective ones being used here (e.g. "common sense", "more real", "reasonable logic", "narrow rule interpretation") will never succeed, because they are not consonant with Wikipedia's purpose and goals. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is truly remarkable Jayjig, that instead of addressing the points raised you embark on establishing what all accept. Unrelated material is, de facto/by definition/ of course, unrelated - yet you give another lengthy example of unrelated material for what purpose I cannot see. I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand the point that what happens to foreskins after the cutters cut them off their baby boy children is relevant to an article about cutting off foreskins. Is it possible that you could confine your mind and response to addressing just that point ? Have you read the policy stuff in WP on common sense. I do not think I have to give an editor of your vast seniority the refs.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, you may not have read my previous response; I gave an example of related material that didn't belong in an article, not unrelated. Please review my previous comment. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

a particular RTA is of course not pertinent to an article on RTAs unless it had some unique pertinent feature. That is,however, no parallel to including information on the disposal and sale of cut off foreskins in the cutting off foreskins article.All foreskins get disposed of in some way BY THE CUTTERS and this article is about what the cutters do. Some cut off foreskins and frenulums are buried after being cut off,some are sold for research or skin grafts or cosmetics. The information is pertinent and related.

The triple objections given by those who have continued to block and revert ANY description or even mention of the disposals or sales of foreskins are-1/it is not real,2/ it is not relevant, or3/ it is not real or relevant because some journals have not done overview studies on it. Those are patently absurd positions.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't know how true it is that what happens to healthy foreskins post-op is not relevant to Wikipedia. The article human penis, under the "Circumcision" section, includes the following:

After hospital circumcision, the foreskin may be used in biomedical research,[14] consumer skin-care products,[15] skin grafts,[16][17][18] or β-interferon-based drugs.[19] In parts of Africa, the foreskin may be dipped in brandy and eaten by the patient, eaten by the circumciser, or fed to animals.[20] According to Jewish law, after a Brit milah, the foreskin should be buried.[21]

I think the first sentence would be interesting to explore in detail, perhaps under the "Economic considerations" section of our article (or maybe it's just fine where it is, I don't know). The fact is that circumcision in the US is mostly non-therapeutic, and therefore presents an interesting and notable exception to all other hospital amputations, which are done in response to disease, trauma, or pain. The majority of body parts amputated in the instance of American circumcision are healthy, so one might very well wonder what happens to them as opposed to various other amputated non-healthy body parts which end up in biohazardous waste. I don't know where exactly this discussion belongs, but it is definitely not irrelevant to Wikipedia. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant to Wikipedia, it's already covered on Wikipedia at Foreskin, because that's what the sourcing provided supports. If you think there's sourcing to support it here, maybe you can locate the needed sourcing? I have looked for such sourcing several times and didn't find it. I had no idea that same text was not only already in Foreskin but also Human penis. It clearly doesn't belong there. Maybe some day somebody will fix that. Regarding the rest of your response, once again, no original research please, and per Wikipedia policy, good-quality authoritative reliable secondary sourcing is the only thing we use to determine weight. Zad68 13:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Zad, again, I am not doing original research here. I didn't bother sourcing my statements because they're obvious. Circumcision is most often elected for cultural or religious reasons [source: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf], not medical ones. Amputations are most often performed for infection, disease, or injury reasons [source: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/definition-amputation], not religious or cultural ones. I was merely remarking that this is not irrelevant to Wikipedia. I know you've said that the foreskin article needs to be gutted re-written from scratch, but if/when it does, I do think this section should be kept, since the body part in question is a unique case of amputation. I further thought that because I saw this on the human penis article under the circumcision, it might possibly have some relevance. But again, other stuff exists, and I actually have no strong feelings about where this section belongs (I merely think it belongs somewhere), so I'd prefer to focus more on the other topics addressed below :) --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Moshe, we are on the same page here. I agree with you Wikipedia should carry the content. What we have supports it at Foreskin and if/when I were ever to do significant work on that article I would keep the coverage of it there (although I would look for better sourcing). Good we agree on this! Zad68 15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Zad68, respectfully, are you serious when you state that the selling of foreskins belongs in the foreskin article, and not in the circumcision article? When have you heard of the sale of a foreskin, when circumcision has not taken place? It belongs in circumcision, because it only takes place after circumcision. It is a function of circumcision, not a property of a foreskin.Tftobin (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Could this possibly be an instance of ignoring a discussion, not because it is invalid, but because editors find that it unpalatable? Tftobin (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, no, I think it's more a case of WP:DEADHORSE, where it's not productive to keep responding to the same assertion raised yet once again after the response was already provided. The sourcing provided so far simply doesn't support it. Do you have new sourcing you're providing and would like to discuss? If not... Zad68 15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Zad68, you (and I) may find it not to our liking, but use of foreskins from circumcision is here to stay. Countries have been making interferon from it for 20+ years. There are pieces of skin the size of a football field, used for skin grafting, which were originally foreskin. A treatment for baldness. http://www.medicaldaily.com/circumcised-foreskin-aids-baldness-cure-scientists-discover-new-path-hair-regeneration-260462

This is not going away. Tftobin (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources ever discuss this in the context of circumcision, then we'll have something to talk about. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's replies like that which, I note with more than a trace of irony, make me long for the relative open-mindedness of the past editing of Jakew Tftobin (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Any editor, even a recently appointed admin-editor should not attempt to end a discussion by saying "the response was already provided" - rather say that his or a response was provided, or better still that his opinion was offered.

The "dead horse" here is the small coterie of editors who doggedly block inclusion of entirely relevant information like re-use of foreskins from the circumcision article. It is heartening to see other editors agreeing with this assertion of mine.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The assertions that one would need reliable secondary sources to talk about the cutting edge of research made possible by circumcision, is, of course, absurd.

I agree, it seems like a case of, 'I don't want to, and you can't make me'. Not exactly in line with the founding principles, and rather constricting of information.Tftobin (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Tumad, Tftobin, if you want to get policy changed, I recommend you start discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... Zad68 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the content shouldn't be carried anywhere. The content is currently at Foreskin, which is where the sourcing provided supports it. (It should probably also be at Skin graft but isn't there right now, feel free to add it.) Of the four sources cited at Foreskin only two actually mention circumcision, and both of those only briefly in passing. Adding it here isn't supported by the sourcing provided. If there were a high-quality reliable source that covered how skin grafts were an important and noteworthy aspect of circumcision, and discussed that connection in sufficient depth so that we could build content based on it, it'd be worth adding a mention here. Do you have such a source? Zad68 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so. This is a power trip by the current ruling editors, plain and simple.

I already explained why it isn't a feature of a foreskin. No one processes a foreskin when it is still attached to someone, only when it has been removed in circumcision. It does not belong in the Foreskin article. It belongs here. If the foreskin has been removed in circumcision, it is no longer a medical procedure, it is the aftereffects of a medical procedure. As such, it does not need a secondary study, since, temporarily, it is no longer a part of a human body. Like it or not, this is a valid aspect of circumcision, because it would not be possible without circumcision. Truth is lower on the agenda, than control, that much is obvious. You guys have been fantastic.

Not inclusive, impartial, fair, or even reasonable, as any of 1000 people can tell you, but fantastic. Good humor, for a future generation. Cheers. Tftobin (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

ICD-10-PCS code in infobox

I just noticed that the ICD-10-PCS code given in the infobox is incorrect. The code that is given, Z41.2, is a reference to the ICD-10-CM code, although that's not what the infobox calls for. As such, I've gone ahead and inserted the ICD-10-PCS code. --Schaea (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why the ICD10 PCS is not being used? We automatically link to it and this is typically what we use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge sections 2,3,4 ( 2. Indications and contraindications, 3. Effects, 4. Adverse effects) into one called 'routine infant circumcision debate' or something similar.

