Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Definition of circumcision

According to the current dictionary citation used, circumcision includes females. I made an edit to make the article reflect this, but User:Jayjg reverted my edit. I disagree unless we are going to change the title. It seems User:Jayjg has assumed ownership of this article. Many dictionary references support my definition : [1] and [2] and dozens more Someone65 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently states that;

male circumcision = circumcision

female circumcision (see link) = mutilation

This is biased in favor of circumcision. Someone65 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're a bit too late to comment on the latest requested move, but yes, this argument has been made and repeatedly found to have no consensus for or against. Thus the dispute continues. It's unfortunate that in the meanwhile the article does not appropriately reflect the fact that it is disputed with a tag, but such is the interpretation of policy by those on one side of the dispute, who keep removing any tags they say "deface" the article. The editors on the other side of the dispute have apparently accepted that the disruption caused by editwarring over the tag (despite its clearly being appropriate, according to policy) possibly outweighs the benefit of the tag; and have chosen to be the side that does not editwar their preferred version despite a lack of consensus for either position (to their credit), nor even editwar the tag clearly shown to have community approval in these circumstances (to their outstanding credit). Blackworm (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone65, please review the discussion in the section immediately above this. In that discussion, as in previous page move discussions, the consensus was that "circumcision" alone signifies "male circumcision", as in common and academic usage "circumcision" alone is overwhelmingly used to mean "circumcision of the penis". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time you repeat this, despite my pointing out that no consensus (for or against) was reached in that discussion. This is clear to anyone simply scrolling up to the top of the highlighted text on this page. Your invalid argument is common to several editors supporting your position, but I again claim it is incivil behaviour as it misrepresents community consensus in support of a disputed position. Blackworm (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, 11 editors with a combined total of over 358,000 live edits supported the view that "circumcision" commonly means "circumcision of the penis", while 5 editors with a combined total of over 63,000 live edits opposed that view, and 3 editors were neutral or unclear. So yeah, there was a consensus for that view, as "is clear to anyone simply scrolling up to the top of the highlighted text on this page". Therefore, if it is indeed "incivil" to "misrepresent community consensus in support of a disputed position", then you should stop doing so. And, as I've mentioned before, the correct word is "uncivil", not "incivil". It's "incivility" but "uncivil"; that English is inconsistent is an unfortunate but well-recognized truth. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As I point out elsewhere, you were not the closing admin, and the closing admin didn't appear to find a consensus in that discussion. Your original research regarding numbers of edits, even if accurate, is irrelevant. Your !vote count, I dismiss as inherently biased, but even if it were completely accurate and neutral -- would again to irrelevant to the question, which is whether a consensus was found that this article is titled appropriately for the topic it discusses. WP:UCN does not override WP:NPOV, anyway, so even if editors agree it's "common" (I'm sure some on the other side do, too) doesn't mean they support the continued organization here (nor the desired changes that you, Jakew, and Avraham have currently editwarred into Circumcision and law). Blackworm (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've pointed out that the closing admin in no way disagreed with what I said, which was an accurate summary of the clear consensus. As for that other article, someone has finally undone the changes non-consensual changes you've edit-warred for many months to keep in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin never commented on what you said after the RM, so his agreement or disagreement with your claim is unknown. I never claimed the closing admin disagreed with you, in fact I suggested asking them directly whether they agree with you. Can you address that suggestion, please? My view is that the uncontested fact that male circumcision is commonly referred to as circumcision does not make it appropriate (nor does a consensus exist) to make the edits you support, either here or in circumcision and law. No wider consensus against that position has been shown to exist. Finally, your assessment of consensus is clearly not neutral nor uninvolved owing to your high level of involvement in the dispute and prior disputes.

As for your claim regarding the other article, I claim it to be patently false,[3] as evidenced by that page's edit history. Blackworm (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed by the suggestion that the word "circumcision" as used in this article conflicts with NPOV, since the established lead clearly aligns with standard English usage by specifying that the article is talking about male circumcision, with a link to the procedures sometimes performed on females, with profoundly different consequences for the females. So, if I am not too late, would Jayjg please make that 12 editors who support the established view. Wikipedia should not be used to promote some view about male/female circumcision. By the way, WP:OR applies to proposals for articles, not a tally of views expressed on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the dispute. Hopefully someday there will be a consensus found in it. Blackworm (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note, since you seem unfamiliar with the topic, that some of the procedures performed on females and called "circumcision," or less often, "female genital cutting" are analogous or even less invasive than a typical male circumcision, for example the removal of a tiny portion of the clitoral hood. See the female circumcision article for details. Blackworm (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Johnuniq did you come here to oppose me by sheer coincidence or as a result of my disputing your arguments here? Why must editors follow editors with whom they've had disagreement to other disputes they happen to be involved in, and accusing them without evidence of using Wikipedia to promote their views? Isn't that frowned upon? Blackworm (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely you frequent more pages than this and WP:WQA (I haven't looked)? This article has been on my watchlist for several months following a report I saw on some noticeboard, but I have been ignoring it since everything seemed under control. When I saw "Definition of circumcision" on my watchlist I decided to have a closer look. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So it wasn't when you saw my user name next to it. Okay, fair enough. I still don't appreciate the accusations of using Wikipedia to promote views about male and female circumcision, but then accusations have flown time and time again from both sides regarding that, so it seems you are fitting into the dispute quite well! :) Blackworm (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am on blackworms side. The article is named circumcision but then in the opening says male circumcision. That is a load of garbage in my opinion, and the lead is pretty stupid. Thats why i changed it here; [4]. But User:Jayjg reverted me. His intentions are pretty clear. I'm not the type of editor who is hard-headed and jumps in to rewrite stuff mercilessly, but the current lead is way off. Someone65 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted the personal part of your comment; don't make it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not on my "side." You're an editor who apparently shares my view regarding the better outcome of this dispute. I am glad to see other editors feel the same way about the content (as if it wasn't already clear, despite attempts to paint the opposite picture). However, I will speak for myself and let others speak for themselves. Blackworm (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

prevent AIDS

Bertran Auvert study show that circumcision help against AIDS http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.156.246 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Contraindications

Shouldn't there be a section in the medical section about contraindications to infant circumcision including things like buried penis, abnormally small penis, hypospadias, chordee, torsion, etc?

Mystic eye (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New Statistics for United States

$\infty$ In the United States, circumcision rates fell from 56% in 2006 to 33% in 2009. $\infty$ http://www.acep.org/MobileArticle.aspx?parentfeedid=4&feed_id=imn080420101635228885&parentid=742 POV Detective (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment on this, which I've already reverted once and will soon revert again.

