Talk:Circumcision

The Circumcision surgical procedure article is an example of Content Forking. Discuss.

From Content Forking:

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. aged to choose Tremello (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an example of summary style. Zad68 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Just as the articles Prevalence of circumcision, History of circumcision, Religious circumcision, etc. are also examples of WP:SUMMARY, not content forks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast lads - while the article is moving towards a summary style article, there remains a strong concerted movement to suppress and exclude many aspects of the phenomenon of circumcision from any mention at all within it as with so many of the circumcision and genital cutting articles of which there are about 30 . This resistance falls exactly within the WP definition of Content Forking. At least that article has managed to select and mount as its primary image a decent photo of a circumcision in progress - something which so laughably has eluded this "main" article so far.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, in your edit here, you provided the edit summary "the choppers still chop - content AND foreskins". You appear to be saying that the Wikipedia editors working on this article are themselves individuals who "chop foreskins". Is that what you mean to say? If so, how would a comment about editors like this help the development of this article? Zad68 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You are several presumptions into the error zone there Za--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help us understand better, by explaining who "the choppers" who "chop - content" are, and what relevance they have here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@Jayjig -perhaps you can explain your obsession with the use of the word chop. I used it as a shorthand in the phrase "the chopping religions" meaning those religions who generally insist on their male babies and adult male converts having the resting top of their genitals lopped off. Currently some even capture teens who have not been chopped and chop them involuntarily. But the content choppers here so far have managed to evict any mention of such practices. ( or any mention of the sale and use of circumcised foreskins, the successful suing of chopping parents by their chopped adult children et cetera et cetera )Maybe Jayjig you could explain these ongoing lacunae. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tuma, you are the one who repeatedly uses terms like "chopping". not Jayjg. 'nuff said. -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately Avi you are not empowered to rule on when "enough has been said" -I use the terms for the reasons I just explained. Jayjig repeatedly professes to being confused by it for reasons yet to be revealed. But it does amuse me that the same predictable members of the tag team greek chorus pop up from the depths clutching red herrings and neatly ducking the more important question of the major omissions from this article--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

suggested new first paragraph for the article

The WP article on genital mutilation has a short section on male circumcision. It then refers readers to our current clusterflop. I suggest we use it as the first paragraph of the introduction. Here it is :

Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. The removal of the frenulum may be performed at the same time. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with groups such as Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initiation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis or recurrent balanitis. Advocacy is often centered around preventive medicine while opposition is often centered around human rights and the potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised.

--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The current lede summarizes the contents of this article, in the order in which it is written, and complies with WP:LEDE. Your proposed first paragraph does not; for example, the article doesn't even mention the frenulum, and the paragraph itself appears to be some sort of summary of the entire article, leaving the next three paragraphs in limbo, and leaving out much critical information found in the first paragraph. A good article lede should be three to four coherent paragraphs summarizing the entire article, exactly what is found in the current lede. Please review WP:LEDE. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion does not look like an improvement: it introduces duplicate information, introduces information into the lead unsupported by sources or the article body, highlights tiny groups and ignores the world's largest circumcising group (Muslims), among other problems. Zad68 03:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my presumptiveness but judging from our previous interactions, I suspect your goal here is to introduce the idea of informed consent into the first paragraph. I'd like to point out that the second paragraph covers this issue nicely Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Compare it to the current first paragraph which achieves few of the aims of a "Lede"(Lead ?) first paragraph per WP policy : a clear accessible style and an overview et cetera

Male circumcision (from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around")[1] is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis.[2][3][4] In a typical procedure, the foreskin is opened and then separated from the glans after inspection. The circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is removed. Topical or locally injected anesthesia may be used to reduce pain and physiologic stress.[5] For adults, general anesthesia is an option, and the procedure is often performed without a specialized circumcision device. The procedure is most often elected for religious reasons or personal preferences,[1] but may be indicated for both therapeutic and prophylactic reasons. It is a treatment option for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic urinary tract infections (UTIs);[2][6] it is contraindicated in cases of certain genital structure abnormalities or poor general health.[3][6]