I was thinking that there should be a section entitled something like 'the decision to circumcise' or 'routine infant circumcision' or 'non-therapeutic infant circumcision'. Something like that. Instead of the 3 sections mentioned above.

The reason I say this is because I am concerned about the Effects section. I am concerned that expecting parents may come here, look at the subsection headings : 3.1 Sexually transmitted diseases 3.2 Phimosis, balanitis and balanoposthitis 3.3 Urinary tract infections 3.4 Cancers , get scared unnecessarily and just think - oh we will get him circumcised to put our mind at ease. This is scaremongering and very irresponsible.

Original research is a clear breach of wikipedia principles. And original research can be presented in different ways. I would argue that the amount you weight a section (how big a section is in proportion to the article) is akin to original research. Because you the editor are deciding that this subsection is very important because you have assigned quite a lot of words to it.

I feel this is very irresponsible.

Another reason my proposal is a good idea is because you can highlight the fact - and it does need highlighting - that this 'debate' about whether to circumcise your newborn is almost absent in ALL western countries apart from the USA.

Another thing. The Effects section is littered with primary sources and it makes this article poor - untrustworthy and unreliable. So for instance, in the HIV section, we should not be citing Grey et al or Tobian.

This new section would draw upon the medical association reports. I propose we only use the reports of the medical associations. This is far better because it makes it far less likely that the article will be biased. If we agree that we should only use what was said in the medical association reports then it is likely we can reduce weighting bias.

Also another point to note. Having used a word counter tool, the effects and adverse effects section takes up 10,600 characters of 46,700 characters. Or 22% of the article - nearly a quarter. It goes into far too much detail - when a lot of it is irrelevant because on the whole it isn't medically beneficial according to most medical organisations. Because it isn't medically beneficial OVERALL - to give so much weight to promoting the health benefits is highly biased. What matters is if it is medically beneficial OVERALL when you are deciding. To use an analogy. Imagine an article on penectomy (removal of penis). That would prevent a lot of penile diseases and by listing them all in an article you could make it sound like a good idea. But the overall context would be lost.

This whole health effects thing is entirely confined to the routine infant circumcision debate in the USA. The amount of people who are adults and elect to have surgery for the health benefits is infinitesimal.

You might then ask if we were to get rid of these sections - what about HIV? That is important and deserves its own section.

I propose another section of the article. 'Circumcision as a HIV prevention tool in Africa'. In this section you can site the primary sources - the 3 randomised control trials. (There would also be a minor mention of HIV prevention in the other section - the routine infant circumcision debate - but it will be quite small in that section because it will be part of a wider discussion on whether the procedure as a whole is worth it.)

I feel 'Circumcision as a HIV prevention tool in Africa' is a very big and important topic, yet is hardly mentioned in this article. It deserves its own section so we can alert the reader to how it is going. All we say now is that the WHO recommends it. Not update on how it is going. We can also mention opposition to using circumcision as a HIV prevention tool.

Tell me what you think.

Tremello (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tremello... The trouble with the suggested reorganization is that it doesn't take into account how the available reliable sourcing handles the subject, and consequently would introduce a problem per WP:MEDMOS. The available reliable sourcing overwhelmingly treats circumcision as a medical topic. In the Talk archives there are two independent analsyses of the available sourcing, using both Google Scholar and Publish or Perish, and both came to the conclusion that the sourcing is overwhelmingly medical, and therefore per Wikipedia standards WP:MEDMOS is the proper organization. As for the amount of medical vs. non-medical content, last I checked there was more non-medical content than medical. This is actually out of balance because, per the sources, the article now has too much non-medical content. This evolved out of compromise, but the sourcing does not support making it even further out of balance as you suggest. You are right that Tobian shouldn't be used--the content it's supporting is already supported by two proper sources so I'll take Tobian out. There's no need to use primary sources to support HIV content as there are plenty of secondary sources. Don't forget that this the main article in a WP:SUMMARY-style group of articles. Details about the pro- vs. anti- groups should be covered in detail in Circumcision controversies. Detail about circumcision and HIV should be covered in Circumcision and HIV. For both of those, this article should summarize the most important points. Zad68 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions Tremello, and cogently argued. I support your proposed changes for the reasons you outline and for reasons which i have outlined previously. There is a predictable circular fatal flaw in Zad's rebuttal of your suggestion. It is this ; Zad sets up medical sources as "the available reliable sourcing" and concludes then that as these medical sources deal with circumcision as a medical topic (predictably) that therefore medical sources should dominate. But medicine is only a very small part of the cultural phenomenon of circumcision. The editors who presently patrol the article will permit no mention of forced adult circumcisions, or the sale post-excision of the cut off foreskins for cosmetics manufacture for instance. Your arguments about the impression readers will get from the present subject divisions are the most compelling. As presently presented the article is organized like a gerrymandered constituency. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely just an oversight, Tumadoireacht: the source databases I mentioned—Google Scholar and Publish or Perish—index scholarly research but are not at all limited to only medical sourcing. You must have been thinking of the PubMed database, which I do refer to quite a but, but I did not in my response above. Looking now, I actually see that you personally were involved in that previous thread that reviewed those source indexing databases. Zad68 02:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't indications and contra-indications come before technique, as per MEDMOS#Surgeries_and_procedures? --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 03:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Holy Moley you're right, I can't believe it has been ordered not in accordance with WP:MEDMOS for this long, and nobody caught it until now! Fixed, thanks!! Zad68 03:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding: there needs to be more sections moved around, fixing... Zad68 03:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ... actually, no, it was just that one. There is not enough regarding recovery/rehab to break out into a new section separate from Technique. Zad68 03:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Though WP:MEDMOS does not have to be strictly followed, and there are going to be times that it is best to not strictly follow it, it is generally preferable to follow it and therefore have uniformity across Wikipedia with regard to medical articles and anatomy articles. I agree that it is best to follow it in the case of the Circumcision article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Just did a google scholar search : http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=circumcision and it does seem it is primarily medical sources Zad. I also don't see how that bolsters your position - the fact that a lot of the info written about circumcision is medical and therefore the general public should be cajoled into thinking circumcision is overall medically beneficial. Which is what is occurring now by having a separate effects section detailing how circumcision prevents all these things.

The fact is that overall, most agree - apart from the AAP taskforce - that circumcision isn't worth it. For instance, with STI's including HIV, it has not been shown to reduce it in a Western setting. Also there have been many criticisms of the RCTs by medical professionals. Yes some of them are anti-circ activists but that doesn't mean their opinions should be dismissed. UTI's are not serious and easily treated. Cancer is very rare and the case for circumcising to prevent it is weak. Phimosis, balanitis and balanoposthitis - they are very rare, not that serious, and easily treated.

The circumcision controversies article and the circumcision and HIV article gets around 100 hits per day. So I am more concerned about the main circumcision article since it gets around 5000 hits a day. Since a lot of people may be getting the wrong impression. The general reader isn't that intelligent or knowledgeable about circumcision compared to us and may only skim the article - so headings and structure are important. It is important that we think about the impression the general reader will get. We don't want to scare exaggerate or mislead them. particularly if expecting parents are coming to this article to decide whether to circumcise their child.

