Talk:Circumcision

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4	Archive 5
Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12	Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19

Off-topic assistance needed on NPOV

Sorry for the off-topic discussion here. I'm aware of the multitude of people here who argue and discuss NPOV issues and what is an NPOV approach to an article. I am having difficulty on an article talk page Talk:Ménage à trois where a couple of people have one POV in mind, and revert or quash any other perspective. They claim that any other view made is someone else "pusing" their POV, and that no changes should be made to the article unless there is a consensus. Now, I am not asking anyone to side with me on any of my opinions there, but if you have an opinion on what NPOV means in terms of alternative views in an article, and would care to comment, I'd appreciate it. Regards, Atom 19:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to reduce pro-circ bias in "Sexual."

Adding the following to the first paragraph: A 2002 peer reviewed journal of the AAFP reported on research finding “participants reported significantly reduced erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no significant change in sexual activity, and significantly improved satisfaction after circumcision. This improved satisfaction represented a more satisfactory appearance of the penis and less pain during sexual activity.”[1]

Adding a second paragraph: The sexual effects of neonatal circumcision have not been studied. Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum or that include a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive." This “triangular area” on the underside of the glans is highly responsive to touch that is light and soft, according to Hass and Crooks in university sexuality textbooks; thus contributing to erogenous pleasure during sexual activity.” The frenulum is a primary orgasm and ejaculatory trigger zone.[2][3][4]TipPt 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Archives 18 and 19 where Jake explains why those paragraphs may be both weasel wording as well as out of date. Just because the talk is archived, doesn't mean that it is forgotten -- Avi 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no such discussion. All Jakew says "repetition" and may later refer to older an discussion ... which I identify to the reader (and you AVI) because there was no discussion there either!

The AAP 2002 is certainly not out of date relative to the quote you and Jakew currently enforce! Why do you insist on misleading the reader?

The added paragraph to Sexual is clear and unbiased (not weasel at all).TipPt 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision/Archive_19#What_exactly_are_the_verifiability_and_notability_requirements_for_this_article.3F

I point out that it is repetition, Tip, because that's precisely what it is. It's an abuse of this talk page, which you're using as a soapbox.

I invite you to look at the following sections of the archives, in which precisely these issues were discussed:

• [5]
• [6]

Jakew 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I find two editors who disagree with Jakew who is making judgements based on false premise.TipPt 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we look at each entry?...I was about to waste tons of time again. Let the readers simply see what Jakew said, the other editors who disagree, and Jakew's summary judgement.TipPt 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to reduce pro-circ bias in Hygiene.

Adding the following paragraph to the hygiene section. Jakew, the AAP statement may be 30 years old but it's still quoted, and pertinent to the reader.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk." [7] Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”[8]. One researcher concludes that access to clean water and regular washing “should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.” [9]TipPt 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Please see Archives 18 and 19 where Jake explains why those paragraphs may be both weasel wording as well as out of date. Just because the talk is archived, doesn't mean that it is forgotten -- Avi 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Archives 18 and 19 where Jakew does nothing of the sort. You show great bias AVI.TipPt 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See the end of this section. You owe Avi and myself an apology. Jakew 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please direct me to anything AVI said in that link Jakew.TipPt 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Avi commented there. However, he did direct you to that page, where discussion can be found, just as he said. Your claim to the contrary, and subsequent accusation of bias, was highly inappropriate. Jakew 20:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:I am referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision/Archive_19#What_exactly_are_the_verifiability_and_notability_requirements_for_this_article.3F

I point out that it is repetition, Tip, because that's precisely what it is. It's an abuse of this talk page, which you're using as a soapbox.

I invite you to look at the following sections of the archives, in which precisely these issues were discussed:

• [10]
• [11]

Jakew 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

— Section above this, Avi 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, what I see at those links is two editors disagreeing with your positions Jakew, AVI is not present. His reference to your judgements (to those other two editors) shows bias. Note that the next discussion is about your poor attitude Jakew.TipPt 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I current paragraphs try to satisfy your concerns Jakew. I still don't see AVI saying anything.TipPt 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope some readers actually look at your statements in some of those links Jakew.TipPt 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Atttempt to reduce pro-circ bias in the Assoc quotes.

The reader is not permited to see the current CPS position:

The CPS states: “There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed”, which in turn reaffirms the 1975 statement that “there is no medical indication for circumcision during the neonatal period.”

The reader is forced to read edited text in the BMA statement instead of the full text:

The final summary should be all that was necessary, but I remeber some editors feeling that it was too Pro-circ, so we added the non-theraputic and theraputic parts to it. Dragging 31 year old material into it has only one purpose, Tip, to push your POV. There is no reason to quote anything other than the most recent text. Further “which in turn reaffirms the 1975 statement that ‘there is no medical indication for circumcision during the neonatal period.’” is WP:OR on your part (original synthesis), unless that is a direct quote from somewhere. Thanks. -- Avi 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, one issue at a time. AVI ... I don't drag the "31 year old material" CPS into the statement, the CPS does by referring ... reaffirming ... the prior statements! The recent text DOES refer to the prior statement, which in turn refers to again to the prior statement (explicitly). Each statement thus refers to the prior statement and must be included to be honest and complete. What I wrote is a direct quote (it's in quotations) from the CPS AVI.TipPt 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The first quote is actually included in the article. Tip added it to the preceding paragraph, thus making it appear twice. But this has been discussed before, too... Jakew 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom

As of June of 2006, the British Medical Association's position was as follows:

Circumcision for medical purposes

Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence. Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.

Male circumcision in cases where there is a clear clinical need is not normally controversial. Nevertheless, normal anatomical and physiological characteristics of the infant foreskin have in the past been misinterpreted as being abnormal. The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision. Doctors should be aware of this and reassure parents accordingly.

Non-therapeutic circumcision
Male circumcision that is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes “ritual”) circumcision. Some people ask for non-therapeutic circumcision for religious reasons, some to incorporate a child into a community, and some want their sons to be like their fathers. Circumcision is a defining feature of some faiths.

There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.

— The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors, British Medical Association

Just wait a few and I'll paste the pro-circ reversions for your review.TipPt 19:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

TipPt's proposed additions

Hard to understand why these four entries cause any trouble:

One tries to give the reader information about the frenulum, which can be damaged of removed in a circ. Jakew claims the frenulum has no special erogenous function.

One tries to give the reader info about washing being good. Jakew says the statement is 30 years old, but it's still valid (the AAP currently recommends simple washing of the intact penis). There are two other researchers statements cited accurately. Basic hygiene doesn't change!

One tries to give the reader the current accurate CPS position. The current version alludes to some potential change, but Jakew refuse to show their current position (reaffirmations of the older statements should be shown).

One thies to give the reader the current BMA position. The current edit deletes valuable information and confuses the reader.

