Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frank Koehler (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 11 May 2010 (→‎Recent image changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Circumcised Penis Image

The current image is quite obviously very graphically manipulated. Notice the washed out background (most obvious). You can also see softened/blurred skin, and very obvious image cutting. In addition to this, the fact that such editing is not seen for the not-circumcised penis creates a neutrality problem.File:Flaccid_and_erect_penis.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studiodan (talk • contribs)

Yes, it would be nice if the pictures were more similar. At one stage we had a pair of images that were very similar indeed, but for some reason (I forget what) they were replaced with what we have now. Jakew (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that as well. I'll take a look into the history and old talk pages and try to figure out what the reason was for replacement. If anyone here knows the reason, please jump in.--Studiodan (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jake, this isn't about the photos being disimilar. It's that the circumcised image is obviously manipulated and blurred. The background is strangely washed out, and the circumcised penis has low contrast, making it hard to see. The uncircumcised image is clear and sharp. What we need is a photo of a circumcised penis that has this clarity, with about the same field of view.Wandooi (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to take such a photo, Wandooi? Jakew (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think I was offering. I am circumcised, and I have no problem with submitting a photograph parallel to the other, bamboo too, but how is that encyclopedic? I suppose somebody would say "it's not normal! Too much scar tissue. Not enough scar tissue. Too short. Too long. Etcetera". Wandooi (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent image changes

Recent changes by Studiodan seem rather questionable. In essence, the changes consisted of replacing Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg with Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg, and removal of Image:Erection Homme.jpg. Let me address the problems caused by this in turn:

First, changing the image is somewhat problematic, because Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg has a fairly obvious skin bridge. It is not optimal, from an NPOV standpoint, to illustrate circumcision with a complication. In this respect, the other image is preferred.

Second, removing the image of an uncircumcised penis is also problematic, because it is the presence of both images that demonstrates how circumcision changes the appearance of the penis. Consider a hypothetical person who had only ever seen a circumcised penis. If he sees the image, he will simply see what is to him a typical penis, and it will not be obvious that it illustrates circumcision at all. In contrast, if both are shown then he can see the differences between the two. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a problem then. The previous image was drastically graphically manipulated, and the current image has a skin bridge. Maybe it's best we find another alternative.
Regarding the removal of the not circumcised image, I figured it wasn't needed, and I seem to recall this (it's removal) was one of your suggestions some time back (though I could be mistaken). If it's important to have both, then we should put it back. I'd like to hear some opinions about this.
--Studiodan (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we'd have professional pictures of two normal, healthy penes, taken with identical equipment and lighting. Sadly, however, we don't, and for the time being at least we have to work with the best images available to us. It seems to me that we should stick with the images over which we've had longstanding consensus, until we can reach a consensus that alternative images are an improvement. Jakew (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which has had the longest standing consensus? It seems to me that File:Flaccid-erect.jpg was there longer. Several have complained about the obvious graphic manipulation of File:Flaccid_and_erect_penis.jpg. There is no possible way we can make everyone happy if choosing between these two images.--Studiodan (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist the previous photo was graphically manipulated? In any event, your current, non-consensus choice is clearly unacceptable. Please either restore the previous photos, or remove them all together. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you are suggesting it's not obviously manipulated, as you are so far the first to suggest that isn't the case when this has been discussed. The most obvious editing is that the background was cut out and replaced with a soft white glow. Other visible manipulations include skin softening, further cutting (not cropping), and other possible manipulations.--Studiodan (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Do you have any actual evidence that the photo was manipulated? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image Flaccid and erect penis.jpg has not had its background manipulated. That is a lighting effect called "backlighting" and the reason the front surfaces of the penis is in shadow. However, it is problematic since it does not show a lot of detail, just a silhouette. To me, image Flaccid-erect.jpg is preferred since it is well lit, exposed, and in focus, and has a neutral background.
Image Erection Homme.jpg is well lit, exposed, and in focus, but the background is not neutral, and a distraction, and the outdoor setting adds additional meaning to the photo which is out of context for this article. I suggest we keep it until such time a replacement is found since it is better than having no photo at all. I do object to the caption: "A penis that has not been circumcised" since that is in reality a normal, healthy, intact penis, and not one in need of surgical intervention. As a comparison, we would not caption a human arm photo as "unamputated," even if the article was about amputation.