So you can see that the way the article is presented now is akin to original research. In the sense that you are giving the impression to the general reader, via the arrangement and structure of the article, that it is better to be circumcised. If we followed my recommendation it would be more accurate to the reality. The reality is that most people don't think circumcision is worth it overall. Yes I think most people are willing to concede that it may reduce things slightly but overall the negatives outweigh the positives. In the same way removing a woman's breasts a birth would not be a good idea.

Also regarding a new section on circumcision to prevent HIV. Please note that the African researchers who conducted the RCT's were not originally pro-circ fanatics - they were AIDS and STI researchers that had done studies on other methods to combat HIV - they ended up trying circumcision as just another way to prevent AIDS. So their main motive and job ( I would hope) is to reduce HIV and other STI's in Africa - not promote circumcision. So I do think 'circumcision to combat HIV in Africa' deserves its own section. It is in this section that we can mention more about the 3 RCTS. We can also mention other STI studies done in Africa as a sidenote. As I say, circumcision to prevent disease is all about Africa. There is no HIV epidemic in the Western world. It is a very hard disease to catch. There is a 1 in 2000 chance of a man catching HIV if he has unprotected sex with an HIV infected woman (see: cdc HIV risk ).

Tremello (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Tremello, on the organization proposal, I'm having trouble following your logic. You don't disagree that the sourcing for this topic is overwhelmingly medical, and you don't disagree that the article represents the sourcing accurately. If this is what the best-quality reliable sources say, then the article as it stands reflects the sources accurately... so, no Wikipedia policy-based argument is being raised here. The "original research" claim isn't supported by what's actually found in the sourcing, as it has been applied to Wikipedia content guidelines. If anything, your statement "overall the negatives outweigh the positives" appears to be original research that isn't based in the secondary sources, and it would be wrong to reorganize the article based on it.

I'm also not seeing the article content supporting your concerns, actually. The article accurately reflects current worldwide medical consensus that routine infant circumcision is not generally recommended and that no major medical organization recommends routine circumcision, not even the AAP, and not even for the prevention of UTIs (as the article states, "prevention of UTIs does not justify routine use of the procedure"). The article states circumcision has no effect on the incidence of genital warts and only "possibly" has an effect on herpes; circumcision's protective effects against penile cancer do not justify the procedure because the incidence of penile cancer is so low; no major medical organization recommends routine infant circumcision for the prevention of HIV, excepting of course for the WHO's recommendations for those parts of Africa. The only medical benefits discussed are the reliable sources that cover the current medical consensus that circumcision may be medically indicated in children for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic, recurrent urinary tract infections. Also the World Health Organization promotes circumcision as a preventive measure for sexually active men in populations at high risk for HIV. We have strong and explicitly medical sources to support these statements.

There are some things I agree with you on: Regarding the opinions of activists-- I agree with you that we could expand coverage of the pro vs. anti a bit. In a previous discussion here on this Talk page I recommended that we have a paragraph covering "intactivism", so I am on board with that. We do have to keep in mind that, relative to the overall topic, "intactivism" is a very small piece, and our article's emphasis on it needs to be commensurate with that per WP:WEIGHT. If someone spends a lot of time seeking out and reading debate-related material on activism forums, it's easy to come away with the mistaken impression there's more emphasis on debate than there actually is, let's be careful not to make that mistake. The fact that the controversies article doesn't get that many hits actually supports that observation: it appears most readers coming to the article (by a 50:1 margin according to the numbers you provided) are finding what they're looking for and aren't so interested in the controversies topic. This is good evidence to support keeping the article organization the way it is now. And, I think your proposal of highlighting the coverage of circumcision and HIV into a higher-level section is good, and reflects the emphasis found in the sources accurately. Zad68 14:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of humans are "intactivists" (to use that inadequate term) in relation to cutting off foreskins should have greater prominence in the article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Tremello, Tumadoireachet, Every suggestion for change here must be based on how the preponderance secondary sources treat the topic, including the prominence given various elements of the topic. I have yet to see a suggestion here based on even one reliable secondary source; therefore, none of the suggestions made here are actionable in any way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Jayjig you are again quite incorrect in that assertion and off topic too. You are ducking the points raised -whether deliberately or inadvertently I cannot say.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be "incorrect"; which reliable secondary sources did you cite in your comments in this section? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

But you did intend to be sarcastic ? The exhaustive inaccurate reiteration of part of the content policy about secondary sources by yourself and a small coterie of other editors is becoming both an increasingly obvious avoidance of relevant criticism of this currently artificially stalled article, and irksome too. The suggestions by Tremello are,of course "actionable", if by "actionable" you mean capable of being acted upon to improve the article (rather than giving sufficient reason to take legal action). Did you not notice that editors have been discussing the merits of implementing them, and have already made changes based on them, while you focussed so steadfastly on repeating a section of a policy on secondary sources ? When discussing article structure, the "secondary source" consideration is a secondary consideration.

If circumcisions are being forced on adults in several parts of the world, if foreskins are being sold, if children are being killed or maimed by circumcisers having oral-genital contact with them during circumcisions and we blithely blurt "oh the important medical sources do not mention these things" and repeatedly block all mention of them in the most consulted article on Circumcision, then we are failing in our undertaking as editors of Wikipedia. You may find re-reading these pages helpful:

• WP:NEWSORG
• WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL
• WP:IUC
• WP:5
• WP:5P
• WP:FIVE
• WP:FIVEPILLARS

--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This article follows WP:MEDMOS. We do this for consistency across topic areas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doc James' reasons, as well as my own. While I am against routine infant circumcision, one's feelings on a given subject should not influence its article. If – and it's a big "if" – expectant parents come here, see the subsections under the "Effects" section and "get scared unnecessarily and just think - oh we will get him circumcised to put our mind at ease" as Tremello suggests, then these parents are being irresponsible for having such a knee-jerk reaction after only glancing at a few subheadings. It is the job of Wikipedia editors to accurately inform, a job which I think the editors here have done an exceptional job of doing considering the highly controversial nature of this topic. Editors can't be worried about what irresponsible people will do with parts of their information. Indeed, if that were the case, many articles on Wikipedia wouldn't exist! It isn't "scaremongering"; nobody is saying "your son will definitely get all of these bad things if you don't circumcise him." If that's what irresponsible readers choose to take away from the article, then there's nothing the editors can do to stop that. --Schaea (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I also personally oppose routine neonatal circumcision and do not recommend the procedure. I have referred less than half a dozen kids for the procedure over 10 year of practice and all of them were for significant medical issues. Our personal positions are however not important for Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently does reflect my opposition "No major medical organization recommends non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision" as the sources support this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Would circumcision be legal if it wasn't a religious tradition?