All are blocked by AVI and Jakew (at this point).TipPt 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again:

1. The text you tried to include is an original synthesis of materials used to advance a point of view. Unless your sources explicitly discuss circumcision removing the frenulum, you can't do this. Edited to add: I don't make a claim either way, I simply point out that the evidence is lacking.

Hogwash. The sentences in question (below) are properly cited and relevant. We have already told the reader (in the intro paragraph) that a circ may include a frenectomy:

Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum or that include a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive." This “triangular area” on the underside of the glans is highly responsive to touch that is light and soft, according to Hass and Crooks in university sexuality textbooks; thus contributing to erogenous pleasure during sexual activity.”

Note that the reader draws his own conclusions about a specific circumcision.TipPt 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's original research, Tip. Jakew 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not Jakew. Proper citations about the nature of the frenulum belong in the "sexual" section. Let the reader decide if the frenululm is damaged or removed.TipPt 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, Tip. If these sources don't explicitly discuss this in the context of circumcision, then you are performing original synthesis, which is forbidden by policy. To quote: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." -- WP:NORJakew 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The citations are published and peer reviewed. Their (the professors who wrote the textbooks) statements pertain to the frenulum and it's sensations and do not forward any position.TipPt 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Top, it is. The textbooks make no mention of circumcision; your bringing it together is original synthesis. Please stop. -- Avi 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1. There have been several policy statements since 1975, and only the most recent is by definition their current policy. A quote from the 1999 policy is included in the article. Unlike the 1975 statement, it describes the relationship between hygiene and certain diseases as "unclear".

Hogwash. The current (1999) statement with respect to hygiene says: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene. In one study, appropriate hygiene decreased significantly the incidence of phimosis, adhesions, and inflammation, but did not eliminate all problems.29 In this study, 60% of parents remembered receiving instructions on the care of the uncircumcised penis, and most followed the advice they were given. Various studies suggest that genital hygiene needs to be emphasized as a preventive health topic throughout a patient’s lifetime.16,21,29,30

In other words washing will improve penile health, but not eliminate all problems (which in the prior sentence ... circ's don't either).TipPt 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the article (prior to DanBlackham's edit): The American Academy of Pediatrics observes that the relationship "among hygiene, phimosis, and penile cancer is uncertain, although many hypothesize that good hygiene prevents phimosis and penile cancer," but suggests that "genital hygiene needs to be emphasized as a preventive health topic throughout a patient's lifetime." Jakew 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1. In the case of the CPS, you are trying to include part of their text twice. Please read the existing quotation.

Jakew 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The existing CPS statement is not accurately presented. Their current position should be in the summary paragraph. The text reference to the 1982 postion is not complete. ition refers to their prior statement ... which must be quoted.

How about simply saying that the current CPS position remains unchanged that "there is no medical indication for circumcision during the neonatal period."TipPt

It is a direct quote of the Conclusions section of the article?! http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm How can that be not accurate?! You are trying to push a POV here, and that is against wiki policy, as well as original research. -- Avi 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say exactly the same thing. :) Jakew 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave you the link to the 1975, 1982, and current statement. I show you that the most recent refers to the 1982, and that the 1982 refers to the 1975. Further, the most recent statement directly refers to the conclusions:

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7"

AVI, the (your) current version is misleading at best.TipPt 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from my talk page as I am loathe to type all of this over again .

I couldn't quickly find the full 1975 text, but I found this reference (in the CPS most recent statement)

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7

[12]

The current version does not accurately reflect their position.TipPt 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The conclusions section of the most recent study is all that is necessary, and is 100% accurate. If you do not like the way the CPS sums up their policy, please take it up with the CPS. This is wikipedia. If you would like to publish your analyis in a peer-reviewed journal, then it too will be eligible for inclusion. But including your original synthesis in wikipedia is a violation, and must be reverted. Thank you. -- Avi 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the 1982 and 1975 statements ... [13]. The current (text in the Topic) version refers to the 1982 statement, which in turn refers to the 1975 statement. Without the 1975 information those reaffirmations are missed.TipPt 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to see their bottom line (and refuse to let the reader see the info). Their bottom line position is that there is no medical indication for neonatal circs. That position is lost in your current version.TipPt 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, original synthesis. We are quoting the current CPS; not what we think the CPS meant when it wrote what it did; not what logical syllogisms we can string together, but the source. The case is clear, we have quoted the entire section where they gave their conclusion (it is even titled Conclusions). What you are doing is a combination of cherry picking and original research and is a violation of official wiki policies. -- Avi 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

— TipPt and Avi, October 22, 2006

--Avi 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You misquote Wiki policy Avi. First, the current CPS position is "no medical indication." Do you refute that?TipPt 23:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have quoted the entire conclusion, but that conclusion directly refers to the 1982 policy statement. The reader now needs to know what that 1982 statement concluded. In the 1982 conclusion you find reaffirmation of the 1975 statement. In BOTH the current (1996) and 1975 statement the CPS states that ..."there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7"

The current version does not inform the reader accurately.TipPt

I suggest you read your own talk page, Tip:

I couldn't quickly find the full 1975 text, but I found this reference (in the CPS most recent statement)

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7

[14]

The current version does not accurately reflect their position.TipPt 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The conclusions section of the most recent study is all that is necessary, and is 100% accurate. If you do not like the way the CPS sums up their policy, please take it up with the CPS. This is wikipedia. If you would like to publish your analyis in a peer-reviewed journal, then it too will be eligible for inclusion. But including your original synthesis in wikipedia is a violation, and must be reverted. Thank you. -- Avi 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the 1982 and 1975 statements ... [15]. The current (text in the Topic) version refers to the 1982 statement, which in turn refers to the 1975 statement. Without the 1975 information those reaffirmations are missed.TipPt 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to see their bottom line (and refuse to let the reader see the info). Their bottom line position is that there is no medical indication for neonatal circs. That position is lost in your current version.TipPt 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, original synthesis. We are quoting the current CPS; not what we think the CPS meant when it wrote what it did; not what logical syllogisms we can string together, but the source. The case is clear, we have quoted the entire section where they gave their conclusion (it is even titled Conclusions). What you are doing is a combination of cherry picking and original research and is a violation of official wiki policies. -- Avi 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's their most current statement with respect to their conclusion