Please note that news sources are not usually considered to be good sources for academic subjects. See, for example, WP:RS#News organizations, which states: "For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." Also, see WP:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Popular_press.

I obviously have no objection to including this information once it can be verified through a published paper, but it is not appropriate to cite such a poor source in support of a rather exceptional claim. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ An "extraordinary claim?" Such a characterization might be true if it were, for example, "disappointing" news. $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You left out the part about how circumcision supposedly results in a significantly reduced risk of HIV/AIDS. I expect that's "disappointing" news to the anti-circumcision activists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the degree to which something is "extraordinary" (or "exceptional", to use the word I actually used) is largely unrelated to whether it is considered good or bad. If I were to discover that that an unknown relative had left me a very large inheritance, for example, it would be extraordinary but not disappointing. In the case of this article, the very fact that it is reporting such a dramatic change in a short time interval is extraordinary. That doesn't mean that it should be excluded, of course, but it does mean that we should be careful to find a solid, reliable source. Jakew (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ Given such rigorous academic standards, it's inconsistent that other Users support I Maccabes as "evidence" for the broad claims about the cause of the Maccabean rebellion in the article Circumcision and Law. $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are better sources. The CDC presented the statistic at AIDS 2010 in Vienna, Austria last month. I have photos of the presentation slides showing that the US circ rate in 2006 was 56.4%, and 32.5% in 2009, El Bcheraouis in front of the dias, and CDC clearly shown on the slides. MDconsult interviewed the lead CDC presenter El Bcheraoui, where he expanded on the topic. See: http://www.mdconsult.com/das/news/body/214800087-2/mnfp/1038842761/220621/1.html?nid=220621&date=week&general=true&mine=true and http://pag.aids2010.org/Abstracts.aspx?SID=438&AID=4529 Since the CDC felt comfortable announcing these statistics at an International medical conference I say this is verified. Frank Koehler (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank, the first of these two links is another news source and hence suffers from the same reliability problems as the original acep.org page. And I'm not sure why you mention the second because it doesn't seem to say anything about the circumcision rate. Jakew (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ Some Users apparently question the authority of the American College of Emergency Physicians. $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, some users have said news sources (e.g. Elsevier Global Medical News, the service quoted on the ACEP site) aren't good sources for this. Misrepresenting the cite as "On August 5, 2010, the American College of Emergency Physicians reported..." is pretty dodgy, too. Elsevier Global Medical News reported it: ACEP simply posted the EGMN news release. TFOWR 15:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ Users are comfortable with the outdated WHO statistics? $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably more comfortable than having a news source passed off as the American College of Emergency Physicians. You didn't even have the decency to correct your error before blindly reverting. Incidentally, you're now at three reverts - consider this your WP:3RR warning. TFOWR 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ Personal attacks and hysterical warnings are inappropriate on this page. $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you've been subjected to a personal attack, WP:WQA is that way. You might prefer WP:ANI if you like. Now, about that edit of yours. Are you going to revert it or correct it? TFOWR 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ trusts the authority of the American College of Emergency Physicians and Elsevier Global Medical News, which has been cited in Footnote 9 in another Wikipedia article. $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"TFOWR trusts" the ACEP, too. What I'm saying is: ACEP hasn't reported what you claim they have reported. The report was from a news source, and as you can see above, several editors have expressed concerns about news sources. So, to summarise: your edit states that the ACEP reported something. That is not, in fact, the case. Your edit cites a news source, which - fair enough - you seem quite happy with. But several other editors aren't. Do you see the problem? TFOWR 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ Re: Nandesuka "Reverting per discussion on the talk page."

There was no such consensus in the discussion. (btw, what happened to that Symbol +++ you claimed to have adopted the other day?) $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, apart from you, everyone else seems to think that (a) a news source is unsatisfactory, and (b) your edit misrepresents reality: you're claiming erroneously that ACEP reported something. Which I note you still haven't reverted or corrected. TFOWR 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, that'll be why - because you've just been reverted. I wondered why you'd popped back. TFOWR 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Starting over. OK, instead of wasting all our time edit warring, why don't you (POV Detective) try and find a decent source? You've been told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources: instead of ignoring that why not just try and locate a good reference to use? TFOWR 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. POV Detective, please review the objections of multiple editors here regarding this source and its claims (Elsevier Global Medical News). A 50% drop in 3 years is unprecedented, particularly as no mainstream sources seem to have noticed this. Per WP:REDFLAG, this will require much better sourcing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times published an article on the CDC scientist's presentation at the AIDS 2010 conference stating that the circumcision rate in the United States in 2009 was 32.5%. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=1 - DanBlackham (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and let's see some quotes from that article:

Last week, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautioned that the figures in the presentation were not definitive.

The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance.

“C.D.C. was not involved in the collection of the data that was cited, nor has C.D.C. undertaken any review of this particular data for the purpose of calculating rates,” she wrote. “As such, we cannot comment on the accuracy of this particular estimate of infant male circumcision.”

Here's what the company itself says about them:

Andrew Kress, the chief executive of SDI Health, cautioned that the data had not yet been published and was still being analyzed, but he confirmed that the trend had been toward fewer circumcisions each year. He added that measuring the circumcision rate was not the purpose of the study, which was designed to measure the rate of complications from the procedure.

And yet, various editors feel the need to push these numbers as unqualified fact into the lede of every circumcision-related article, despite the fact that everyone, including the company that produced them, is strongly qualifying them. I wonder why that is? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Shaza-um! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the study being a biased sample, as you suggest; and hence, unreliable; here are a couple more interesting quotes:

"Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining."

"Opponents of circumcision hailed the trend as a victory of common sense over what they call culturally accepted genital mutilation. For federal health officials, who have been debating whether to recommend circumcision to stem the spread of AIDS, the news suggests an uphill battle that could be more difficult than expected."

I'd like to know how increasing one's risk for AIDS qualifies as "common sense".