The current lead goes into way too much detail and thus fails as an overview. Incidentally why is the removal of the frenulum not covered in the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're unclear on this, but the "lead" is all the paragraphs that appear before the TOC. This article has a lead with four paragraphs, they're all part of the lead, not just the first paragraph. Incidentally, I had already provided you the answers to both the question you posed in your edit summary ("what should a lead contain ?") and your frenulum question here, yesterday. Zad68 19:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood Za - when i post a question, (as I have pointed out before) it is not addressed to you personally in general nor to respond to material you have posted but to any editor who might be interested.My suggestion pertains to the first paragraph of the lead section. As the title of this discussion indicates. On frenulum - is it normally removed as part of MC ? Would a reader get to know the answer from this patchy article ? (This question is also not just for you Za)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment, not specifically on this article, I sympathize with Tuma's preference for an article lead written in more "accessible" style. I have not run the current lead through one of the "readability" analyzers that come with programs such as MS WORD, but I suspect it would rank near the top of their scales. That is to say, comprehension requires more than twelve years of education. And the footnotes sprinkled throughout the lead compound the difficulty, as the reader must decide each time whether to click on a blue superscript number to read the footnote now or to make a mental note to perhaps read it later; such mental effort disrupts the flow of reading.

Perhaps this discussion would be better situated at a more appropriate venue in Wikipedia, however.82.113.121.108 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this particular criticism was a concern Tuma was actually bringing up, but I hear ya on that one. There's a conflicting set of goals for the lead: terseness, accuracy to the sources, and providing a complete overview on the one hand, and ease of reading and accessibility of the language on the other. To try be terse and accurate, the technical terms are used, because usually the technical term conveys exactly what is meant in the fewest words. For example, we could replace "oncogenic" with "cancer-causing" or "may be indicated for both therapeutic and prophylactic reasons" with "may be recommended by doctors to both cure a medical problem a person has, or to possibly prevent medical problems from happening in the future" but you can see the trade-off in wordiness. The blue Wikilinks are intended to help that - depending on how you have your browser set up, if you hover over the blue Wikilink of a term you don't understand, you'll get an explainer. In the body of the article there's more room to put explainers in-line. Zad68 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggesting by quoting WP lead policy guideline recommending "a clear accessible style" was a dead giveaway that this was a principal concern.Frenulum question remains unaddressed too ! --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)3