Cutting off body parts from children is in most country completely illegal, unless there are very strong medical reasons to do so. Are there strong enough medical evidences to justify the procedure, or does the justification mostly come from primitive old-fashioned religious superstition? I am pretty sure that the procedure would be illegal in most countries, if it wasn't for all the religious-traditional nonsense. Having a huge medical section is kinda ridiculous as most doctors don't think there are enough medical benefits to recommend the procedure. The outline of the article should reflect this view. The current outline of the article seems like jewish/islamic propaganda. Probably because the main contributers of this article are jews or muslims. This article should be written by atheists that don't have their thinking clouded by religious nonsense.84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this article should not be written from one specific point of view or by one specific group of people. Like all articles, it should follow WP:NPOV as much as possible. If you think that all or part of the medical section has undue weight, please be specific about which parts and why. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In this case a neutral point of view is an atheistic point of view. People that belong to the jewish or islamic faith naturally have a bias in their thinking about circumcision.84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No, an atheistic point of view is not a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view is a neutral point of view. Please actually read the policy page that I linked. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read some of the books by Richard Dawkins, and if you don't think an atheistic point of view reflects neutrality regarding circumcision, then please explain why. 84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've voiced your own opinion, see WP:NPOV for how Wikipedia defines it. If this conversation goes any further into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, or sees any more personal attacks based on religion, it will be closed if not deleted. Zad68 20:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me word this another way. This article can be viewed from a Catholic perspective. It can be viewed from a Muslim perspective. Or Buddhist, atheistic, pagan, etc. These are all singular points of view. They all have their biases. Wikipedia aims to balance all of these points of view and we call it "neutral point of view". At any rate, if you would like to discuss a specific change to the article, please do so. Debating points of view doesn't really accomplish anything. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if my "holy book" doesn't tell me if circumcision is good or bad, then how does my faith make me biased in this aspect?84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a specific change to the article that you would like to discuss or do you not? -- Fyrael (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the section about "Ethical and legal issues" should be before all the medical propaganda.84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So you think the "Society and Culture" section should come before the "Effects" section? Why do you think so? I have to say just reordering those sections doesn't seem like a very significant change. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in previous conversations, the sourcing for the topic of this article is overwhelmingly medical and so the article is organized per WP:MEDMOS. Zad68 21:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

But why are you treating circumcision mainly as a medical issue, when the practice comes from religious traditions? A million pubmed articles doesn't have the weight of either the bible or the quran. Circumcision is a practice mostly done for religious/traditional reasons, not a practice done for medical reasons. Do you disagree?84.210.15.173 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the article that it says the procedure is mostly done for medical reasons. The very first sentence after the opening paragraph reads "Neonatal circumcision is often elected for non-medical reasons, such as for religious beliefs or for personal preferences possibly driven by societal norms." -- Fyrael (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but if that is the case, then of course the Society and Culture sections should come before the medical section.84.210.15.173 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See previous responses. The article is organized per WP:MEDMOS because the sources covering it are overwhelmingly medical. The medical effects are the same regardless of the reason why it's done. Zad68 21:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it is very wrong to have it like it is now, because the current medical sections seem like circumcision propaganda. Putting this section so early and giving this section so much weight makes the whole article biased towards circumcision. I don't think this article has a neutral point of view at all.84.210.15.173 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, once again. Repeating for hopefully the last time: Per Wikipedia policy, articles are organized per the emphasis found in reliable sourcing, which for this topic is overwhelmingly medical. Zad68 21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversely, and probably NOT for the last time -there are many eminent secondary sources which cover the subject of circumcision from perspectives that are NOT medical but social. Consequently there are editors such as myself who firmly contest the opinion which Zad trots out so frequently on these talk pages that medical secondary sources rule here .In parts of the world circumcisions occur with no medical input or for reasons that have nothing to do with health. Most of the world chooses not to cut their children's genitals.In the article as presently constructed sufficient weight is lacking in drawing attention to this central latter fact alone (i.e most do not cut), never mind the omitting of all mention of the more bizarre aspects of the cultural phenomenon of circumcision some of which which I alluded to earlier. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of intent, at least in the US (and likely the rest of the world - which is why it is so extensively discussed in the medical literature), the vast, vast majority of circumcisions are performed by physicians as a medical procedure, so using MEDMOS would seem to be appropriate here. Do we have reliable sources that say otherwise? Yobol (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It certainly looks to me like the article covers the non-medical reasons for circumcision (and even more detail is given in the "for more information" links). And it very clearly states that "Approximately one-third of males worldwide are circumcised, most often for reasons other than medical indication". That right there seems to agree exactly with what Tumadoireacht is saying. I don't see how anything is lacking here. -- Fyrael (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also a graphic giving very detailed prevalence information. Can you really draw more attention to something than by giving it a graphic? -- Fyrael (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To answer Yobol's question we need look no further than the lede of the article as it stands, which is well supported by sources that have been deemed acceptable here. It says, "The procedure is most often elected for religious reasons or personal preferences" and "About one-third of males worldwide are circumcised." So the main reasons it is done to children are not medical, and it is a minority position to take. So, although it has been 'medicalised' in the sense that it has been largely taken out of the hands of enthusiastic amateurs in often unsanitary conditions, it is not a medical procedure except in the 1% (or whatever it is) of cases where there are congenital abnormalities. I agree that it should not be treated here as primarily a medical treatment. On the worldwide scale (a) it is not done to the majority of male children or adults (b) when it is done it is usually not a medical treatment for any illness or disease in the patient. This perspective, or 'Point Of View', is not prevalent in the article, and it absolutely should be. --Nigelj (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So, if I understand this correctly, Nigelj is saying that despite the article stating flat out several times that the motivation for most circumcisions is non-medical, you feel that the mere length of the "Effects" section is giving undue weight to the medical reasons? Is that right? -- Fyrael (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I was primarily referring to the overall tone, and the insistence on MEDRS sources, but to be more specific:

1. Section heading 'Indications and contraindications' - this is medical terminology used in relation a procedure that is very rarely done for medical therapeutic purposes. The section talks about "non-medical" and "non-therapeutic", but the heading does not reflect that.
2. 'Medical indications' subsection does not give any indication of how rare these indications are, or what proportion of circumcisions they lead to.
3. 'Effects' section, as you say, is far too long. There should be perhaps 20 to 100 times more text about the social and religious traditions that lead to many times as many circumcisions, when compared to the medical reasoning that leads to the much smaller proportion.
4. 'Nowhere' is there a section about the two thirds of males who are never circumcised, all the reasons for that, what they and others have to say about it, etc.

The procedure requiring medical skill does not make this a medical procedure as the vast majority of operations are carried out on healthy, well-formed individuals with no illness or disease. Most of this article should be about that viewpoint, and that viewpoint does not require MEDRS sourcing. At the moment it is like requiring all our articles on air transport to be sourced from air crash investigation reports. --Nigelj (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nigel, there is insistence on WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical content, that's required. The general direction of your suggestions can't be pursued because the sourcing and Wikipedia content policy don't support it. To pick just one of your suggestions: "There should be perhaps 20 to 100 times more text about the social and religious traditions"... 20 to 100 times? those numbers are based on what? This suggestion isn't backed up by what's actually found in a survey of the sourcing, which both Google Scholar (not limited to medical) and Publish or Perish (not limited to medical) both show is overwhelmingly medical, and absolutely supports WP:MEDMOS layout. Wikipedia does have specialist articles to cover social and religious aspects specifically, see Circumcision controversies, Religious male circumcision, Khitan, Brit milah and others.