Ongoing attempts to remove images

Regarding Studiodan's ongoing attempts to remove images from the article, the most recently given reason is (in an edit summary): "Circumcised image is GRAPHICALLY MANIPULATED, and thus NOT suited for the article". This is not a good reason for removal. Assuming the image is indeed manipulated (I have no comment on that matter), that is an extremely weak reason for removing the images. Nothing in Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of graphically manipulated images. A more important question is whether it illustrates the subject (a circumcised penis) properly, and I see no reason to believe that it fails to do so. It is clearly and recognisably a circumcised penis and, when placed next to an uncircumcised penis, clearly illustrates the differences. Jakew (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It illustrates the difference between a graphically manipulated image, and one that isn't manipulated.--Studiodan (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but as noted, that isn't the issue. Jakew (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg
  1. Had a long standing consensus from September 1st 2007 to November 5th 2009.
  2. Is not graphically manipulated.
Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg
  1. Has only been up for 5 months.
  2. Is graphically manipulated.
We can either use Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg, Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg, some other image, or nothing at all. We cannot use Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg--Studiodan (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that this photo was "graphically manipulated", nor that it would make any difference even if it were. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Studiodan, if your intent is to build a consensus then I would advise saying something other than (to paraphrase) "we cannot do this", which is the argumentative equivalent of stamping your foot. Jakew (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate reasons to include a graphically manipulated image needed

FOR THE RECORD: The lack of comments about the issues I've addressed above (in Talk:Circumcision#Ongoing_attempts_to_remove_images), and instead, attempts to falsely report me for more reverts than I have done speaks volumes. I have NEVER made more than 3 reverts on a single item in more than 24 hours (I keep a meticulous catalog to be sure of that). If you don't have a good reason to use the graphically manipulated image, don't use it. Bullying is not good Wikipedia policy.--Studiodan (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that this photo was "graphically manipulated", nor that it would make any difference even if it were. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is quite clearly photoshopped to a degree that's far less than honest. I'm surprised anyone would argue with this critisizm, since it's so obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.74.104 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that "clear", actually (I could be persuaded either way), but as noted above it's completely irrelevant. Jakew (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