Whoops, you're right, I missed that bit of text, sorry! And I sure hope someone else also weighs in on your 'frenulum' concern; as you know, regarding that, I have already pointed to what I had written to you on your User Talk page, which does address it, but you've indicated you're keen to get input from others as well on it. Zad68 14:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Article content should follow the sources. Which reliable secondary sources discuss the frenulum, and what weight to they place on discussing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to replace a fully referenced paragraph with an unreferenced one I oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Doc: In that short first paragraph of the lead, you have ten, count 'em, ten blue superscript numerals that each indicate a footnote. I am proposing to get rid of every single one of them. Why not? The lead only summarizes info that will be found further down in the article, right? I guarantee you fewer readers will drop out already in the first paragraph.89.204.130.97 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, technically they're not necessary and they don't make things prettier! However, per WP:CITELEAD they are actually recommended to have in articles covering contentious topics. Historically, if they get taken out, the lead is likely to attract {{citation needed}} tags or unsourced changes. As a compromise we might consider putting the refs in only as comments in the source text, and maybe leaving just the few refs for only the items that most often see unsourced content changes. I know Doc prefers the refs, if he'd be OK with trying commenting out a large handful I'd be happy to give it a go. Zad68 20:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The procedure is most often elected for religious reasons or personal preferences...... What do you think readers understand by "personal preferences" - cosmetic ? other ? Is this elucidated in the article -where ? answers on whale foreskin vellum please (aristotle onassis used tanned whale foreskins to cap the stools in the bar on his yacht. Another onanist ?)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Can I suggest a change to the picture? It paints a misleading picture of the surgical procedure as circumcision is not done on a desert floor with village elders all sat around. Almost all of it is done in a medical setting, like at a hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hiya Oxr033, the main problem with the image you uploaded is that it is almost certainly a copyright issue - it looks like it was scanned from a medical textbook without attribution. The listed source "I had it on my hard drive" isn't going to pass Wikipedia copyright muster and how it's used won't be a valid fair-use exception. Most likely that image will be deleted shortly. Besides, the image is far too small and low-resolution to be useful. Also, although sources indicate the procedure is mostly done in medical settings, the existing picture gives a nod to its ties to culture and history in a way the new image doesn't. Zad68 00:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for replying, I see what you mean about the copyright i'm not really familiar with how strict Wikipedia is, I don't have permission but it is widely available on the web (like everything else that can be digitized). Circumcision is performed by both Muslims and Jews, and a lot of Americans and South Koreans. Many black Africans too. The picture I feel could mislead a viewer. In giving a nod to it's ties and history, it also colours the reader's impression as something ancient and 'other'. Most people reading this in the English speaking world will have circumcisions being performed in medical settings, so I think it's important a reader doesn't the wrong impression The other picture of of just the penis circumcised and uncircumcised, is a lot clearer on what actually happens, and it's free from bias/prejudice too (unless you count the skin colour - which i'm not sure is the central defining object of the image).Oxr033 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure... Yep indeed Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and the rule is: if you can't prove it's OK, it's out. If you can find the location on the Web where the image is published, proof that the publisher owns the image, and proof that the owner released the image under the CC-by-SA (or compatible) license, we can use it. If not, we can't. There are certain exceptions to these requirements but they wouldn't apply here. It's a good image, it'd be great if you could do that research - maybe we can use it, but until it's proven the image is released in a way Wikipedia can use it, we can't.

Regarding concerns that the existing image paints a picture that the procedure is something ancient and 'other' well... the History section shows circumcision predates recorded history, so it's ancient. Also, the Prevalence section shows that most men (about two-thirds of all men) are not circumcised, and so it is 'other.' So if the image reflects that... more reasons it's a good image! Zad68 01:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure 1 33% of men represent an 'other'. 5-10% maybe, not not a whole third. It's common enough for it not to be considered 'something they do'. I don't think i'll be able to prove it, i'll look for a more widespread image that doesn't have copyright attached to it, not now but when i'm less busy. ThanksOxr033 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure... Don't get me wrong, an illustration very much like the one you provided, but released under CC-by-SA, would definitely be useful in the article. We would only be having a discussion over whether it should replace the infobox image, or be placed elsewhere in the article. That discussion might be done with a request for comments. But please do look, and thanks for doing so. Zad68 03:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a great photo of a circumcision in progress(