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7

Can you point me to where that paragraph in its entirety is located in the article? Or are you putting a few things together that the CPS did not?! Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position -- Avi 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an unedited quote from the most current CPS statement. It reflects their position. Simply read the second paragraph of the text ... in the second section of the Abstract.[16]TipPt 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not reflect their position. It is a partial recap of the historical context in which the current statement is placed. Immediately subsequent paragraphs describe research and medical policy discussion that have taken place since 1982. Trying to tie the specific sentence at the end of that introductory paragraph to a specific statement in the conclusion of the document would be a violation of WP:NOR, as I believe has been pointed out once or twice (imagine "ironic intent" emoticon here). Dasondas 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's THEIR (the CPS) recap of historical context, unedited. In that recap they which they make highly relevant by reaffirmations. The bottom line (no medical indication) is also in all the concluding statements (the 1996, 1982, and 1975) by either stated directly or by explicit reaffirmation.TipPt 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I never disputed that it was THEIR recap. I'm simply pointing out that trying to tie one sentence from the historical context portion of the abstract to another specific sentence in the conclusion is original synthesis because the explicit reaffirmation is not made in the current policy. The current policy uses a different phraseology wrt recommending (or, rather, not recommending) neonatal circs which you seem to be resisting for some reason. Dasondas 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that you would lie. Unlike other editors whose paths I have had the fortune to cross, you do not prevaricate. I understand you have strong feelings about this topic, as do many of us. Part of what allows wikipedia to function is adherence to cerain policies and guidelines, which I believe, in your zeal, you have crossed/violated/ignored. I do not think you are an incorrigible liar, G-d forbid, but I do believe that many of your edits do not conform to the guidelines that allow wiki to function. If I have insulted you, I apologize. -- Avi 22:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, we are mixing issues. For now, please read the current, 1982, and 1975 CPS conclusion statements. I will consider you dishonest if you continue to support the omission of the current CPS reaffirmations of the statement "there is no medical indication.TipPt 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow you here, TipPt. Could you please show where in the conclusion of the current policy the CPS reaffims the statement "there is no medical indication..." I can't find it. Dasondas 23:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TipPt, I am afraid current wiki policy and guideline does not allow you to make that leap which you wish to make. If that makes me a liar in your eyes, I am sorry, but part of being a member of the wikipedia community is agreeing to adhere to its guidelines and policies, which I am attempting to do, and which I fear you are not. -- Avi 23:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas ... Please read [17] Second paragraph after "Sponsor" in the Abstract. The paragraph reads exactly as I showed above.

Then read the conclusion statement "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed."

Then read the 1982 conclusion: Several years ago the fetus and newborn committee of the "Canadian Paediatric Society carefully reviewed the pros and cons of circumcision; the conclusions were published in a statement in 1975.(9) The intentions of this statement was to reduce the number of unnecessary circumcisions and the complications that might result. (Incidentally, Warner and Strashin did not refer to this review.) The present fetus and newborn committee sees no reason for modifying the statement of the previous committee and is concerned that a completely balanced view be available to the physician asked to decide upon the necessity for circumcision.

And so we must show the 1975 statement:

"...there is no medical indication for circumcision during the neonatal period."TipPt 23:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

AVI ... please review the facts before you cite Wiki policy. Also, please consider your neutrality.TipPt 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we must **not** show the 1975 statement because that would be the consruction of an original argument in violation of WP:NOR. I would have no problem quoting the current policy (as several of us are trying to do) and footnoting links to the (entirety of, without excised highlights) prior, outdated, policies in order to let the interested reader form his or her own conclusions about the meaning of the phrase "no reason for modifying...", but you cannot just force your own interpretation of that phrase into the article. It should be clear to you at this point that there is no consensus whatsoever for that particular edit, and even if there were to emerge a temporary consensus at some point in the future (say during the policy forum of the pro-circ annual meeting when all of the contrary editors are cloistered incomunicado), any individual editor coming across that edit later could quite rightfully challenge it as a policy violation. Dasondas 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tip, the same could be said for you. Further, you have been quoted chapter-and-verse about wiki policy, and you still maintain this opinion, I would suggest you review the policies. You are too good of an editor to do otherwise. -- Avi 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

— TipPt's talk page, October 22, 2006

--Avi 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

intolerable massive NPOV violations

Avraham, Jakew and Dasondas are clearly rabidly pro-circ and are not going to tolerate an unbiased article. They have been misapplying and abusing wikipedia rules to censor valid information from this article as clearly evidenced by the entire CPS statement argument. This is absolutely unacceptable and I will no longer tolerate it. Wikipedia is for [b]UNBIASED[/b] articles - i suggest you ALL read the rules you're trying to cite to shoot down TipPT's proposed inclusion of things such as the complete CPS and BMA statments - the rules are AGAINST your pov pushing - you are gaming the rules. This behavior WILL cease immediately. Wikipedia is for unbiased content - not this subtly, but profoundly, pro-circumcision bias in the article that you are maintaining - unless your blockaid of unbiased information can be broken this article and all associated should be removed! No content is better than biased content!

I emailed jimbo wales personally about this article and the problems with it several weeks ago - and now I'm going to send another email.

I've given up trying to remove the POV from this article until Avraham and Jakew are permanantly and irrevocably banned for their POV-pushing mutilation-fostering biased editing. Lordkazan 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that civility is just as important a policy here in wikipedia as is any other. Thanks. -- Avi 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Practice what our preach - biased moderation and abusing your moderator position to further your pro-circumcision agenda in this article are far more uncivil than me stating an uncivil truth. Lordkazan 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my edits as trying to promote WP:NPOV and keep the article properly weighted per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, remove original synthesis, and maintain reliability and verifiability. I have been through near 100 of these citations already; checking for accuracy and faithfulness to the text. I am afraid all I have seen you do is declare yourself to be extremely anti-circumcision and go out of your way to try and add that to this article, under the guise of NPOV, when in truth you are attempting to skew the article from its neutral point. An anti-circ article <> a neutral article, I am afraid. Further, your comments, accusations, intimations, and demands for my head are violations of WP:CIVIL. Please constrain your comments to the material, not the editors. Thanks. -- Avi 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stand by them all you want - However i can PROVE you are making false claims in your edit justifications! Such as this one - your claim is DISPROVEN by 1975 Statement by the Canadian Paediatric Society - Bullet point 2!

I do not accept your claim that you are attempting to promote WP:NPOV as your edit summaries are in contradiction of fact - and I dispute your interpretation of Undue Weight as wikilawyering to attempt to circumvent the NPOV policy. You were not removing original research - you were making defamatory and demonstrably false claims about the content of TipPT's edit and his intentions. His citations pass Verfiability quite clearly - since he was QUOTING a national medical organization!

The number of citations you "have been through" is irrelevant when you are DEMONSTRABLY mischaracterizing the content of the citation to push your pov.

I'm afraid all i have seen you do is corrupt this article with NPOV editing - I may delcare myself to be anti-circumcision, but atleast I work to try to keep NPOV intact and would not engage in censorship of information that can be considered pro-circumcision like you are doing of anti-circumcision content. I go out of my way to try to BALANCE the article - right now that involves adding the medical facts against circumcision which you are currently censoring by mob rule.

It's very hypocritical of you to be citing me for WP:CIVIL when you cannot follow the policy yourself.