Please everyone, follow the rules. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute The list of violators grows.Zinbarg (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:NPOV dispute is an essay, not a policy or guideline, hence it is not strictly accurate to refer to its content as "rules", nor does it make sense to refer to "violators". That said, what part of this essay do you think people are failing to follow? Jakew (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed the rules :
  • "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."
  • "To mark a dispute on a page, type POV, which expands into: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
  • "Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which you see a bias about which there is no discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution."
So Jakew, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Follow the rules.Zinbarg (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zinbarg, it is perfectly proper to require tags to remain when they have been appropriately placed. However, that is not the case when tags have been placed inappropriately. Note that WP:NPOV dispute quite clearly states that "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." In this situation, nobody agrees with you that the tag is appropriate. Your attempts to add it have been reverted by multiple editors. Tags are not intended to be used as a weapon for situations where one has failed to gain consensus for changes, and it would be quite absurd to suggest that an inappropriate tag should remain more-or-less forever. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jakew you're forgetting the vote on the tags (3 at the time), which concluded leaving the one (POV) tag. The underlying problems still exist. Several editors more recently are in favor of changes I've listed. Look at discussion, not at editors reverting who don't participate in discussion, but engage in edit wars.Zinbarg (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out to you previously, Zinbarg, a straw poll conducted more than a year ago, about a different tag, has no relevance to this situation. Jakew (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to take a stab at writing a short HIV sentence for the third (controversy) paragraph?Zinbarg (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss HIV in the third paragraph, since that is about controversial viewpoints expressed by those on either side of the debate. In contrast, the protective effect of circumcision against HIV is well-established and is no longer the subject of serious scholarly dispute. As Jayjg has already explained to you, it would be improper to place the views of the WHO, UNAIDS, and the CDC alongside advocates of circumcision. Jakew (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph is about medical pro/con, debate about which generates controversy. The point of the paragraph is not controversy; that's just a silly way of introducing the debate. Schoen's arguments are all medical. Adding a HIV sentence fits as another positive medical. We have differing opinions about the importance of "benefits." Start out with Schoen states blah blah. Recently, HIV protection blah blah in the news. Milos states blah blah. Keep it short, because all that material is in the body. Minor benefits and minor harms, so it all seems a waste of valuable space in Wiki's introduction.
As you know, the public benefit of circumcision to HIV incidence is quite limited in scope; limited to specific individuals (dating a woman with HIV and not using protection, for example) and youth in just a few African nations [[1]]. HIV really doesn't belong in the English version of Wiki's introduction at all, given it's lack of health relevance (unless you speak English and live in So Africa). UTI benefits are more statistically relevant (still minor) than HIV, but you don't want that in the lead too?Zinbarg (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the third paragraph were truly about medical pros or cons, as you claim, it would need to be substantially rewritten. For example, does it have "important health advantages" or "is it justified by medical myths"? Does it have "no substantial effects on sexual function" or does it "adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure"? If the paragraph is understood as illustrating controversy about circumcision, then it makes sense to show these opposing viewpoints. If, on the other hand, the paragraph is about medical pros and cons, as you claim, then it is atrocious, being self-contradictory and so vague about medical issues that it fails to perform its function. Fortunately, the first sentence ("There is controversy regarding circumcision") makes it absolutely clear that it is, indeed, about controversy.
As I've previously noted, weighting needs to follow that in reliable sources, and sources put much more emphasis on HIV than UTI. It would be a waste of time to debate whether it is relevant to readers, since that is not even the issue. Jakew (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was proposing that the third paragraph be rewritten. There is disagreement about the extent and nature of circumcisions medical benefits and harms. Schoen states, WHO/UNAIDS states, Milos states, and AMA states. Let the sources state their positions, which is not "self-contradictory."
You must be talking Google hits ect. Silly measure. Sources recently emphasize HIV over UTI. Sources? reliable sources, UTI studies are quite RS reliable. HIV studies are no more or less reliable. And both are equally cited by medical assoc. Medical statistics show UTI benefit stronger than HIV benefit, in that more public benefit (in English speaking countries) is found from reduced UTI's than would be from potential HIV's. Again, minor benefits and minor harms.Zinbarg (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zinbarg, you're addressing the wrong issue. It doesn't matter which benefit is "stronger" in certain selected locations. What matters is how much emphasis recent reliable sources give the issues. I provided evidence in my earlier post (to which I provided a link above) showing that these sources place more emphasis on HIV, thus we should do likewise. Jakew (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date of a study cited by a secondary source

Studiodan has again inserted text (shown in italics) in the following sentence:

  • They continued, referencing a study performed in 1966, "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

I see several problems with this:

  1. I can't think of any examples in the article in which we note the date of a source cited by a secondary source. If we're going to do this in one place, shouldn't we do it everywhere? What impression does it give if we only do so selectively?
  2. According to Studiodan's edit summary, 'Inclusion of a date is not "criticism"', but it certainly creates the impression of criticism. To paraphrase, "look how old their sources are."
  3. If the purpose isn't to criticise, what, exactly, is the point of the edit anyway?
  4. Given that the AAP did not see fit to highlight the date of their source, is it appropriate for us to do so? When we use a secondary source we rely upon that source to select the important points from their sources. Jakew (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dates for sources are given in several places throughout the article. As for it being a "secondary source", I fail to see why that makes a difference... the source is cited, the date is important and relevant to the content of the article.--Studiodan (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is necessary, in fact the entire section is an unnecessary quotation that could easily be summarized. Including a date is sometimes done, but in this case seems unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing to me that the pro-circ owners of this article will insist on two contradictory courses of action: (1) including the date next to the 1999 AMA statement viewed as critical toward male circumcision (presumably to show that it is old and outdated, in fact they openly claim it is so outdated that its presence is a concession to anti-circ "activists" here at Wikipedia), and (2) removing the date next to the presentation of the 1966 Masters and Johnson finding supportive of circumcision (with no claim that it is outdated, in fact they claim it supremely relevant and its presence necessary). More plain evidence (as if any more were needed) of the ongoing contradictions used to promotional and propagandistic ends in all circumcision (male and female) articles in Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two obvious differences. First, the AMA statement refers to "all current policy statements", so the question is, what is meant by current? The statement might have been published in 2010, in which case "current" would have one meaning. Or it might have been published in 1910, in which case it would have different implications. To enable the reader to properly understand the implications, (s)he needs to know when it was published.
Second, we do not cite Masters and Johnson at all — we cite the AAP, and we do (or did at the start of this discussion, prior to WLU's edit) in fact explicitly state the date of publication of the AAP's statement. So we already include the date of our sources. What Studiodan's edit would do is to go further than that — inappropriately so — and analyse the AAP's sources. They don't comment on the date of Masters and Johnson, so why should we? Should we also comment on M&J's methodology, in spite of the AAP not doing that either? No — we should respect secondary sources and summarise what they say about their own sources. That's fundamental to using secondary sources. Jakew (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blackworm, a) Jakew is completely correct, and b) comment on content, not contributors. Jayjg (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jake it still seems like a double standard to me. Has the AMA, a currently active organization, modified their position since 1999? I agree, the date is relevant there. It's also good information for the reader to cite the date of M&J. If the AAP had said, "Neanderthals have also found no difference in the aggressiveness of circumcised and non-circumcised males," no one except those who don't know Neanderthals were prehistoric would need some context in the form of a date. Does the average reader know that Masters and Johnson are not current publishers of medical information (unlike the AMA, for example)? You seem to want to apply extremely legalistic interpretations of policy in some cases, while making completely arbitrary rulings in others (notably your claim that the word "mutilation" is not to be used in this article, even if you acknowledge that it is used in reliable sources). You support the "user experience" (to paraphrase) in the form of your support for the "when the user types circumcision, they really want to read about circumcision of males" argument, but completely ignore and do a disservice to the reader when you want to obscure the epoch of a source. You, Jayjg, and Avraham need to recognize that two or more users who have contradictory positions on edits, and always having the result of biasing content toward one point of view, while never calling each other on their contradictions, are effectively pushing the content toward a point of view in a dishonest and non-Wikipedian way. It is against the stated interest of Wikipedia to present a neutral and consistent encyclopedia. Ultimately, it is your silence on each others' contradictory interpretations of policy, combined with your virtually unaninimous agreement on edits that is unacceptable. It mathematically does not jive with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. Virtually all these edits modify the article more toward (a) presenting male circumcision as "circumcision," separating the concepts of male and female genital mutilation with completely different words, (b) minimizing coverage of the controversy and indeed adopting exact language and tone of one side of the controversy, and (c) obsuring data relevant for the reader to form an unbiased opinion, that create a biased and unacceptable atmosphere leading to biased and unacceptable content. Blackworm (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) There is no "contradiction" here. Giving the date of a study or statement is standard practice, particularly when it is being used to support a statement about "current" views; on the other hand, analyzing the sources of those studies in order to refute/discredit etc. is WP:NOR. b) comment on content, not contributors. I am completely and deadly serious about this; we have reached the very end of this Talk: page being used to discuss editors rather than article content. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think threats are necessary Jayig. Blackworm has brought up some very relevant points regarding wiki policy that cannot be addressed without at least minimally addressing the editors.--Studiodan (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, it must be done without discussing other editors, as that is policy. And these are not threats, these are the last of many, many warnings regarding this. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of Civility#Avoiding_incivility seems to reinterpret the word "avoid" as "must" where personal comments on editors is concerned. Personal comments should be avoided, but in certain circumstances, an issue cannot be discussed without minimal comment about editors, as long as it's done respectfully. For the record, I've always avoided commenting on editors, but I can see where there are times minimal comment would be required to explain an issue in discussion. Your comment did read as a threat, so you might want to be aware of that. --Studiodan (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal and respectful comments may well be acceptable, but those are not the issue here. Long screeds about the perceived character failings of other editors are clearly inappropriate by any reading of policy. There are appropriate places for discussing the failings of other editors. Article talk pages are not among them. It seems a shame that we should get to the stage where policy reminders must become strong enough that they can be perceived as threats. Let's stop it now. Jakew (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practiced by Followers of Herbert W.Armstrong?

Do the Christian churches that follow the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong practice circumcision? I remember him advocating it in his writings. (The modern-day Worldwide Church of God would be excepted.) Eligius (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&oldid=361464369"