The issue is this: Let's say you're a good researcher, and someone tasks you to write an article on something you've never heard of before and have no opinion about, called "circumcision". After confirming you have the correct spelling, you go to you favorite academic search engines and indexes and you take a broad, general survey of the sourcing. Within a few minutes you'd come to the conclusion, "This is a medical topic, with some historical and social aspects." As Wikipedia editors, isn't that exactly how we're supposed to approach article development? Zad68 03:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion that a procedure isn't "medical" because of the motivation of the person deciding on why the procedure is done is at best misguided. That the intention of the procedure is religious (or cosmetic, or social, etc) in nature doesn't make the procedure itself any less inherently medical. As an analogy, many plastic surgery procedures (face lift, breast augmentation, breast reduction, etc) can have purely cosmetic motivation (i.e. no "disease" is being treated); that, however, does not mean they are any less fully "medical" procedures. Suggestions that procedures done by medical personnel in a medical setting isn't medical are in the end not very convincing. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is also a good point. Zad68 03:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be a good or bad point but it does not address the arguments raised - instead it addresses one not raised -old politico's jaded turn.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Off topic digression. This is not a forum for a general discussion of the topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, this procedure is enforced on children that don't have the ability to say yes or no, and it is more or less irreversible. Breast removal might decrease the chance of developing cancer, so we might start removing the tissue that will grow into breasts on female children. Then we might create a wikipedia article where we start by a long medical section describing the medical benefits of infant breast removal. Wouldn't you call that propaganda? This is pretty much what you are doing in this article. My wife finds me less sexually appealing as I don't have foreskin. 84.210.15.173 (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yobol does raise a good point: the intention behind circumcision is often 'cosmetic' on the part of secular parents. I don't think this article is part of Category:Cosmetic surgery. Should we put that right? --Nigelj (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nigel this article is already in that category. Although I actually think the sourcing does not support it, the article should be in Category:Elective surgery. Zad68 12:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

the relegation of one editor by another just above of a comment to hidden off topic status

Apart from a mildly misguided personalization at the end of one point about a penis with bits cut off the end of it (frenulum,foreskin et cetera) being unappealing to a sexual partner for pleasure mechanical reasons or aesthetic ones the hidden piece did address content issues. did it really merit hiding without any discussion?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal problems don't belong on a WP Talk page, surely you agree. Then what's left of that comment is "soapboxing", also clearly prohibited by WP guidelines. Far too much of this was allowed in the past, I'm glad that WP rules are starting to be enforced on this page.--89.204.135.201 (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

that entry now hidden, is outlining an analogy between the idea of infant girl breast node removal as a disease preventative, and the idea of infant foreskin removal for the same reason, as an illustration of the current poor state of this article and in an attempt to address a perceived content fault.This is not soapboxing.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is sad how this wikipedia article seems to have been hijacked by circumcision supporters. I am generally against deforming babies, unless it is absolutely necessary for medical reasons. If people want their foreskin removed they can do it to themselves when they are adults. This is why I think the ethical debate should come before the medical propaganda. Do we have the right to deform our children? Why can't we let them decide for themselves when they are old enough to make such decisions.84.210.15.173 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that circumcision should be outlawed, then get off your duff and work to get your elected representatives to do your bidding. However, you are in the wrong place here. Study the WP talkpage guidelines to see what's allowed and what isn't.--89.204.130.54 (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the wikipedia guidelines advocates for a neutral point of view. Right now this article looks more like circumcision propaganda.84.210.15.173 (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like propaganda to you because the article does not conform to your wishes, which presumably are to state outright that circumcision is barbaric, a human rights violation and a terrible crime, and harmful to people. I know that German wikipedia's article on the topic does in effect promote that point of view. Perhaps your home country's Wikipedia does, too. However, here the majority of editors have decided not to inject their personal opinions. Instead of quoting heavily from "intactivist" websites, showing gruesome color photographs of circumcisions gone wrong, and cherry-picking primary studies that show negative effects of circumcision, they are applying rigorously neutral sourcing standards. This time, the result is not in alignment with your personal preferences. However, think about it this way. On a different article, a group of editors could get together and enforce their point of view while not fairly representing the preponderance of relevant and reliable sources. Perhaps that article is on a topic you know well in a professional capacity. Wouldn't you be annoyed that the majority of editors are going against the grain of the literature then? That's why Wikipedia has a whole bunch of guidelines, to prevent such an occurrence.82.113.121.28 (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If this article did indeed have a neutral point of view, we would expect just as many complaints from people believing that circumcision is a good thing as complains from people believing that circumcision is a bad thing. The people believing that circumcision is a good thing would complain that it is too negative, while the people believing that circumcision is a bad thing would complain that it is too positive. Here however we see almost only people complaining that the article is too positive to circumcision, while we see almost no one complaining that this article is too negative to circumcision. I also think it is a bit stupid to always have a neutral point of view. Then we should let nazis and fascists be heard as much as human rights activists. Personally I think the voice of human rights activists should be louder on wikipedia, and do we really have any right to deform our babies unless it is absolutely necessary for medical reasons?84.210.15.173 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right that pro-circumcision advocates are not complaining here in equal numbers. Why are they not here to complain that their view that circumcision is such a good thing that it should be mandatory right after birth is not given the weight it deserves? This is speculation on my part, but it could be that these people skew towards the highly educated and they know better than to engage in a futile battle. Another reason might be the legal status quo worldwide that circumcision is legal. People opposed to the status quo will naturally take their fight to every venue, including Wikipedia (even though it's against the rules to fight your policy battles here). Those who are content with the status quo, on the other hand, tend to be more complacent. But don't let the apparent frequency of complaints fool you. Whenever there is a so-called Request for Comment (a notice to the Wikipedia community at large to weigh in and help decide a controversy over a particular article), the majority invariably come down in favor of keeping this article's structure and orientation etc. largely unchanged -- because they are satisfied with its neutrality -- and the WP editor who starts the RfC hoping for backup loses.

One more comment on "let nazis and fascists be heard as much as human rights activists". I think this betrays a misunderstanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia. It's not a common room where anyone can post their views or step on a soapbox to spread their views. There are articles about nazism, about fascism, about various human-rights initiatives. In every case, the noteworthy activities of nazis, fascists, and human-rights activists are reported, or at least that's how it should be. Academic literature is preferred for reliable sources and currently few academics happen to be nazis or fascists, hence the fascist or nazi worldview is not reflected much in Wikipedia articles. If ever there comes a day when fascists take control of academic institutions and write the textbooks, Wikipedia will have to reflect that reality... or shut down. "Intactivists" are well aware that the reliable sources are not on their side, hence they work hard to demonize physicians and medical associations who do not share their view as financially motivated or ethnically/religiously biased. This may be effective in Europe where there is a cultural bias against circumcision and any argument against it, no matter how poorly founded, is welcome. It works less well in the U.S., and as most editors of English-language Wikipedia are Americans, those efforts at "winning" by using ad hominems will always be doomed to failure.82.113.121.28 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So I am biased against circumcision because I don't think we have a right to physically deform our babies? I think you are biased against human rights, as you don't see it as a human right to be allowed to grow up without being physically deformed. I am not biased against circumcision, because I think everybody should have the right to circumcise themselves as long as they make the decision themselves. What I am against is people forcing other people to become physically deformed. It should be an individual choice whether you want to become physically deformed or not. Please tell me why you feel like you (and other people) have the right to physically deform your babies. You certainly don't know if they are going to like the decision you made for them when they grow older. And if you think us Europeans are behind the Americans in this aspect, then I think you are badly mistaken. I am pretty sure that more babies are circumcised in the united states because people are more religious in the united states, and as a consequence ill-founded ideas like creationism and circumcision of babies flourish in the united states. Look upon the other countries in the world where religious superstition and circumcision flourish. Not exactly the most advanced countries, right?84.210.15.173 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me why you feel like you (and other people) have the right to physically deform your babies. This is called "putting words into people's mouths", and as a debating tactic is generally looked on very poorly. In addition to being extremely rude, it marks you out as a strident advocate for a cause. In any case, and I have mentioned this before, debating the topic of the article is not allowed on the talk page.89.204.135.125 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been observing the heated debates going on this talk page. Here is what I think is a major underlying issue (correct me if I am wrong): there is a massive information gap. Let me explain:

• Looking over the article, one gets the impression that circumcision, whatever the intent and method, is a medical procedure. Fine.