I'll refrain my comments to only the content when the editors stop violating and misrepresenting wikipedia policies to further a human rights violator agenda Lordkazan 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

LK, The guidelines went under revision in 2004 and the text of the article says nothing new has been issued since then, and you bring a source from 1975 to contradict that?!?! 1975 was twenty-nine years before 2004 -- Avi 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, your comments on this page seem to demonstrate a zealous agenda against Circumcision, which leads me to be afraid that you cannot approach it neutrally. I have added/updated anti-circ sources to the article when they were relevant and correct. -- Avi 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What you assert about me is irrelevant - and the fact that it was the 1975 statement means nothing - since anything in previous statements that they don't rescind in later statements remains in effect as their official position Lordkazan 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: my "zealous agenda" is against non-voluntary non-theraputic circumcision - an adult (like Jakew) can have whatever their want done to their genitalia for whatever reason they desire. Lordkazan 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the statement in the diff you provided was 100% accurate; nothing has been issued since 2004. Secondly, with a 2004 statement, 1975 is extremely outdated; We bring the most recent statements that we can and that make sense. If the same organization provides a policy statement almost 30 years later, we use that one. Thirdly, making syntheses about what should have been said by an organization based on logical syllogisms is forbidden in wikipedia as original research. We can only quote the sources, not use them to make claims; unfortunately, even if they are valid. Wikipedia may not be a primary source, even about what others think. It can only be used as a secondary source. Please re-visit WP:OR for more details. Thus, I am afraid, your statements above are not in line with wiki policy. Sorry. -- Avi 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop relying on a faulty assumption when i've informed you of it's fault. The date on the statement is irrelevant so long as no statement newer than it rescinds the specific clause.

That is to say if they say "X=>Y" on the 1900 statement but never rescind that clause on later statements then "X=>Y" remains their official position even if the year is 2160.

There is no WP:OR snythesis or "what shoudld have been said"ing when you're QUOTING the organization. Nor are any logical syllogisms involved - just a simple fact about all major medical organizations around the world and how their position statements work, a simple fact that you are either unaware of - or intentionally ignoring.

A source making claims was quoted, not a source was used to make claims.

Your statements are entirely mischaracterizations of the content that TipPT was trying to post an they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding, or intentional mischaracterization, of the content. Lordkazan 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, their current policy statement does not include that statement. To claim that it does, by argument valid or otherwise, is original research. Jakew 14:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant! we're not claiming the current policy statement contains it - but that CPS policy does. IE the Policy, and Policy Statement Year X are two different things - policy statements update the policy, but are not the entire policy! This is basic, elementary level, legal knowledge! Lordkazan 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! So we say "organisation X's policy is such-and-such", but it's ok because we omit mention as to whether it is current or historical. In a playground? Sure. In an encyclopaedia? I think not. Jakew 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're STILL confusing the policy statement with the policy itself when I just explained it to you? read my posts BEFORE replying

A policy statement updates the policy. A policy statement is NOT the entire policy.

This is legal knowledge 101 here! Lordkazan 15:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that I'm actually interested, LK. Now, I'm certainly interested in whatever you say here that is a) relevant to improving the article, and b) conforming to policy. But quite frankly, I skip over arguments that are clearly original research (or which justify OR) because there is no point in having the discussion (indeed, to discuss it would also violate NOR). Jakew 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

MY POST ISN'T ORIGINAL RESEARCH - IT'S SIMPLE FACT! What is so difficult for you to understand - it's FACT that's the way lagalese works - position statements are part of legalese. You're saying you'd skip over the statement "water is wet" as original research. Quite frankly your assertion that it is original research is LUDACRIS! I don't know whether or not your intentionally mischaracterizing things, or whether you're truely this ignorant!

There is a HUGE point in having this discussion - it's a refutation of avraham's assertion that the 1975 policy statement is irrelevant - but it's apparently a refutation that you don't have the knowledge of legalese to understand - which isn't my fault. I'm not going to explain to you, a third time, the legalese equivalent of "water is wet"

The simple FACT is you're wrong - it's not my problem that you don't have a good enough education to understand why despite my explaining it to you. Lordkazan 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As we brough the conclusions section of the 2004 statement in its entirety, the 1975 statement remains irrelevant. -- Avi 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I give up - complex legalese arguments are useless on the ignorant Lordkazan 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, LK, but the legality of wikipedia policies and guidelines supercedes any exogenous forensic or jurisprudential arguments. -- Avi 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Avi, but you are not impartial and cannot serve as judge in this forum.TipPt 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFLOL. Hello pot, meet kettle. I'd gladly send this to a RfC and see who is demonstrating more impartiality, Tip. There are tens of pages of archives; the facts speak for themselves. Further, your accusation is somewhat insulting; I am afraid that I misjudged you when I wrote this. Too bad. -- Avi 20:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing a 31 year old policy statement that has already been twice significantly revised is rather absurd; indeed, it is a clear sign of "cherry-picking", trying to find an outdated policy that is more in line with one's position, rather than using more current policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we'll have to remove all of the 1975 stuff; we might as well be quoting medieval tracts on bloodletting and cupping. I've left it in a footnote for now, but if it creeps back into the body of the text I'll take that as a sign that the editor in question would actually prefer to have it removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from TipPt's user page

Lord ... don't give up.

AVI ... it's not "a 2004 statement." It's a 1996 "revisit" of the 1982 statement. The Topic section in question is titled "Policies of various national medical associations." The only policy we see from Canada is "There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed." The reader is currently left uninformed about the 1982 position! Very odd and pro-circ.

Note that the stated goals of the cited CPS publication[18] were: "We asked the following questions. What is the effect of routine circumcision of newborn male infants on the rate of UTI, sexually transmitted diseases, cancer of the penis, cervical carcinoma and penile problems? What is its effect on health care costs? Is the balance of evidence sufficient to warrant a change in the position taken by the CPS in 1982?7"

Find at the beginning of that cited CPS publication the "Parent handout: Circumcision: Information for parents." [19] where you find the statement: "Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."

Find in the second paragraph (in the Abstract text) of the cited CPS publication: "In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7"

You pro-circ folk like the current version because of the sentence "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns." Maybe they came close to changing their policy ... but they did not. Unfortunately, the reader is not permitted to know the CPS policy, regardless the topic subsection heading. Thanks to Avi, Jakew, and Das.

Das ... Why footnote the policy statement? The purpose of the topic subsection should not be releated to links! Why do you insist on that? How can I not find that Pro-circ???? You and I have a long history Das, and my experience has found you thus ... so have many others ... but it's not fair to drag the past back here and it's a waste of time, so sorry.