Circumcision with a clamp

) which has been cleared for wikipedia use. Oddly I remember it being in colour last time - has the naughty circumcision fairy been at it  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's the colour version. Would there be objections to making this the primary photo? I haven't checked the archives for previous discussions, perhaps someone can give a brief summery of the issues. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the picture we have now. There are enough pictures of the procedure itself in the article; this one reflects the antiquity of the procedure. Also, in general, I prefer througout all wikipedia to have less graphic images in the lede Wikipedia is not censored, but it shouldn't be a pencil in the eyeball either. This photo is relevant and considered excellent ("featured") and is a better choice than any of the others posted here. Especially with the images found later in the article. -- Avi (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Tippy, actually yes, that specific image has come up for discussion before and we had a full RFC about it here. The consensus that emerged as a result of that RFC was that that image should not be used in this article. Doc James made a good point that the image was too specific to be of use in this general overview article; based on that discussion we created a new subarticle Circumcision surgical procedure, where that image is now, and that article could use further expansion. We also had a separate discussion about the merits of the existing infobox image just six weeks ago here; there was no consensus to change the existing image. Zad68 13:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that an article on circumcision have a lead photo of a circumcision instead of a lead photo of a group of men sitting around a hundred years ago wearing turbans. Perhaps the turbanned gentlemen would be happier if "featured" in the History of Circumcision WP article and we replaced the turban wearers club with this contemporary photo of the central procedure of the central subject of the article. A "pencil in the eye ball" What does that even mean ? A scissors in the willy ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, I hope you'll forgive me for not understanding you here, but you have repeatedly said "circumcision is primarily cultural and not medical", or words to that effect: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] The article currently has a WP:Featured pictures-quality image for the infobox photo that emphasizes the cultural and historical aspects of the procedure. Based on your past statements I would expect that the current image would meet with your views. But you seem to be repeatedly favoring a purely medical image that entirely discounts the cultural and historical aspects of the procedure. You last brought this up just six weeks ago here, we discssed the pros and cons of the current image, and you did not counter the content-based arguments in favor of it at that time. It really seems you're just having another whack at a WP:DEADHORSE here; I'm not sure what - if anything - might ever make you happy regarding this article that would still be respectful of Wikipedia content policies. Zad68 13:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your concern for my happiness aside Zad, another editor( we are not the only two after all) has raised the issue and so dead horse red herrings do not apply. I am delighted with the chance to revisit the choice of lead photo you imposed when we last discussed it and heartened to see another editor thinking along the same lines. While circumcision is primarily a cultural phenomenon, someone still has to do the cutting. You have been at pains to point out in the past that you regard this article as being primarily concerned with the clinical procedure but yet you refuse to countenance a photo of that very act. What is wrong with this picture ( as they say)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"You have been at pains to point out in the past that you regard this article as being primarily concerned with the clinical procedure" Can you post links to where Zad68 said that?89.204.135.68 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid going down the road of the law of diminishing returns as Avi points out below, but... I've pointed out that doing a Google Scholar search shows that the sourcing predominately covers medical aspects, and Fiachra corroborated this in doing her own research on Web of Knowledge and Publish or Perish. Nobody, including me, is suggesting that this article cover only medical aspects, and this article appropriately covers non-medical aspects such as culture and history. In fact, non-medical aspects make up more than half the article. No good argument has been brought forward as to why the infobox image should be changed to ignore what more than half the article content covers. Zad68 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Law of diminishing returns

Zad, I appreciate your efforts, but as you point out, Tuma has been somewhat self-contradictory. At this point, it is pretty clear that current the lede is appropriate per policy (general and Medical) and the image is fine and both are approved by a consensus of editors. Tuma can contiue to make his (I presume Tuma is a he; perhaps she is a she) "witty" comments and rail against the massive conspiracy of chopaholics who are busy chopping away at all Chopopedia articles about chopping procedures and how we have a distinct turbanistic POV which is unfair to all homburg, derby, bowler, deerstalker, beanie, bicorne, and fedora wearers everywhere. However, unless s/he can demonstrate distinct policy violations, there is no reason to change wording that is among the most scrupulously measured in all of Wikimedia. As for the apparent obsession with all things cutting, if his wording is making you or anyone else on this page uncomfortable, there always is WP:RFC/U. -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this also. Definitely, Tuma can be hugely annoying. No question that he goes out of his way to rile up people, but so far the regular editors of this article have been doing a good job of passing over his innuendo and antagonizing, while following up on the useful suggestions he makes every once in a while. Regarding the picture of the surgical procedure, yes it is rather shocking but I would include it in the article. Compare to a WP article such as rhinoplasty, where there are plenty of pics to discomfit the squeamish. My preference would be to move the "before/after" illustration to the top so that it is the first picture that readers see, move the 19th century photograph down to a history/culture section, and add the color photograph of the surgical procedure to a medical section. Note that I am opposed to including images of complications which are both rare and severe, which would give such complications undue weight.89.204.135.68 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you add the tag that says 'By whom?'?

There's a part of the paragraph that says, 'Circumcision features prominently in the Hebrew Bible. The narrative in Genesis chapter 17, considered to have taken place around 1800 BCE'. I think this needs a reference or specification of who considers this to be so.--Jcvamp (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it on the second guess: {{whom}} renders . TippyGoomba (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll address the actual underlying info requested ASAP. Zad68 01:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I ended up just removing the even very speculative date ranges as trying to date Biblical events is futile. Zad68 13:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)