• "Neonatal circumcision is often elected for non-medical reasons". Fine.

• "About one-third of males worldwide are circumcised." Fine.

When reading this article as a purely neutral observer with no interest in the matter, one would be struck by how many benefits and few complications there are to this procedure. Circumcision prevents such-and-such disease, this disease, that disease, it's basically not risky at all, there are no minimal side effects, it makes no difference for sex. Why then, is it most "often elected for non-medical reasons"? Why is the US the only Western country doing it? Why would most of the world remain uncircumcised? Why don't developed countries with good healthcare like Japan and European nations do it? Discussing this in detail would obviously go off-topic in the article and would possibly detract from it, but this definitely leaves the reader wondering. This article basically comes across as: "Circumcision is a great idea medically" and "Most of the world doesn't do it for medical reasons". Does this not appear odd to anyone? (I don't know how to correct this problem, but I'm just observing it and verbalizing it.)

Another issue. I know other stuff exists, but look at, for example, rhinoplasty. This medical article is very detailed, yet glosses over "effects" - I'm sure it could go into great detail about the enhanced feelings of self-worth, boosted confidence, etc, etc, that having a new nose provides. Yet it doesn't. Clitoridectomy (which, noted, is a small article) states that "it is rarely needed as a therapeutic medical procedure, such as when cancer has developed in or spread to the clitoris." Our circumcision article is not so blatant about the rare medical need of circumcision, although this is a rare need as well. Also, rhinoplasty's lead photo is a color one of the actual procedure, which is indeed graphic. Again, Wikipedia is not censored. If medical content is not "up to snuff" because it is 5 years+ old, why should a picture that is over 100 years old be the lead photo? An actual photo of circumcision ought to be included. A photo I suggested was previously dismissed because it was "graphic" (my use of the term in a previous post), but this is a graphic procedure, is it not? Thanks. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 05:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Moshe, I think your comments about the prevalence and distribution information are sensible. The article does discuss those topics in history and in how positions of medical organizations interact with (both influence and follow) the cultural norms of the communities they serve. If you'd like the article to carry more, the answer is the same as always: Bring high-quality reliable sources that cover these topics and summarize them in the article. For effects, once again, what we do is summarize the best-quality reliable sources, taking care per WP:DUEWEIGHT to reflect the emphasis found in those sources. I haven't surveyed the sources for Rhinoplasty like I have for this article, but that article does seem to be lacking in coverage of the social aspects. I hope some day someone expands that article... it may not come up to the same proportion of coverage of society and culture as this article, which devotes over half its content to non-medical topics, but Rhinoplasty should have more than it does now. The current lead image reflects the cultural and historical aspects, as opposed to medical, that so many editors want to see this article emphasize, and it's a WP:FI as well... this has been discussed to death, frankly... don't you find it self-contradictory when those who say the the article should focus a lot more on cultural stuff also then want an explicit, graphic medical lead image? I sure do, anyway. Zad68 14:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder why we have forskin if circumcision is such a great medical idea, like it is portrayed as in this article. You are familiar with basic evolutionary theory, right? If less forskin is a great medical idea, then we expect a higher survival rate for individuals born with less foreskin. Some mutations will cause less foreskin, and some individuals will be borned with those mutations. During thousands of years humans would have lost all forskin due to "survival of the fittest". Obviously we haven't lost our foreskin, so it is highly improbable that circumcision is a great medical idea. And for all the religious people that don't believe in evolution, do they think they can improve on God's creation by cutting off the foreskin? Why don't these religious people believe that God put the foreskin there for a reason? There are lots of things I wonder about when I read this article.84.210.15.173 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Traits that are passed on are not always necessarily beneficial; additionally, many of the deemed medical benefits of circumcision (prevention of penile cancers, HIV, minor UTIs) were not viable threats for much of human evolution. Lamarckian evolution was disproved long ago, so repeated circumcision won't affect foreskin at birth either. As for the religious question, there are many apologetic answers to that (I know most of the arguments...take them as you will). I've tried to briefly answer your questions so as not to discourage you, but either way, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum, so speculative conclusions will not go very far on the talk page.

Well, sexually transmissible diseases have existed for a very very long time. Of course the amount of such diseases increased drastically with the fist civilizations about 10 000 years ago. But just since then humans have developed the ability to digest lactose. So even if sexually transmissible diseases became a problem only after the first civilizations, we might still have developed less foreskin from then until today. It is also quite unlikely that sexually transmissible diseases didn't have a negative impact on human surivial rates also before the first civilizations. If less foreskin is indeed a wonder medicine against all forms of sexually transmissible diseases, well then it should have generated a significantly higher survival rate for individuals born with less foreskin, and then we should have seen a tendency for less and less foreskin throughout the evolutionary history of mankind. The reality is probably the opposite. The genes involved in foreskin generation are probably well conserved throught the evolutionary history of mankind, which points to functionallity. Genes that are conserved have functionality. Looking upon conserved DNA is actually a modern way of finding out which parts of the genome have functionallity.84.210.15.173 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

IP, I do understand where you're coming from here- but please realize that many terms we use in everyday life ("neutral", "reliable source") mean vastly different things on Wikipedia...just as uneducated people misuse the word "theory" to dismiss the validity of evolution by descent, ignorant of the fact that "theory" means something very different in the scientific world. I personally think Zad put it very well to me:

It isn't because those articles are biased, but rather they reflect what's found in reliable secondary sources. (Maybe another way to say this is the articles will reflect the same biases found in the reliable sources.) Same thing with the article names circumcision and female genital mutilation--the articles are named that way because that's how the reliable sources treat them.

Essentially, the problems with neutrality we see with this page are not a reflection of possible bias in Wikipedia, but rather possible bias in the medical community. If there exists a culture of circumcision, conclusions of medical reports may be reluctant to dismiss the practice; a place like Europe, which doesn't circumcise, doesn't even bother to publish so many studies, refutation articles, etc, simply because they already have an opinion on it and, as such, don't do it. This, if true, will obviously make an issue, but there is not much Wikipedia can do. Verifiability > Truth on Wikipedia; if you know something is true, but can't verify it, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Similarly, if something is verifiable but you know it is not true, it will likely still be on Wikipedia. This is an extremely important foundation of the website, and actually one of the things used to make sure articles on religion stay neutral and accurate. (Could you imagine what pages on various religions would look like if we didn't have this standard?)