Look at that cited CPS publication again. It's a "revisit," (review) of research with the stated goal of finding if the "evidence sufficient to warrant a change in the position taken by the CPS in 1982" ... it's actually a great review of research. The publication defers to the 1982 statment for policy.

PS ... I find lots of valuable research in that CPS citation! "An epidemiological study of UTI during the first year of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% (27/56) of the male infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision.51 The incidence of UTI among male infants was significantly higher just after circumcision (from 9 to 20 days of life) than during the rest of the first month of life and significantly higher in the first month of life than during the rest of the year). We need to add that information to the UTI section!TipPt 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you were responded to on your user page about this. Otherwise, a cursory reading of the above implies that there is not much more new here than in the archives. -- Avi 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is repetition of original research that is prohibited both here and in the article itself, amounting to an attempt to abuse this talk page as a soapbox. I am tempted to simply revert such abuse, but I shall consult with the good folk at AN/I if it continues. Jakew 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks that's original research! that's quoting the CPS! Lordkazan 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the talk text to the topic discussion Avi. You did not reply in my talk. What's above is not in the archives.TipPt 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repost this since you guys can't face the facts.

Can't tell the players

In my honest attempt at trying to discover who is for and who is against I have been slapped down twice by someone with a puzzling semantic argument. I referred to the procedure described here as "infant genital mutilation," was called a "vandal" for doing so and my question here was summarily removed. I quote Merriam-Webster:

Pronunciation: 'myü-t&-"lAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors> 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of :

What am I missing dear readers? Surely a rational debate is possible, yes? I'm honestly trying to see the other side. I respect other people who may have a different viewpoint and would never, under any circumstance, attempt to quash their views. Have I offended someone? If so, please accept my most sincere apology.63.138.87.171 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You were slapped down for (twice) making a religiously disparaging comment, which I notice you have chosen to suppress this time around. So, to answer your question, yes I imagine you have offended a number of people. If you want to be a relevant part of this debate, you may want to start with an apology for that. Dasondas 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dearest Dasondas, if my comment "Is it a Jewish thing" was offensive to anyone, all please accept my heartfelt apologies. Living in Los Angeles, some of my best and closest friends are Jewish and perhaps my comfort and joviality with them was mistakenly transferred here. I do agree that I must earn respect before I can ever attempt to kid and for that I am properly chided. Again, I am very sorry if I offended and will attempt to tread lightly as I realize this is a very sensitive subject for many. However, I am still at a loss and wonder if you or anyone here could help me determine what's going on. Specifically, I'd like to determine the motivation behind the nastiness of some here. This procedure has been hands down proven to be squarely based in religion. Attempting to ascribe it as otherwise seems to cheapen the religious rationale, yes? Why is it the case that some are running around looking for some other reason to do it other than religion? Religion I can respect. Is there anyone in this discussion that does not have a religious backing to their pro stance? I can't figure it out from the comments here, and while I respect the religious aspect very much I do feel that it tends to cloud ones perspective. I'd like to focus on the comments that do not have a religious backing. (For the record I was raised as a Taoist.)Sesquiped 02:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your address "Dearest Dasondas" to be patronizing in the extreme. You don't know me; I don't know you, and your affectation is inappropriate for this discussion. As for your stated desire to "determine the motivation behind the nastiness of some here", why don't you just ask directly of whoever it is you think is being nasty rather than posing a general question to the community at large? Moving on. This procedure has not been "hands down proven to be squarely based in religion", as there are many who have this procedure performed for non-religious reasons. But let's stop here anyway and examine your statement "Religion I can respect". Is this really the case? It doesn't appear to me to be so because your next sentence asks whether anyone in this discussion "does not have a religious backing to their pro stance" when the answer is obviously yes. Just ask JakeW. Even more tellingly is your very next sentiment that "[the religious aspect] tends to cloud ones perspective." This does not sound at all respectful to me. Does it seem respectful to you? Furthermore, if you had had the courtesy to do even a cursory review of the discussion on this page before insistently barging in with your faithless inquiries you would have realized that a significant part of the debate around here recently involves those who believe that circumcision is impermissible even on religious grounds. One editor has gone so far as stating that people who have their children circumcised should be imprisoned. (By the way, by singling out Judaism for derisive commentary you seem to have forgotten that almost all Muslim men are circumcised as well -- that makes for a whole lot of "genitally mutilated infants"). And while we're on the topic of your own predilection for calling this procedure "infant genital mutilation", tell me please, do you use this characterization while fraternizing in "comfort and joviality" with some of your "best and closest" Jewish "friends"? I'd really like to know. Dasondas 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas, let us agree to disagree. While you may have found my address of you pejoritave, please believe me when I say it was not intended as such. I like you, you're intelligent, well spoken, and committed, and I think this is fun too - and it's so much better than watching TV. Insults are patently unfair and make honest debate difficult. But dude, a little levity here would be a welcome breath of fresh air. With that in mind, to address your questions: Yes, I respect the religious stance - I don't think it's possible to debate what you believe/your religion, and I don't want to (e.g. I respect that you believe what you believe) You will defend it to the end as it is at the core of your being. My point: Since this procedure is so tied in with religious teachings I think it's difficult to separate the two. People get very hot because it feels like a personal attack. It is not (at least not from me). So, I'm curious to know who here is debating this on purely medical/other grounds without the religious weight over their heads. I think it's a fair question to ask. Am I out of line for asking such a thing? I have read this page and a good smattering of the archives and it seems to me that we're beating around the bush - picking and choosing minor battles and there is no resolve. Thus why I want to know agendas and players - declare, please. Dasondas, as you have likely gathered I can be a bit of a smart-ass and this does not temper around my Jewish friends - I will happily hail him as a "half peckered asshole" or worse and I promise you he gets back at me in spades. "Infant Genital Mutilation" is not a predilection, I just wanted to ensure I was addressing the mutilation of infant genitalia (e.g. without consent) as opposed to Adult Genital Mutilation (with consent). Is there a better term? I thought hard and this is as clinical as I could get. It would also cover piercing, slicing... anything that changes the natural state of the organ. I mean, that's what it is. Why are you quoting me as if I am somehow characterizing the procedure - it's clean and clinically correct, just like Mr. Wales wants, right? ...and if it's getting to you, I think it sort of underscores the rationale for my question on motives and players. Sesquiped 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Briefly (and incompletely), as I need to sign off and will be gone (lucky you) until Friday or Saturday -- I don't think anybody is arguing that circumcision **should** be performed routinely for purely medical reasons, although there are plenty of people with a non-religious (or non-cultural, lest we forget South Korea, the Philipines, Fiji, et. al.)disposition who argue that parents should have the right to make that decision for their children based on their own evaluation of the medical benefits/risks (after proper medical consultation, of course). Your phrase "the religious weight over their heads" does not offer much confirmation of your neutrality on these issues, but it is a good point of departure for noting that from a purely religious point of view the medical debate is irrelevant. For people who circumcise on religious grounds, the medical question just isn't a factor. In my opinion this is a source of some of the heat around here because a number of (several? many ? most? almost all?) of the editors approaching this from a non-religious/non-cultural framework appear to view the medical debate as of paramount importance. Again this is only my point of view, but it appears to me that the human-rights-based arguments emerge from a prior consideration of the (perceived) medical effects of the procedure -- although people are beginning to make arguments based on psychological effects as well. As an aside, I will mention that very few (if any) editors have ever pointed out that religious and cultural rights are generally viewed as intersecting (and hence being very difficult to disentangle from) human rights. As to your preferred phraseology "genital mutilation", I suppose I would respond that mutilation is in the eye of the beholder. An observant Jew, for example, in seeing circumcision as the sign of his covenant with God will view circumcision as an act of completion or perfection rather than as an act of mutilation. Which brings us to the dictionary definition you used to begin your argument -- 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect If the act does not make one "imperfect", then it is not "mutilation". Anyhow, I really need to be signing off now so I'll leave you with the observation that we seem to be making progress because I am no longer deleting your remarks but am choosing to give a fair amount of time and thought into responding to your legitimate comments. And I also note that "some of your best and closest friends" have become one "half-peckered asshole". Don't worry about that at all. I see it as us moving more towards honest dialogue, and I'm pleased about it. Finally, you will note that I have completely ignored your demands to know who is lining up on which side and for what reasons. As you spend more time here you'll discover that the best editors are the ones for whom none of that matters because they are busy building an encyclopedia rather than a megaphone. Dasondas 06:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you hadn't figured it out yet, when someone is for or against something, no matter what you say, they will continue to believe what they want. This isn't about the fact that every piece of real medical research says that circumcision isn't needed (otherwise we wouldn't be born with what we have), it's about these two people [edited to remove uncalled for sobriquet] editing a wiki to promote what they want. 74.106.118.102 19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether one disagrees with LK and Tip or not, civility and refraining from personal attacks is a policy of wikipedia, and derogatory insinuations about their mental acuity is not helpful. One should try and focus on the issues only, even if those who disagree with you do not. It's not always easy, though, I grant. -- Avi 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sesquiped, please do me a favor. Read the article itself, from top to bottom, and tell me in your words if you think it is skewed, to which point-of-view, how badly, and which sections are more egregious than others. A fresh opinion is always welcome. Thanks. -- Avi 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Need to use the CPS Nov 2004 "Information to Parents" statement ... it's more current

Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted Circumcision: Information for Parents in 2004[20], and Neonatal circumcision revisited statements in 1996, undergoing revision as of 2004:

Circumcision: Information for parents

Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor.

After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.[21]

Neonatal circumcision revisited

We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following. There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%. The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision. Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required. More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed. Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood. There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases. When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief. The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed. When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors.

— Neonatal circumcision revisited, Canadian Paediatric Society

TipPt 21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, Tip. I updated the reference to a cite template. Secondly, I do not think there is a reason to set any one sentence out specially. I removed the excess line breaks so that there are two paragraphs: One for the Info for Parents, and the other for the official statement. -- Avi 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotations need to be separated, since they are from different documents. Jakew 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and for fixing the BMA too.TipPt 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

infant genital mutilation

If the parents know what they are getting, and that involves some degree of religious or medical benefit ... it's not.

If the parents don't get what they expected in terms of tissue loss and physical harm ... something that is beyond normal potential complications ... it's mutilation.

In US hospitals, it's common to remove the frenulum. The loss of sexual sensation is huge. Two large US surveys found ~30% of infants to have "frenulum breve." (versus a european study finging 5% with actual functional problems) The parents are not informed of this perminant loss of erogenous potential.

To some extent, you can blame editors in this topic.TipPt 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't room for interpretation here, mutilation, whether or not one considers it warranted or not, is still just that: Mutilation. I may think that piercing my toungue, ears, nose, eyebrow, inserting discs in my lips, rings on my neck, slicing off body parts, or any other number of acts makes me "more" beautiful or perfect in Gods eyes or my lovers eyes - however it is still mutilation. You are attempting to apply slippery and subjective logic to the term ("Well, if it makes me more perfect than it's not mutilation"). It does not fly. It's mutilation - let's check again with Mr. Webster

Pronunciation: 'myü-t&-"lAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors> 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. Wouldn't you agress that God makes us as he wants us: perfect? Who are we to meddle with his vision? Sesquiped 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sense 1 requires: "so as to make imperfect". Thus, making a beautiful statue from a chunk of rock is not mutilation, neither is cutting one's hair. But of course there is a degree of subjectivity here - one could argue that a particularly awful haircut (or, indeed, statue) is mutilation. Sense 2 requires the part cut off to be either a) a limb, or b) essential, hence it does not apply. So I'm sorry to tell you, but the only way you can argue that it is mutilation is to employ your purely subjective assessment that circumcision makes imperfect. You're quite welcome to that opinion, of course, but please don't assume that it holds true for others.

Now, is there a point to any of this? Jakew 18:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are misinterpreting sense 2. As I read it, the dictionary is giving 'limb' as an example of a part that is essential, not as an alternative to an essential part. The example given happens to be a part that is not literally essential to life, but does have extremely high value. I interpret this as the writers showing that the value of the part is the real determining factor in whether the removal is considered mutilation.

I do however, agree with you that this thread has no point. While I am convinced that non-consensual circumcision deserves the term mutilation, I also feel that that because mutilation is such a loaded term, it has no place in an encyclopedia; it is simply not neutral. Christopher 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agress that God makes us as he wants us: perfect? Who are we to meddle with his vision?