Also, I bet the anti-circumcision lobby doesn't like this factoid, which has to do with the main reason they conducted the study:

"The study found a very low rate of complications associated with newborn circumcisions; most were considered mild and no babies died."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Interesting. The fragment "had not yet been published and was still being analyzed" seems to imply that there are plans to finish analysis and publish these data, so with luck we should have a reliable source before too long. Jakew (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the second sentence in the article, "A little-noted presentation by a federal health researcher last month at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna..." is rather telling. If I was unsure of my stats, I'd keep it low-key too. And it's worth pointing out, again, that they don't see this "precipitous" drop in circumcision as a good thing by any means. Apparent the anti-circumcision lobby does. What that lobby's motives could be, for wanting more men to get AIDS, is anybody's guess, although I wouldn't rule out that maybe they're just morons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've learned that it's often best to avoid making statements about whether circumcision is good or bad (or, as a closely related matter, whether high circumcision rates are desirable or not), since such arguments tend to be unresolvable and also tend to result in upsetting editors with opposing points of view. I'm sure many of us have opinions about the anti-circumcision lobby, too (I certainly do!), but I wonder if you'd mind not mentioning them here, just to keep the peace? It would be much appreciated. Jakew (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ It would be shameful if a minority continued to oppose factual information in the Wikipedia article on circumcision. Despite the effort of some to hide the facts, the American public has made its choice, and the circumcison rate has declined significantly in the last five years. To conceal the abandonment of circumcision by the American people won't stop the decline . . . $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • The numbers in the New York Times have significant issues, listed above, which make the phrase "factual information" meaningless. Please do not make any further comments here until you have read the comments of others here, assimilated and understood them, and responded directly to them. Also, please do not discuss other editors in any way going forward, including making false insinuations about their actions or motives. Discuss only article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I read no reason for the removal of this sourced information in this article. Arguments that news sources like the New York Times are not to be cited are invalid (WP:RS, WP:PSTS). Arguments regarding the methodology of studies are void (WP:NOR). Arguments regarding the qualification of the comments in the sources can be resolved WP:NPOV by attributing claims and by making those qualifications clear in the article text if editors feel it necessary. Blackworm (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see pointers to relevant parts of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS at the beginning of this section, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New York Times not a reliable source? No, wrong. The statement is of concern to WP:MEDRS due to it providing health information which could be misused with ill-effects? No, wrong. Please see WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that I'm wrong is not, by itself, particularly convincing. As I quoted at the beginning of this section, WP:RS has this to say about news sources in an academic context: ""For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." As for WP:MEDRS#Popular press, it begins "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles", and continues with further guidance. Jakew (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in The New York Times makes it quite clear that the numbers are from a study that didn't actually measure rates of circumcision, and that didn't count huge numbers of circumcisions. The company behind the study says that the numbers haven't been published, and are still being analyzed. It's hard to imagine a less likely candidate factoid for the article lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ Here's a compromise sentence if the circumcision devotees can't live with the new statistics: "Much to the chagrin of circumcision devotees, the rate of circumcisions in the United States has been reported on a dramatic decline." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=2

$\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• • POV detective, your comment discussed other editors, but did not reply to the issues they've raised. There is no indication that you are reading other editors comments. Please try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm utterly perplexed by this purported "compromise". Why is it a "compromise" to add an unsourced claim about the feelings of unspecified "circumcision devotees"? How does this address the reliability issue? Jakew (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ ‘Precipitous’ three year drop seen in US circumcisions -- "Is the American love affair with the circumcised penis finally coming to an end?" http://www.inquisitr.com/82300/precipitous-three-year-drop-seen-in-us-circumcisions/ $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the link, however do you intend to actually participate in this discussion, as I requested on your talkpage and you acknowledged? Throwing more and more news articles at the talkpage instead of addressing the points raised above doesn't really constitute "discussion". TFOWR 14:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • $\infty$ "Behold and weep for The Lost Cause." http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/08/18/more-boys-in-the-u-s-uncircumsized-says-new-study/ $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to be helpful by adding new stats for the USA from 2009. I think it is terrible that 2005 is last year for which statistics are provided in the article. That was eons ago. I find the New York Times to be the USA's most respected newspaper and certainly reliable. Why not allow this study to included in the article with the a sentence that makes it clear where the statistics are coming from? That way the info is there for those that will accept a NY time article, and people that do not like this "non-academic journal" source will recognize it as such. I.E. "According to a study cited by the New York Times, the non-religious neonatal circumcision rate in the USA dropped to 32.5% in 2009." I think this would be an appropriate compromise between those who dislike the NYTimes as a source and those who want up to date information. (Stats from 2005 are really obsolete.) Does anyone else agree? If not, could someone please find an up to date proper source? I have used Wilson Select and other databases. No cigar!

ANI Notice

The disruptive editing on this article has been raised at WP:ANI#User:POV Detective engaged in disruptive editing on circumcision-related topics. If you agree or disagree with the claims, your comments are welcome there. -- Avi (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

There was a call for fresh eyes on these articles at AN/I, and while I hestitate to get involved, it's striking that the article is about male circumcision only. Would it not make sense to have Circumcision as a disambiguation page, linking to the different articles about it, including male and female, and move this to Male circumcision? As it stands it seems a little sexist. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We've had several discussions about this previously, SlimVirgin, including several requested moves (most recent). The recommendation at WP:MOSDAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries is to include a disambiguation hatnote at the primary topic, linking to the secondary topic; that's what we have here. Jakew (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's called Circumcision, not Male circumcision, and there's a long list of male and female circumcision articles that could be included on a dab page, which would help people to navigate around the topic. I can't see any benefit in giving the male circumcision article the Circumcision title. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of references in the world use the term "circumcision" to mean removal of the foreskin from the glans. That is not what occurs with clitoridectomies or infibulations or any procedure on women, as they do not have a penis. Per wikipedia manual of style, this article is properly titled "Circumcison" with a disambiguation to Female Genital Cutting at the top. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the common usage of terms and remain agnostic to political debate, be it national or gender related. -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Circumcision" is the common name for penile circumcision, so it's reasonable to expect that it's the term that readers will use when searching, and that editors will use when wiki-linking. Consequently using the same term benefits both.As for the sub-articles, I don't think there's any actual ambiguity: I can't imagine a situation in which I'd type "circumcision" and expect to find, for example, prevalence of circumcision: the sub-articles are about specific aspects of circumcision, but they aren't about the subject of circumcision as a whole. It seems to me that, if I were looking for information about circumcision, it would be an inconvenience to be presented with a dab page from which I'd have to click another link to find the page I wanted in the first place. Jakew (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the others responding here also argue that there is a consensus that no dispute even exists on this issue,[5] despite the many, many times this has been brought up and no consensus arising out of the discussion. Not only is it a bitter, long lasting dispute, but one editors on one side have apparently unilaterally decided is over. Blackworm (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Female circumcision is becoming more and more of an issue, so there's no reason to assign the title "Circumcision" to just one version of it. No one has explained how it benefits Wikipedia to do that. I've prepared an example of what a dab page might look like at User:SlimVirgin/Circumcision, which I see as more equitable and informative, and it can be expanded as new topics are created. I also think the fact that it keeps being raised shows there's no clear consensus for the current titles. I'm not in any sense involved in these articles, but this title does strike me as one-sided and odd-looking, and to be honest almost offensive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should try and get the manual of style changed, but the current nomenclature is what is supposed to occur per the MoS. -- Avi (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I like User:SlimVirgin/Circumcision and agree that that (or something like it with just a very few sentences of explanation) would be a better, more informative and more equitable use of the available article names. AFAIK, there's nothing in MoS to prevent a more current and even-handed naming of articles. --Nigelj (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which part of the MoS people are referring to, but WP:NAME says we should make clear what the subject matter is, then use the names the sources use, subject to NPOV. The current situation arguably fails on all these counts. The title doesn't make clear what the subject matter is. It isn't neutral. And if you look up circumcision on Google scholar, [6] many if not most of the articles say up front whether they're discussing male or female circumcision—and the percentage of articles doing so is likely to increase, as discussions about female circumcision become more common. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:UCN states that "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources." The term commonly used for circumcision is "circumcision". Jakew (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your objection to making the title clearer? If you could outline an argument, it would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had already explained, in my above post dated "22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)". Jakew (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@SV: I have been watching this page for an extended period after an alert on some noticeboard, although I have not followed the details. I find Jakew's "22:26, 20 August 2010" message convincing, but I think a further factor is that there is a POV that females have been getting undue attention, and that male circumcision is just as bad as the female variety; accordingly, there is a push to blur the distinction between the common forms of genital cutting that occur to males and females. I was astonished to hear a couple of U.S. males I met promote this POV in detail (they even discounted problems with the more extreme forms of female genital mutilation), so I personally know this POV exists, although I have not followed activities here and do not know if anyone is pushing a similar line on Wikipedia. My point is that there may be a political motivation for wanting "equal time" for male and female circumcision on Wikipedia, whereas I think Jakew's common name argument should be applied (and this article kept much as it is). Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The "push" is quite clearly in the opposite direction, separating the concept of circumcision[7] into male "circumcision" and female "mutilation" for the purposes of advocacy. My claim is sourced:

• "When the practice first came to be known beyond the societies in which it was traditionally carried out, it was generally referred to as “female circumcision”. This term, however, draws a direct parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices. [...] The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act." [8]

Personally, I cannot see what "confusion" between these two practices arises, especially since there are forms of female circumcision that are analogous to common forms of male circumcision;(Gruenbaum, 2001, p.2)[9] but then UNICEF/WHO are apparently free to advocate whatever they please. Also these words, from an acknowledged expert on female circumcision often cited in the female circumcision article: "Well, I disagree with you that [the analogy to male circumcision implied by the term 'female circumcision' is -BW] not the case. I think there are similarities and then there are differences. I think the people who say that there are no similarities are people who don’t want to address male circumcision basically."[10] Do you agree these reliable sources in fact suggest that the "political motivation" is in fact in the opposite direction from that which you state?

To contrast this, I would be very interested in seeing sources for your claims, which I wholeheartedly dispute, especially "there is a push to blur the distinction between the common forms of genital cutting [...]." Blackworm (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fifty years ago only a limited group of specialists in western societies had any idea that "female circumcision" existed. At some point, knowledge that the practice existed spread, but there was a long period when very few people knew what it entailed. It is only fairly recently that western societies have been sufficiently candid to explicitly describe what "circumcision" for females involves. Western societies have moved in a continuum from where almost no one knew that the practice existed, through a situation where people knew that it existed but social niceties prevented much explanation of what it meant, to the last few years where more open discussion has occurred. Because of these social changes, it is possible to find sources with a wide variety of claims on this issue. Further, there is still a lot of taboo about openly describing the long-term horrors of commonly performed female genital cutting, and international bodies often bend over backwards to be "culturally sensitive" to those societies where such practices are still common. What you are describing as a "push" is just the change in western society as more people discover that "female circumcision" actually means. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced tripe. Please source or strike out your entire statement. Blackworm (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think John is making a good point. BW, in the source you cited above, Gruenbaum, she does say some forms of female circumcision are in theory equivalent to male circumcision, but she also says she has never actually heard of those things alone being done (or she says words to this effect; I'm writing this based on my memory from a few hours ago, and my memory is increasingly non-existent these days). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