Wikipedia is a summary of the world, not an interpreter of it. The "world" in this case is the medical world, and the medical world in this case is dismissing circumcision's adverse effects as minor, or at least appears to be. You or I may not agree with it, but it is the case for now. If the world changes (or we find some existing reliable sources of good quality that say otherwise), I am confident that Wikipedia will reflect that. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Like Well stated! Zad68 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think wikipedia generates the mindset of future generations. These days kids go on wikipedia to find their facts, and they often find facts on wikipedia that completely contradicts the modern consensus in society. You might say that wikipedia is a reflection of the academic world, rather than of the society as a whole. In any case I think it is very wrong to have wikipedia articles that seem to encourage violations of human rights, and I think it is a human right to grow up in an unmutilated body. The ethical dilemma of wheter we have any right to mutlilate babies isn't given enough weight in this article. I wish it was given more weight early in the article.84.210.15.173 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Zad, I agree that there is a definitely some self-contradiction and misinformation with some of the proposed edits (including things which I personally believe, but recognize have no place here). However, as it stands, and in spite of opinions and suggestions of others, the article is primarily medical, and should have a lead medical image as such. If anything though, the bris photo File:Covenant of Abraham.JPG might technically be more encyclopedic, since it is (a) color, (b) far more recent, and (c) displays some modern tools that are used in circumcision. It's a little low-res, but the present photo doesn't reflect these. I was unaware that the present image is FI, so maybe that gives it "priority" status, but again, something fulfilling those three would probably be more ideal. While it doesn't have to necessarily be a lead photo, I definitely think a photo of the actual procedure should be included somewhere in the article. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 17:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd actually look through the article you'll see more space is given to non-medical aspects than medical... Regarding File:Covenant of Abraham.JPG, that image is actually already used in the article, in the Judaism subsection. I don't think it's an improvement to make it the lead image or feature it more in the article because according the WHO's numbers, circumcisions performed for Jewish religious reasons make up far less than 1%, I think even less than 0.3%. If there's any religion's rite this article needs to feature it's Islam's, as the current lead image does. Zad68 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the Islamic circumcision (khitan) being more relevant than Jewish circumcision (bris). However, it just bothers me that the lead photo is 140+ years old...imagine if appendectomy's lead photo was the 1919 one, instead of the more modern, color one. It doesn't seem as if there are any good, modern, color, fair-use images available in this case, other than of the actual procedure, which is why I suggested it.

Regardless of whether it's lead or not, do you think an actual photo of the procedure should be included in the article? --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 16:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Appendectomy hardly seems like a good comparison--surely you understand that an appendectomy doesn't have the same level of cultural and historical connections. Images that support an encyclopedia article should explain and clarify, without distracting. We have to remember that our target reader isn't a medical student or specialist, rather a layperson. Often for medical topics, and things relating to human genitalia (especially those of infants), we will be much more successful in our job of relaying encyclopedic information to that audience by using illustrations. It's possible there's a photo that is encyclopedic and instructive beyond what the current images provide already, and which educates without distracting, but I haven't run across it yet. We've been asking the WHO for permission to use some of their images, as some of them could fit the bill, but we haven't gotten it yet. Zad68 05:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Moshe wrote: if you know something is true, but can't verify it, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Similarly, if something is verifiable but you know it is not true, it will likely still be on Wikipedia. This is no longer on the article topic but a meta discussion on Wikipedia. None of the famed encyclopedias of the past, from Diderot's enlightenment-era encyclopedia to the sadly near-defunct Encyclopaedia Britannica, worked that way. If you have experts in a field writing articles, an editor's role is merely to support them with a light touch. If an expert -- a world-leading authority -- knows that something is not true, she or he will also know why it is not true. Then the choice is to leave the false information out; put in the correct information instead (for example, by correcting a math error or an obvious falsehood evident to anyone armed with little more than their faculties of hearing or seeing); or juxtapose a reporting of the false information found in the textbook or other "reliable source" with the contradicting evidence. Wikipedia disallows the first two because "anyone can edit", hence the insistence on robotically following prescribed procedure. That leaves only the third option for dealing with untrue information from reliable sources, and it is difficult to do; even experienced journalists struggle with this at times.

In the context of this article, however, the foregoing does not matter. The medical editing guidelines sensibly state that primary studies must not be used to refute the evidence of secondary studies. That's because the primary studies have already been factored into the secondary studies and you can't use them twice. And furthermore, most of the critics of this article make a moral, normative argument, not an argument based on truth. They say, I fervently believe that circumcision is morally wrong and the article should reflect my belief: it must condemn circumcision. But that argument is about moral values, not truth, and it doesn't belong here.82.113.121.224 (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So you don't think wikipedia should care about morality at all? You think the wikipedia articles about murder, rape, pedophilia, mutilation of babies and so on only should talk about the process and leave out everything about morality? And to get a neutral point of view, you should give equally much space to the pleasure derived by the rapists as to the suffering derived by the victims?84.210.15.173 (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

84, you are on a crusade. I understamd that. But you must also understand that your increasingly repetitive comments are becoming tiresome and make one reluctant to carry on the conversation. 1) Morals and morality are material fit for inclusion in both an encyclopedia and in an "encyclopedia" like Wikipedia. 2) All relevant material about these topics (murder, etc.) that comes from reliable sources should be included. This includes statutory penalties, prosecution and punishment, which should give the reader a clue how society views these crimes. 3) No.82.113.121.114 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Having a 140 year old photo of some nice old blokes in Turbans sitting around as the lead photo for an article described by editor-admin Zad himself as being primarily about the present day clinical procedure of cutting of a foreskin is beyond a joke. It leads quickly to one questioning what other purpose having such an oblique photo might serve. That the photo itself has gotten some sort of barnstar is an utter red herring in this discussion. Stick that photo in the history of circumcision article and stick a decent photo of the procedure in ththis one.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

percentage of circumcisions performed by tribal or religious folk ?

Editor Yobol states without any reference

'the vast, vast majority of circumcisions are performed by physicians as a medical procedure"

Anybody got stats on this ? -presuming that the rest of the world mimics USA can lead to all sorts of mistaken shenanigans--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adverse effects section update

This section clearly lacks a neutral point of view. The following must be addressed:

1)Immediate adverse effects

2)Post-operative adverse effects

3)Long-term emotional adverse effects

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi David, as I explained on your User Talk, self-published statements by small advocacy groups are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia for general statements about effects on human health. Information about effects on human health needs to be supported by reliable sourcing that complies with the WP:MEDRS guideline. The article currently does summarize adverse effects as found in up-to-date reliable sourcing that complies with the appropriate guidelines. You should read WP:NPOV for information on what Wikipedia considers "a neutral point of view"--it is based purely in what reliable sourcing says. Zad68 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you find more sources about the negative consequences of circumcision? Why do you only look for positive sources? If you want this article to become more neutral (like you should be doing), then you should look for sources yourself.84.210.15.173 (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on DavidHGrateful, not on Zad68. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And he doesn't "only look for positive sources"; he follows WP:Due weight with regard to the WP:MEDRS guideline, as he's stated many times now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DavidHGrateful is proposing considering adverse effects in three separate time periods following cutting off the foreskin. Perhaps such an organisational shift in structure makes sense. Perhaps that is what this section should confine itself to debating.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Psychological trauma

Second paragraph states:

The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks.

Is psychological trauma more than a significant risk?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 10:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article already carries psychosocial risks with appropriate weight, sourced to a recent systematic review. Zad68 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Addressing a percieved bias

As has been stated before, the opening paragraphs seem unduly weighted toward the discussion of a small number of rare conditions in which circumcision is beneficial. There is only a cursory mention of equivalent complications and no discussion of growing the prevelance of amateur surgery. Given that a senior urologist in at least one country has publicly stated that the increasing prevalence of procedures carried out by unqualified persons and/or in unsanitary conditions (presumeably for religious reasons) is killing infants, could this link be of any benefit to rebalancing the article somewhat? [1]. It should also be noted that the review that has been used for stating the frequency of complications and the low rate of infection is from pediatric sources only. On top of this, they state at the beginning of the review that there is a lack of data worldwide. This caveat has not been included in this article. 109.149.171.230 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you've reviewed the archives to see that this has been raised before, surely you've also read the responses provided before: on Wikipedia we weight what's found in the articles in line with the weight found in the reliable sourcing. What the article covers is very well supported by how the sources cover it. I can't see how a popular-press article about one case report would be useful here, see WP:MEDASSESS. For the review, are you talking about Weiss? Zad68 05:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Because, as now, the answers do not appear to fully address the points raised. I am not talking about "one popular news report" (although this seems perfectly adequate for other articles), but I am talking about the Secretary of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists stating that unqualified or unsatisfactory circumcision procedures are responsible for the deaths of infants in recent years. I fail to see how a (often criticized) study on HIV warrants detailed inclusion in the opening paragraphs, but the risk of complications such as increased infant mortality from amateur surgery barely gets a mention. By concentrating on certain positive paediatric reports, and completely ignoring either negative reports or rebuttals, this gives the impression that the circumcision is primarily a routine medical procedure carried out by professionals for the benefit of a patient's health. This may be the case in the US, but worldwide it is not. I have no great dipsute with most of the content in this article. My discomfort is due in part to it's layout, but mostly for it's omissions 109.149.171.230 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's that passage from the BBC website:

Consultant surgeon Feilim Murphy, secretary of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists, said: "The biggest issue is there are a number of children who are circumcised by people who are not experienced and don't understand what is required, and there can be significant complications with that."