— Sesquiped, 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a fundemental tenent of Judaism is that G-d did not make us, or anything, perfect. Part of the role of Man is to complete the creation of the world as G-d wishes. In regards to the male human form, it is the Brit Milah that allows Jews to become closer to G-d, so I guess most Jews would disagree with you there -- Avi 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Loaded term, are you on crack? The point is that you are masking mutilation behind a semantic argument. Call it what it is and stop lying to yourself. You advocate the ritualized genital mutilation of young boys penises! You want to slice off a part of a sexual organ. Don't you feel the least bit ashamed at yourself? Have you no decency? It is sick, twisted, homoerotic nonsense and any parents that allow this disgusting practice should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is, was and always will be absolutely wrong. If you want to permanently mangle your kids aparatus and condemn him to a life of premature ejaculation, so be it - but please stop attempting to foist it on the rest of the world as some beneficial cure-all to nonexistent ills. 76.171.233.144 04:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thanks. Jakew 10:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jake, I was thinking that post was more indicative of somebody who should realize that Wikipedia is not therapy Dasondas 12:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember civility. I'd respond, but your vituperance indicates that WP:AGF would be futile, and I have no interest in a screaming match. Intelligent conversation is one thing, but I am not sure you are interested in that. Thank you. -- Avi 14:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am largely neutral on this matter, and have worked to mediate past disputes. We respect that you have an opinion. You make that opinion abundantly clear. Frankly I have a similar opinion when it comes to Female Genital Mutilation (now politically correctly called Female Circumcision). In my opinion, male circumcision is not the same, it is broader. It has been the medical opinion of Doctors in the past, and still is the medical opinion of some doctors, that sometimes male circumcision is beneficial. I understand there is dispute about that and multiple levels. FGM or circumcision has never been indicated by doctors to be beneficial except in very exceptional cases. Now, I am not advocating either position, or commenting on the "medical correctness" of any of that. I am pointing out what the current situation is. As factual cases can be made for both circumcision and not circumcising currently, both of them are acceptable and viable points of view that may be expressed in this article. Our Wikipedia policy of NPOV does not mean that the article is neutral, or that only one POV (agreed upon by consensus) is allowed. All points of view that are represented by citable facts are allowed to be represented. You may add a section to the article along with the other facts that says "It is sick, twisted, homoerotic nonsense and any parents that allow this disgusting practice should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." if you can back that up with references, and cite those references. Atom 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, that would violate NPOV. However, (s)he could add text along the lines of "So-and-so argues that it is a sick, twisted..." Of course, we would have to ensure that undue weight was not given to such a viewpoint. :-) Jakew 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

US Data

Happened to notice this which was added, then deleted for being unsourced:

"The United States of America is the only western country where non-religious circumcision is still routinely practiced. Within the United States, in the Pacific coast states of California, Oregon and Washington majority of male infants are not circumcised as the practice of circumcision is becoming less popular."

I have heard this elsewhere, but if true, there should be some sources, right? It might be good information for the article, if sourced. --Scix 06:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt that any (reliable) sources exist. The first sentence is highly dubious. What is meant by "routinely"? Clearly not the AAP "for all newborn males" usage, since that does not describe the US. So what is meant? About 10-15% of Australian newborns are circumcised, so is this not "routinely"? An encyclopaedia demands more precision.

The second sentence is worse. Per-State statistics are not available. We do have statistics for the Western states, but an average cannot tell us anything about individual states. Moreover, the available statistics only tell us about the percentage circumcised in neonatal hospital stays. So while we can say that at least N% were circumcised, we can't say that 100-N were not, because our source remains silent on what happens after that stay.

The final claim - that circumcision is becoming less popular - is also dubious, and contradicts the only study in the literature ("the increasing incidence..." - cited in the article). Jakew 11:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Routinely - as in regularily - you know.. the entire high percentage of the us male population being genitally mutilated since the late 1800s - including up to 99% of the population in some states during the 1980s [such as iowa]. There is a wealth of evidence on that subject. Lordkazan 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the claim that "only 18% of the male population in the world is circumcised". As can be seen in Circumcision#Prevalence of circumcision, estimates vary from one sixth to one third. Is it really too much to ask that people actually read the article before editing it? Jakew 12:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased Intro

I know that I am new to this article but I decided to remove the sentence "In the US when non-ritualistic elective circumcision is chosen, it is largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns" from the Intro section and to introduce a link section about Policy. The aforementioned sentence is biased and not correct. Just because circumcision is not routinely recommended it does not mean that when this procedure is performed it is done not due to medical concern. Both the AAP policy and the AMA statement agree that there are "potential health benefits". Although those are not enough to recommend the routine use of the procedure it also does not mean that there are not "medical concerns" which could lead a parent/doctor to either recommend or perform it. Therefore, I would say that the sentence which was removed is not completely true and it is biased even though it was included on the AMA statement to highlight that the presentation of medical data to parents had little effect on their final decision concerning the procedure. In the right context the sentece would be correct but as part of the Introduction section of the article it makes it look like as if there were no medical reasons or epidemiological data which could suggest potentials benefits of it.

Waisberg, MD, MSc 28 of October, 2006

I am inclined to agree. The statement also contradicted Adler's findings (cited in the 'since 1950' section). I've therefore removed it. Incidentally, you can sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~Jakew 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What other surgery will doctors perform on children that does not have a significant net medical benefit or correct a congenital abnormality? To the best of my knowledge, elective non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is the ONLY surgery performed on children where the medical benefits of the surgery do not significantly outweigh the medical risks and harms or the surgery does not correct a congenital abnormality. -- DanBlackham 19:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How does your question pertain to the article, Dan? Jakew 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question is properly citing a source in a consistent way. Labeling it as not-NPOV is WP:OR. Jan Jakea 19:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If source A states one thing, and source B makes a contradictory statement, then we cannot state that either is a fact. To quote policy: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." Jakew 19:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to DanBlackham, there are many medical procedures which are performed (or where performed) and which are not or weren't universally accepted as beneficial. For instance, in Brazil where I live (and in many other countries) BCG is still used in all children (and believe me, if you never took BCG, it is painful, it leaves scars and it does cause serious potential health complications). The use of BCG as a protective vaccine against Tuberculosis is as controversial as circumcision and in many coutries (including US) it is not performed (if you have interest in the subject see: JAMA Vol. 249 No. 17, May 6, 1983- The BCG controversy). As any other procedure, there is a fine balance between risks and benefits. Even when someone prescribes something as simple as Aspirin this is performed because the benefits are supposed to outweight the risks. The diffence is that in this case (and also with the BCG) the doctor does not ask the parents what is their opinion (even though it might be argued that they should be asked every single time). The reason why circumcision is so controversial is not only due to its medical benefits or not, but because it deals with sexual taboos, religion, some controversial data (as with every other procedure/treatment/drug etc) and because people tend to have strong opinions about it. Back to the issue, which is the removal of that sentence, it is not fair to say that just because a procedure is controversial that this is only performed due to faith or social reasons.