He is not making any point that is sourced. It is sheer invention and appeals to emotion ("horrors"), which are routinely laughed at and dismissed when brought in male circumcision. Further, no one is arguing that the forms must be analogous for our usage of the terms here to properly reflect the terms used in the sources. You also ignore the point where she excludes the even less invasive forms ("washing" or "pricking" of the genitals), which are still referred to female circumcision or female genital mutilation. Let me repeat: acts that do not remove any tissue or involve any cutting are still called "female circumcision" and "female genital mutilation." That is sourced in that work. Blackworm (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think John's argument is a good one for not having one article called Circumcision that devotes itself summary-style to male and female, because it would imply equivalence, and while there is sometimes equivalence, often there is not. But I don't see it as a strong-enough argument for not calling this page "male circumcision," because it is a fact that "female circumcision" is used, rightly or wrongly, to describe the other kind. So it seems to me that a compromise would be to have a detailed dab page at Circumcision, and have this one called Male circumcision. That would sort out this dispute, which seems to have been going on for years, without implying anything about equivalence. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Such an article you describe could be called "human genital cutting." I fully support your compromise, though I believe it doesn't have a chance at all to gain consensus. The editors on one side have no reason to compromise -- despite no consensus existing, the articles almost fully reflect their preferred view, and they use that fact to falsely claim a consensus and further edit all articles furthering that view, while removing all traces of objection by flatly dismissing objections, speedily archiving discussion and editing archive bot settings to do so, and removing all tags added to all articles. I would be overjoyed to merely have the article and similar articles use "male circumcision" with "circumcision" a redirect to "male circumcision," maintaining "female circumcision" as the only disambiguating hatnote (not diluted and obscured by further subdivisions of male circumcision). Blackworm (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You would prefer Circumcision to be a redirect to Male circumcision? I was thinking that Circumcision would be a dab page, along the lines of this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yes, you were clear about that. No, I wouldn't prefer it, but as I thought I made clear, it seems a compromise much closer to the other side's view, and infinitely preferable to the current arrangement. I would abide by it as well as your suggestion. Blackworm (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a compromise. Isn't it exactly the same thing as you (SV) suggested in your original post (dated 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC))? Jakew (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a compromise between the current situation and having one article at Human genital cutting or Circumcision, and a summary-style coverage of the male and female versions. Without some kind of compromise, the dispute isn't going to be resolved, and it's been going on for a long time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. I've explained my opposition above, so I won't repeat myself. Jakew (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ The Obstructionists hold a grandiose (perhaps mystical) faith in male circumcision, even claiming without evidence that its discontinuance led to a revolution. They will oppose any connection to the equivalent female circumcision because its obvious brutality exposes their hypocrisy. I suggest a disclaimer be posted on all circumcision articles, warning the public that the content has been edited by circumcision devotees.$\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Striking up extreme positions isn't helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he means a disputed tag. Of course, that reasonable request was preceded with a bunch of unsupported nonsense. Perhaps to make the request for a tag seem extreme? Who knows. Blackworm (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing in a fresh suggestion, SlimVirgin. May I suggest that your draft dab page be converted to a Circumcision Portal? It seems more like a portal than a dab to me. Disambiguation is to direct people to articles they could plausibly have been searching for when they type in a term. When someone types in "circumcision" they might be looking for this article or female genital cutting, but they wouldn't be looking for Circumcision and HIV and stuff like that; they get directed to those as subarticles linked to from this article. If the name of this article is changed to "male circumcision" then I think "circumcision" should be a redirect to it. I've expressed my opinion on this in previous discussions. Blackworm, deleting a POV tag is not equivalent to stating that there is no dispute. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think people would type "circumcision" to find any of these articles, and then search from there. Circumcision has had over 170,000 hits this month, but we don't know how many were looking for "male circumcision" or something else. Female genital cutting has had over 103,000, many or most of which probably started at Circumcision. If the female one had a very low number of hits, I'd agree with not moving this title, but given the high number of hits, I think we do need to differentiate, so that we're not implying that there's no such thing as female circumcision, or that it somehow doesn't count. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you assume that many or most of the FGC hits started at this page? It seems unlikely to me: I think that people will search for "circumcision" if they want penile circumcision and "female genital cutting", "female genital mutilation", or "female circumcision" if they're looking for information about FGC. Making the assumption that the language people use in searches is similar to the language people use in pages (which seems reasonable), we can use Google to find some evidence. When searching for "circumcision" excluding the exact phrases "male circumcision" or "female circumcision", all of the page hits on the first three pages relate to penile circumcision. On another point, the number of hits on FGC doesn't seem to be relevant. From that we can only determine the level of interest in FGC; we can't know how people refer to it, so it doesn't provide evidence of ambiguity. Also, we're not "implying that there's no such thing as female circumcision": bear in mind that the very first sentence of this article (the hatnote) points people to the corresponding article. Jakew (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that there's a long-running dispute about the naming of the page, which keeps popping up in various places, so it would be good to resolve it. There was a request for fresh eyes on AN/I, and fresh suggestions would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That 'circumcision' comes to male circumcision instead of a disambiguation page is symptomatic of a wider cultural bias, in that words like "actor" are unisex or presumed male, and only the female ("actress") needs a unique prefix or suffix. This plus the obvious fear of equivocation (we can't compare what we do to the practices of those barbarous Africans and Muslims) seems to be the cause of the intransigence. Luckily, a disambiguation page doesn't imply such an equivocation. I fully support SlimVirgin's proposal. Quigley (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

However, that goes against wikipedia's policy of not taking a political stand but instead reflecting what the majority of reputable sources state. Wikipedia is not the place to wage the war for either genital integrity or gender rights, there are plenty of places for that. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the common usage of terms, see WP:UNDUE and associated pages for more. I believe Coppertwig has an excellent idea about making a portal that collects articles about the larger scope of genital modification and associated articles, of which circumcision, female genital cutting, genital integrity, Brit Milah, etc. are all part of. However, wikipedia may not change the meanings of words or their common usage, and the word circumcision is overwhelmingly used to mean a procedure performed on a penis. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see Circumcision as either a disambiguation page or a general page, myself. It stands to reason, since it can mean either penile or clitoral circumcision. Merriam-Webster, for instance, defines circumcise as "1: to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the prepuce of (a female). 2: to cut off all or part of the external genitalia and especially the clitoris and labia minora." I see no defensible argument to use the general term "circumcision" to refer specifically to male circumcision. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jake has brought many examples to the contrary. The majority of reputable sources define the word to relate to the penis only, which is why the title of this article is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally untrue. Each of the three major general English dictionaries cited by this encyclopedia's guidelines as being one's first point of reference for guidance in English usage state that it includes both male and female forms. The only sources that "define" the word to relate to the penis only are ancient religious texts that call for "it" to only be done to males, and medical sources which do so in the context of medicalized procedures in countries where performing the analogous procedures on females is illegal. Wikipedia indeed may not change the meanings of words, as you are supporting. The political stand is being taken with our misuse of the word. Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As myself and others have explained previously, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so an article about X does not need to discuss every conceivable sense of the word X. As a general rule, articles are not about words, they're about subjects for while the title is the commonly used name. Circumcision is the commonly used name for the removal of the foreskin of the penis. Hence the article title. Jakew (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Blackworm. Your claim about dictionaries couldn't possibly be true. I'm looking at the Oxford English Dictionary right now and none of the definitions listed for "circumcise" include any procedures performed on females. I agree with you that it is becoming more and more common in the English language to refer to "female circumcision" but this is a recent phenomenon and not reflected in tertiary sources the way you claim ... not yet anyway. Britannica also has entries on "circumcision" (male) and "female genital cutting" (female) with the use of "female circumcision" stated but claimed to be less common. I do not think there is a use argument to changing the content of this page. I do think there is a use argument for a portal page or disambiguation page.