He said this could include bleeding, which is particularly dangerous for babies, pain, damage to the penis and loss of the top of the penis.

He added: "Unfortunately children have died in the last number of years in Britain and Ireland from circumcision-related complications.

"It does make sense that everybody should register, that everybody should be on the same playing field.

"It makes sense for the child it makes sense for the family it makes sense for everyone."

How would you summarize this news report for this article? Perhaps like this:

In the UK, the secretary of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists called on circumcision providers to register, stating that a number of children had died in Britain and Ireland from circumcision-related complications in recent years. [REFERENCE: the BBC webpage.]

Problem with that is that we don't know where he got that information, about the fatal outcomes, from. It might be just hearsay.82.113.106.30 (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The article already cites a mortality rate (at least for the US) and also states "Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age" and that's sourced to a strong worldwide systematic review. So what Murphy is stating as an individual in a popular press article is already covered, and with stronger sourcing. The amount of "mention" is proportionate for a very rare catastrophic complication. I have new content to add about procedures performed in non-medical settings, and the related complications, and that should go in soon. Zad68 05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am delighted to read that you are going to attempt to address these areas Zad. They are certainly undercovered at present. I feel that there is an army of us contributing opinions here and a much smaller division of folk such as yourself with the means,time and dedication to actually source and add content. Perhaps you might put the proposed content up here on the talk page first as editor 82.113 has just done with his proposed content addition directly above, so that all interested editors may consider it. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tuma, I have not proposed a content addition. The sentence I gave was merely in the way of asking 109 for clarification: is this what he or she has in mind? If so, however, I consider it problematical and I stated why.89.204.153.68 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood this sentence of yours Zad about adding content :

" I have new content to add about procedures performed in non-medical settings, and the related complications, and that should go in soon."--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have had a small amount of time this evening to do a little research. This 2010 review [2] could perhaps help in bridging the void. It states that there is a "lack of consensus" and "robust evidence" within the medical literature for things such as penile cancer, STI and UTI, while maintaining there is evidence for HIV prevention (at least in the African trials). If I had the time I would be tempted to run a statistical analysis on the medical reviews themselves! I suspect there would be a clear correlation betweeen the conclusions reached and the country from which they originated. Which brings us (in my opinion) to the crux of the matter. Rightly or wrongly, this is primarily a ritualistic or cosmetic procedure, regardless of what evidence or opinion the medical community has, or will provide. Therefore, to treat this as almost an entirely statistically based article, while only giving a cursory nod to the ethical debate, just feels wrong to me. I am certainly not advocating any bias either for or against. I would be happy to see quotes from Rabbis, Imams, surgeons and scholars. I also believe that any medical consensus (if proven) should remain the basis of the article. Perhaps a sub-heading of "controversy" may be worthwhile? 109.149.171.220 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the kind words. The source you linked to, Perera et al. 2010, is a systematic review and in fact it's already used in this article, it's currently reference #26. The article already states that the evidence and the cost-benefit analysis for the procedure's effects on things like UTIs and penile cancer doesn't justify routine use. Perera isn't the only one that states this. The sourcing is overwhelmingly medical, IP, and it appears you acknowledge this fact and don't dispute it. Per Wikipedia policy we go by the emphasis found in the sources; although it seems it's not your personal preference (it "just feels wrong" to you), what the article presents is the result of Wikipedia content policy applied to what is found in the reliable sourcing. For the religious subtopics, there are indeed entire articles devoted to them, see for example Khitan (circumcision) and Brit milah. See WP:SUMMARY for this article development approach, it's pretty common on Wikipedia. Zad68 03:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Intro is excessive

"A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.[10] The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[11][12] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[11] Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV-2 infections by 28%,[13] and is associated with reduced oncogenic HPV prevalence[14] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer,[5] but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions.[2][15] Studies of its protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections have been inconclusive. A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications.[16] Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[16][17]

This entire paragraph should be excised. There's really no reason for it to be in the intro as it adds too much information to the intro which should just be an overview of the various positions that different entities take on circumcision.

"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function."

This line is also using weasel words, and is highly subjective, citation or not. ScienceApe (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing the whole thing wouldn't be an improvement, in fact it would create a WP:LEAD problem--the lead needs to summarize the most important points and per the sources those are some of the most important points. A review of the sourcing will show you that. Not to say the wording couldn't be tightened up without losing the important information. For the second suggestion, take a look at what the sources cited say and you'll see the article represents what they say accurately. Zad68 03:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Zad on this; the lead is well-rounded, per WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever disagreed with Zad or failed to concur  ? Having such detail about a dodgy bit of research in one corner of the world which was halted on ethical grounds in the lead section smacks of desperate promotion of circumcision.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:34, 22 November 2013‎ (UTC)

The material satisfies the requirements of WP:LEAD, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDMOS. If you disagree with these guidelines, please start discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You missed my point, saying "sexual function" is a weasel word. What does that mean? Getting an erection? Ability to ejaculate? Pleasure from sex? It's not specific, it's weaseling and can be misconstrued. See WEASELScienceApe (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your point would seem to be off base, as the sources use the term "sexual function". We reflect what the sources say, and, of course, external sources are not bound by wikipeida guidelines like WP:WEASEL. You apparently have a problem that the sources are using that terminology; I would suggest taking that up with the authors of the articles cited. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That paragraph is indeed way too long and too detailed for the intro, it looks out of place.82.113.121.160 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The current lead appears to be compliance with WP:LEAD as a summary of the article. Those calling it to be removed really need to read WP:LEAD. Yobol (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler has offered his opinion that the first paragraph is compliant with the guidelines on lead paragraphs and with two different medical guidelines.

But Circumcision is a cultural act.

So the latter two may not apply. And I believe he is mistaken in the first- the heavy emphasis given in the lead to results from a questioned and ethically halted piece of research in a region of the republic of South Africa on attempting to use circumcision to cut down on HIV transmission is misplaced.

It appears to be the same coterie of editors who promote and defend this prominence who refuse, for example, to countenance any mention at all at all anywhere in the article of forced adult circumcisions on the same continent or indeed those inflicted elsewhere.

Would it be helpful if editors involved ongoing in this article declared any intactivist or unintactivist, religious, or other similar mindset or stance, or pro or con circumcision cultural backround  ? One editor asked me whether i had ever been "frum" -I found out that this means religiously observant in one of the cutting religions - what was interesting about that question was the presumption that I belonged to one of those religions by virtue of taking an interest in this MC variation of genital cutting and excision --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If you weren't an editor of long standing, Tuma, your polemics would have gotten you banned long ago. Still, you should reflect on your behavior here.82.113.121.160 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)