The administration of aspirin is in no way equivalent to the removal of copious amounts of primary erogenious tissue from the genitalia for not significant medical benefit and for no medical benefit not more effieciently attainable through use of devices such as proper washing and condom usage. Circumcision removes around 20,000 nerve cells (2/3rds), 50% of the mobile skin of the penis, the protection of the glans afforded by the foreskin - causing the glans to undergo keratinization. Whether or not certain editors on here would like to admit the veracity of this source, it is none the less citing peer-reviewed papers - [22]

A simple study of the history of the proceedure in the united states should tell you a significant amount. It was introduced in the late 1800s by Dr Kellogg (as in corn flakes) as a method to prevent masturbation (meaning they knew it reduced sexual pleasure) because masturbation was demonized as the root of all illnesses at the time. Dr Kellogg also advocated the administration of acid to the clitoris of female subjects for similiar reasons (and if you think White america doesn't have a female genital mutilation history read The Rape of Innocence by Patricia Robinett) Lordkazan 15:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with relying upon unreliable sources - especially if those sources are propaganda websites that play fast and loose with the truth - is that one tends to be misled. This is particularly likely to happen if we see that sources are cited but do not take the time to confirm that the sources are appropriate and properly represented. As an illustration, you may care to read an analysis of the page you mention. Jakew 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that peer-reviewed studies with minimal to no methodological flaws (you know.. what the page i linked is citing) constitute "biased sources". *restrains self from becoming extremely sarcastic* Lordkazan 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that peer-reviewed studies with little or no methodological flaws would not be considered biased sources. However, since we can easily find newspaper reports and other non-peer-reviewed examples, one cannot seriously claim that all of the sources cited on that page meet such criteria. And if we look further, we find that many of those that are peer-reviewed acknowledge their own methodological weaknesses, and others have later been criticised.

But you seem to have missed my point: even if a page cites impeccable sources, that page is not necessarily reliable. If it misrepresents those sources, it is unreliable and misleading (particularly to those who see the sources and assume that it must be accurate). Let me give you an example:

• Circumcision has been shown to prevent heart disease.[23]

Notice anything about the relationship between the claim and the source? The source does not substantiate the claim. It is misrepresented. Now, such a claim would be unlikely to survive peer-review (or indeed Wikipedia's fact-checking editors), but it is easy to put it on a private website. And that is perhaps the most important reason why it is so important for Wikipedia to insist on reliable sources. Jakew 19:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Until you learn to stop being dishonest you should leave wikipedia - immediately. You are yet again mischaracterizing the content of the citations in a, at this point clearly intentionally, dishonest attempt to make that assertion. Assume Good Faith no longer applies since you clearly have demonstrated that you are not acting in good faith by clear and intentional dishonesty about the content of peer reviewed scientific studies. Until such a time as you can conduct yourself in an honest manner on wikipedia you should removed yourself from editing. Lordkazan 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

201.78.145.160 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)waisberg

To be sure I'm not very fond of that sentence either. 201.78.145.160, you say that it is not fair to say that it is only perdormed due to faith or social reasons. I agree to that, but its precisely what the source of that setnence says. So what we agree is not the sentence in itself but more the source of it is doubtful, yes? Jan Jakea 22:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Waisberg gabe a good argument to me, that the fashion in which the sentence was citing its source was not really npov which I believe its true. Jan Jakea 22:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for a reference to lack a POV. POV is fine. NPOV does not mean that no one can express a POV. This article continues to support both the POV that male circumcision is valid under some circumstances, and not valid in other circumstances. Both are points of view, and both are supported by reliable and high quality references. Just because prevailing medical opinion is going largely in one direction right now does not disallow other valid POVs. I believe that the intro statement should be as neutral as possible, introducing the topic without siding with any particular POV. Eiher than or introduce, without biad or comment, that there is controversy and what the predominant POVs are. Atom 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas' claims re Sikhism

Dasondas recently deleted the following text from the sub-section on Sikhism:

Sikhs have love for the way god has created them. Just like they do not cut their hair, they do not cut off their foreskin from their penis in love for god's creation of it{{fact}}.

His edit comment was, "remove OR. Feel free to replace this when a suitable source is found for the claim."

Now, I have had a good look at WP:OR, and I wonder which of the OR criteria he is citing? Is this, according to his knowledge of Sikhism, a "novel narrative" on the core beliefs and practices of Sikhism? Is it maybe a "historical interpretation" of the core texts, and no longer in mainstream belief? I suspect that he knows little more about Sikhism than I do, and that this deletion is just another symptom of the malaise that I have already said surrounds this article - i.e. that it is 'owned' by a small group of vociferous and aggressive editors, and that they have set themselves up routinely to prevent any others from contributing to it in any way.

Looking at Template:Fact, with which the sentences were already tagged, we find:

Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:

1. if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use {{specify}}
2. if it is not doubtful, you may use {{fact}} or {{citequote}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
3. if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use {{verify source}} tag to ask for source verification.
4. If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.
5. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.

According to his summary deletion, without even moving the contribution to this Talk page, are we to assume that saying this about Sikhism's beliefs is, in his opinion, "very doubtful and very harmful", either to Sikhism or to some other people or organisation? If so, to whom and on what basis, may we ask?

Please understand that this is nothing personal about Dasondas and it is nothing specific about this small piece of text (as hinted above, I know little about the inner workings of Sikhism, and although I previously moved this piece of text, I have know ownership of it). As with my previous rant on this subject, I feel that there is something seriously unhelpful about the atmosphere that has come to surround this article. I would like those who perpetuate this atmosphere either to think a little more clearly, or be brought to do so. --Nigelj 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOR: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

More from the same policy: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

And finally, (emphasis added): Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Nigelj, you have come here quite clearly to advance a POV and pick a fight with those who would challenge you. I'm having none of it and will take this opportunity to remind you that in addition to being completely ignorant of WP:NOR, you had better quickly brush up on WP:NPA if you don't want to find yourself on an involuntary Wikibreak. Dasondas 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though {{fact}} needs to be updated, actually, because it doesn't quite reflect current policy. To quote Jimmy Wales (in verifiability policy):

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Jakew 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jakew. To Dasondas: Threatening other users with blocks is not exactly friendly. In all honesty: You are by far the most unfriendly editor I have come across so far. Nigelj made a point, maybe a flawed one, but he kept totally civil in his current post. Unlike you, Dasondas. 84.44.171.230 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nigelj's comments "I suspect that he knows little more about Sikhism than I do" and "[this article] is 'owned' by a small group of vociferous and aggressive editors, and that they have set themselves up routinely to prevent any others from contributing to it in any way" are uncivil and violate WP:NPA to the extent that they focus on editors rather than edits. Your own comment You are by far the most unfriendly editor I have come across so far is ighly uncivil and is also a clear personal attack for which you should heed the same warning as Nigelj. And it is also worth pointing to out to everybody that the one and only edit you have ever made to Wikipedia as of this posting is the one above attacking me. Dasondas 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas, I have made more edits to Wikipedia than you. And I surely cannot be threatened with a block. It has not been my intention to attack you, but to provide you with another opinion. Maybe you want to contemplate on your conversation style a bit. 84.44.171.230 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going by the address you're using. Whatever your intent was, your opinion was a clear personal attack and whoever you are, you would be well-advised to sample a broader cross-section of my work here before jumping to ill-found conclusions. And fwiw, now that this conversation has moved into personal territory, perhaps you would find it more effective to send me an e-mail. If you turn out to be somebody whose editing I respect I'll give your opinion due consideration. If not, not. Dasondas 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop being uncivil and don't blank content that merely needs a tag Lordkazan 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)