@Jake. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but you're misapplying that guideline here. Please see WP:UCN. If certain tertiary sources (like dictionaries) help us determine common usage then using them for that is completely within Wikipedia policy. WP:DICTIONARY has nothing to do with using dictionaries to establish common use. That guideline is about not writing articles about terms, but about things. If you're going to around citing guidelines as part of your argument you may consider getting to know them a bit better first (e.g. this guideline and WP:POINT as mentioned below).Griswaldo (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't actually cite WP:DICTIONARY (which, for the sake of accuracy, is policy not guideline), so its contents are irrelevant. The important point is that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and so the expectation that applies to dictionaries — that they will document all applicable senses in which the word can be interpreted — does not apply to us. Secondly, dictionaries do not ordinarily provide information about frequency of usage: they tell us which uses are valid, but not (except in rare cases) which are common. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You informally referenced it by using the catch phrase we know it by. Don't deny this. What the policy tells us is to focus on notable content and not terms and their definitions. Female genital cutting is clearly notable content. Deciding on what to call it has nothing to do with WP:DICTIONARY and everything to do with WP:UCN. No one is suggesting that we add content or create page titles because they reflect the content in a dictionary. Someone suggested that the dictionary be used as a guide to English usage. If indeed there is no way to use the dictionary to establish common usage, then I agree that it is is irrelevant. But once again that has nothing to do with not being a dictionary. In other words, despite what you wrote, you are nevertheless completely confusing the use of this policy as you did below. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The question, however, is what the content of an article with the title X should be. That is, given that an article entitled "circumcision" will exist, should its content discuss every sense in which the word "circumcision" can be used? Or should its content be about one topic? If the former, Wikipedia would be like a dictionary, because its entries would be about words. But that's not how an encyclopaedia is structured. In an encyclopaedia, an article is about a subject, not about every conceivable interpretation of the title. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No there are two related questions. 1) What should be included in this entry and 2) should we have a disambiguation page or portal of some sort that covers entries related to circumcision (and what should be included in it). My answer to #1 is that an entry named "circumcision" should only cover "male circumcision" only. Common use seems to support this since when "circumcision" is used alone it refers to male circumcision a vast majority of times (also, despite what others have said, OED and Britannica both support the male only use as well). However, common use also seems to support the notion that female genital cutting or at least versions of that practice are with increasing intensity being referred to as "female circumcision". What is missed here is that it is a much less common practice -- one should expect that it is not used as many times as the male term. Anyway, this means that in relation to #2, I think, as do all the people who use the term "female circumcision" that is makes sense to have a portal page that includes both practices.

Back to #1 -- It is ironic that you are approaching the entry from the perspective of a dictionary in order to argue against Wikipedia being treated like one. The very point is that we do not write entries based on terms. We write them based on things, on content, and then we decide what the most appropriate terms are to refer to that content. Those who are arguing to include "female circumcision" do so because they believe the content is related. This should be obvious to anyone. The very entry on female circumcision, female genital cutting currently doesn't even have the word in the title for Christs sake! This isn't a word game it is a content game. We have to look from the bottom up and we need base our arguments from the bottom up as well. My argument to include both in the portal, while not here, is also based on this. The fact that some are using the term "circumcision" for both male and female practices reflects the fact that others also believe that the practices are related. That is what makes common use like this important.Griswaldo (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Jake) But as others have previously explained, the word "circumcision" is routinely used for male and female, just as "actor" is. We don't use the title "actor" to describe only the male variety, though some people do still use it that way, with a hatnote telling readers to go elsewhere for the female version. The Foundation is keen to bring in more women to Wikipedia; they have made it a priority. I see issues like this as inimical to that, because this is an inherently sexist way to approach the situation. The usual thing would be to have an article on circumcusion in general that explained, summary-style, the male and female issues, and the general cultural, medical, and religious issues, and which referred readers throughout to specific articles about those aspects. I do take John's point too, though, so a compromise has to be found. But there's no point in just repeating that people with concerns are silly or wrong to have those concerns. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the term "circumcision" is occasionally applied to FGC, though usually in the form "female circumcision" rather than as an unadorned word. However, as I've shown in this and previous discussions through Google hits, the overwhelming majority of uses of the term "circumcision" refer to penile circumcision. Consequently, this is clearly the primary topic, and so the advice in the MOS is to include the hatnote. I don't think it would even be realistic to have an article about both circumcision and FGC, because hardly any sources (other than a few dictionaries) actually discuss both: it would be like trying to write an article about a class of chemical elements and a style of rock music. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has argued that circumcision is used for female alone; that's a red herring. The argument is that "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" are used. There's little point in checking Google, because it includes lots of unreliable sources, and is tainted by WP. If you look at Google Scholar, you will see the differentiation. And anyway you keep not taking the point about "actor". No matter how many Google hits we could find that said "actor" was a man, we would never reserve that title for male actors alone. Could you address that point, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the terms "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" are used, but "male circumcision" is used much less often. Google Scholar returns 71,100 results for "circumcision" (excluding MC and FC), compared to only 8,930 for "male circumcision". Looking at the first page of results for the first search, again, all of these refer to penile circumcision.

I haven't addressed the "actor" point because I haven't yet formed a complete opinion about the correct treatment in such a case. Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If 'male circumcision' is not used often enough to disambiguate, the new article for male circumcision can be "Circumcision (male)". We often use parentheses to disambiguate cases where two subjects use the same, unqualified, names, such as in run (baseball) and run (cricket). Quigley (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They way you've searched Google scholar isn't valid, Jake, because you've included articles with titles that make it clear it's male circumcision, e.g. penis. So in those cases there is no need for them to add "male circumcision." That is, there would be no point in calling an article "Complications of male circumcision and pain in the penis." But you'll find if you search differently that, where there is no ready-made differentiation in the title, authors do say whether they mean male or female circumcision. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Title, continued

Circumcision is a general term, requiring a general article. There is more than enough material to justify separate articles for circumcision genrally, and male circumcision and female circumcision specifically. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be extremely difficult to find adequate numbers of sources discussing a gender-neutral concept of circumcision (and synthesis of sources discussing penile circumcision or female genital cutting would of course be inconsistent with policy, so it would be essential to find sources explicitly discussing this "general" concept). Most sources discuss either circumcision or female genital cutting; the present arrangement of articles do likewise. Jakew (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence, Exploding Boy, is your opinion, not a fact. Wikipedia requires us to follow common usage the predominance of usage in reputable sources, not our own personal feelings, which is why I beleieve changing the title to this article would actually be a violation of wikiepedia's core policies. Wikipedia is not the place to further genital or gender rights; that is for the wider world. Wikipedia's place is to reflect what is out there, and when it comes to article titles, we use the most common usage and disambiguate if necessary, which is exactly what is being done here; our own opinions notwithstanding. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jake and Avi. Circumcision is still mainly known as the procedure performed on males. This might change in the future but I can't find a single reference work that doesn't support our current usage, for instance. I like the idea of a disambiguation page as long as Circumcision always directs to this content.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a genital portal page would be a good idea for collating all the related articles. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree to a portal page in principle (assuming that the name and content can be agreed upon), though I do have some reservations about grouping together such different subjects. Jakew (talk)

"Such different subjects?" You must be uncomfortable already with Category:Circumcision then. Genital modification through cutting is genital cutting, whether its safe or unsafe, painful or painless, part of an ancient religious rite or part of a medical procedure, oppressive or not, etc. I don't see how these are "such different subjects".Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find similarities between most pairs of things, though the existence of that similarity does not mean that the things are not different. To some people, certain similarities are important, to others, the same similarity can be a trivial detail. Circumcision and female genital cutting both involve cutting of the genitals. Circumcision and eating steak are both procedures that make use of knives. Circumcision and fellatio are both actions performed on the penis. Circumcision and praying are (sometimes) both religious practices. Circumcision and custard both start with the letter 'c'. I think I've made my point, so I won't go on. Jakew (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This type of low-level hostility is exactly why I usually avoid the circumcision-related articles, but the previous comment is fairly incredible. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's no point at all Jake. Things are classified with like things based on degrees of similarity and we could play your game with anything. A Beagle and a Tiger both have four legs and paws, so therefore you can't just claim that a Tiger and a Leopard are any more closely related than a Tiger and a Beagle. Clearly. Calling them both cats is absurd! Now I'm not saying that we should be inventing categories, but I don't think its particularly hard to find evidence of the use of female circumcision. The fact is that proponents of male and female circumcision prefer those terms, and opponents prefer other terms. One practice may be safer than the other, may be more traditional than the other, etc. but they're both forms of genital body mutilation that involve cutting part of the genitalia away and the English language is reflecting this similarity. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't say "cutting," we aren't allowed to define male circumcision with the word "cutting" or "cut" -- and attempts to do so get reverted on sight. We must say, "removed." "Cutting" implies the foreskin is a part of the penis (another faux pas on your part). That position is not reflected here because of apparent WP:NPOV concerns. Most of the editors here prefer to compare circumcision to cutting one's nails, or the removal of a wart. Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:POINT, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jake, WP:POINT refers to disruptive edits to actual article content and not snarky comments on talk pages. Perhaps you should focus on continuing discussion with those who are not leaving snarky comments on the talk page instead of telling people to read inapplicable guidelines. Do you see how your previous argument about categorization doesn't make a whole lot of sense?Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does WP:POINT state that it doesn't apply to talk pages. It does state "In Wikipedia, disruptively applying reasoning with which you disagree is not an acceptable way of discrediting it", which is why I (correctly) referred to it. I stand by my point about categorisation, obviously, but there doesn't seem much point in conducting a lengthy debate about it at this time. Jakew (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right it says "applying" and not something like arguing because its about applying reasoning to the main space. Is there a single example of POINTY disruption on a talk page listed on the guideline?Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of the first section of the guideline sums it up - "(s)tate your point—do not prove it experimentally." If Blackworm went around removing all the mention of "cutting" in the article and then left the comment above, or something similar, as his rationale, he would then be in violation of WP:POINT. Discussing something on a talk page, however snarky, is not "proving it experimentally". I would highly suggest you asking someone you trust about the guideline because you continue to misunderstand it. In other words, don't take my word for it if you don't want to. Ask anyone else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One can apply reasoning (and, for that matter, prove a point) in formulating talk page comments just as easily as one can apply it in making edits to articles. That's why it applies. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT does not apply to talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a great deal of respect for you, SV, but I think you're wrong on this point. Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Avi and Griswaldo asked on AN/I for fresh eyes, and that presumably means fresh approaches too, otherwise what's the point. But when people arrive, they're greeted with posts about circumcision and custard both beginning with c, so they wander off again, and the dispute rumbles on. It would be nice if it could be resolved in a way that every side could accept, if only grudgingly. That requires entrenched positions to shift a little. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But not when shifting positions is contrary to wikipedia policy and guideline, Slim. Should we "shift" a bit about verifiability as well, perhaps 8-) ? I think your idea has much merit, but as a portal as opposed to changing this particular article's title. -- Avi (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree once again that it should be a portal. However, could we work the information in the hatnote of this entry into the lead so that it is clearer for our readers. It seems to me that female genital cutting is not mentioned in the entry, even in "See also", in order to remove any notion that the procedures are in any way comparable or similar. Doing so is not NPOV if you ask me. Linking to it only in the hatnote says ... "For a different subject altogether that you may have confused with this one ..." as opposed to ... "for another topic also referred to as circumcision ...". Any ideas on this?Griswaldo (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB does specifically recommend the hatnote. Is there any particular reason why you think it is unclear? Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in posting abbreviations to guidelines of general advice. We don't put a hatnote over Actor referring people to Actress, for all the reasons we've explained, though if we did have two titles, one male and one female, MOSDAB would recommend the hatnote. (But is there a hatnote to this page on the female page?) Continuing to post as though no one has explained the difference just means we go round in circles. Please can we try to address each other's points and make progress? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I read through the guideline posted only to realize that the relevant guideline was actually Wikipedia:Hatnote. My suggestion on this entry is to make the disambiguation a bit more clear. I think hatnotes are not as obvious as some people seem to. I think starting the entry off as follows, for instance, would be an improvement -- "Male circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. Procedures that involve the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia are also referred to as female "circumcision" but as such they are not equivalent to the more common male practice described here." This may not be the best way to write it, and I know people are going to say ... but the hatnote is already there. The hatnote gives no credence to fact that many people see these as related practices, and quite frankly its not as easy to see.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your use of scare quotes around "female 'circumcision'" is unnecessary and inaccurate, and only supports the moving of this page to "Male circumcision" (or "Circumcision (male)"). "Circumcise" means both removing the prepuce (male or female) and cutting off all or part of the external genitalia and especially the clitoris and labia minora. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The part of WP:MOSDAB that I meant was WP:MOSDAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries. I'm not comfortable with your proposal for several reasons. Firstly I think that the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article as a whole, and it seems inappropriate to me to discuss a subject that is beyond the scope of the article. Secondly (although I personally agree with it), the assertion that "[FGC is] not equivalent" is inconsistent with WP:NPOV, since there is a POV that at least some forms of FGC are equivalent to circumcision. And also, as you predicted, "but the hatnote is already there"... :-) But I'm intrigued by your comment that it's not as easy to see. Do you think there might be some mileage in modifying the hatnote template so that they are more prominent? Jakew (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "not equivalent" is a violation of NPOV at all since they could not possibly be equivalent given the difference in male and female reproductive organs. Also, the current use of the hatnote already makes the two seem even less "equivalent" so if you are actually concerned about NPOV you'd work on fixing that as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about equivalence, so I don't see an NPOV problem to fix. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Then you'd agree to a hatnote that read -- "This entry is about the circumcision of males. For the circumcision of females see Female genital cutting"? Do I have your support if I am to seek consensus for such a hatnote? You are correct that it does not outright use the phrase "not equivalent", but the very function of the current hatnote is to differentiate between the two subjects. Circumcision, we are told, is only about male circumcision, for a procedure on females that uses the same language, you actually want something completely different Female genital cutting. Do you not understand how this works? How people comprehend the hatnote? I think you do, because it's as you admittedly would like them too (given that you do not believe they are equivalent).Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow. Even those who believe that circumcision and FGC are equivalent (though that's perhaps not the best choice of word) would be unlikely to argue that they're indistinguishable from each other. They are distinct topics, and so it's reasonable to expect treatment of the two in different articles. I don't think one can read an assertion of non-equivalence into that. As for the title of the FGC article, bear in mind that an article has to be called something, and can only have one name (let's ignore redirects for the time being). If it were "female circumcision" then would it imply that FGC is non-existent? Or that the procedure is not FGC? Of course not. Similarly, the present title doesn't imply that FC is non-existent. The present arrangement makes it clear that there is something, which some people call "female circumcision", and others call other names, which may be found at female genital cutting. Whether that something is equivalent to circumcision is an entirely different issue from what it is called. Jakew (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo: That's more or less what the hatnote does say, though, unless I'm missing something very technical.

The article is calamitously misnamed, but such is the wisdom of the community. Given that, Jakew's points seem perfectly sound. The hat is appropriate and information about female circumcision is nothing to do with the article. Weird? You don't need to tell me, but it is logical. --FormerIP (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Jake is mincing words vis-a-vis "equivalent" which means "the same". He is claiming that even those who think the two practices are the same don't think they are the same. When I use "equivalent" he infers a value judgement and when he says the would not argue that these practices are "indistinguishable" he infers no value judgement. That's ludicrous. I do not agree that my rephrased hatnote above conveys the same meaning as the current hatnote, and I note that Jake did not answer that the question of whether or not he'd support the change. Anyway my point originally was to add text to the intro to clarify what the hatnote says because I do not think it is clear enough on its own.Griswaldo (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo, and anyone interested in the history of this dispute, consider reading Talk:Circumcision_and_law/Archive_1#Neutrality, and Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#RfC:_Is_circumcision_synonymous_with_male_circumcision.3F, two of the long discussions on this topic. Griswaldo, please note in the latter discussion, my post of 19:15, 19 November 2007, where I provide links to each of the three major dictionaries I mention, including the Oxford, which you stated did not mention circumcision as applying to females. I hope you will strike out or refactor your comments above asserting the contrary, in consequence. Blackworm (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm I will not strike my comment because my comment is accurate. The "Oxford" dictionary you link in that prior discussion is not the Oxford English Dictionary, the most recent version of which I consulted before making that post. The Oxford dictionary you link appears to be the Oxford "World Dictionary", whatever that is. I would like to link the OED but my access is through an academic library so it would do you no good. As I stated in that comment neither the OED nor Britannica have this usage. It is possible that they will adopt it sometime in the near future, but I don't know. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the link I posted is published by Oxford University Press, stated as the publisher of the OED in the article you link. Its sources are,[11], the Oxford Dictionary of English (Revised Second Edition), Oxford Thesaurus of English (Third Edition). Sorry about the confusion, I have struck out part of my comment above. I do not have access to a recent copy of Brittanica, but the 1911 version said, "Most probably, however, circumcision (which in many tribes is performed on both sexes) was connected with marriage, and was a preparation for connubium."[12] There may be attempts to change the meaning of the word to only refer to cutting of male genitals, and these might succeed, but as you say, I don't know, and that transition seems far from complete. Blackworm (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a big long discussion here! I must admit that I didn't have the patience read through every single point and counter-point and counter-counter-point, etc. that everyone made ;-)

But to reply to the original proposal and add a thought of my own - I generally like the draft that SlimVirgin has come up with ([13]), and I think it does make sense to have circumcision be a disambig page and the article here now moved to male circumcision. One thought that I have is that the FGC article discusses a very wide range of different types of cutting. It would be nice to see the disambig page also link to other various types of genital cutting on the male side, such as penile subincision. Perhaps even, as some others have suggested there should be a separate male genital cutting article which would discuss both the more common procedure known as "male circumcision" (removal of the foreskin) and various other types of cutting of the penis or scrotum practiced by different cultures in different parts of the world. -Helvetica (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

When you do find yourself with the time and patience to consider the arguments involved, you might want to read the previous requested moves and other related discussions for that request, and consider why consensus was not achieved in those discussions. A non-exhaustive list of such discussions is: Talk:Circumcision/Archive 66#Requested move Talk:Circumcision/Archive 57#Requested moves Talk:Circumcision/Archive 47#Name Talk:Circumcision/Archive 40#Requested move Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#Why only male circumcision? and Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#RfC: Is circumcision synonymous with male circumcision?. (You might also review Talk:Female genital cutting/Archive 4#Requested move.) There isn't a "male genital cutting" article because that neologism is basically unused in reliable sources and is only used by activists seeking to equate FGC and circumcision through terminology. There is, however, the admittedly dire genital modification and mutilation, which serves as an overview. Jakew (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jackew, to clarify, my idea was not to move the male circumcision page to "male genital cutting," but to have a separate article which discussed various types of cutting of the male genitals as practiced in different parts of the world. "Genital modification and mutilation" isn't probably widely used in reliable sources either, but merely a name Wikipedians came up with encompass a wide range of topics. My idea was something similar, but dealing specifically with modification and mutilation of the male genitals. "Cutting" seems more NPOV to me though, as all cutting modifies the genitals, but "mutilation" embodies a position that the modification is a bad one. As for what I said about not reading every single comment - I was just trying to bring in a bit of light-hearted honesty. I think I actually did read most of the arguments, but they soon got quite repetitive and tiring, so I skipped over some which seemed to be repeating the same old point again, so it's possible I may have missed a new and unique point somewhere in there, but probably not ;-) Anyway, the point behind my light-hearted honesty was that the discussion of SlimVirgin's original idea seemed to me to have devolved into something of a chaotic mult-threaded argument, and I was trying to get it back on track. Perhaps something more structured like an RFC is needed?... -Helvetica (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate community process for a page move is a requested move, but since the most recent discussion re moving to "male circumcision" closed very recently — on the 28th of July, to be exact — I think it would be inappropriate to try again just yet. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the topic is not apparently currently open for discussion. Neither is opposition to changes to articles made citing these discussions closed as "no consensus" as a mandate to act.[14] With regard to Coppertwig's statement that the act of removing a POV tag "is not equivalent to stating that there is no dispute:" the dispute is not the issue, consensus is; and the tag is not be removed without a consensus to do so. Please see WP:NPOV Dispute, linked from WP:NPOV. A failure to obtain consensus for a change in one article is not indicative of consensus to enact change of a different article and close discussion on that change immediately, removing any indication of a dispute. That is what happened there, and it clearly violates Wikipedia policy, Coppertwig's weak defense of the actions of Avraham, Jakew, and Jayjg notwithstanding the most cursory examination of the facts. Blackworm (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose having a disambiguation page, because I think the reader wants to see content, not unnecessary disambiguation pages. I'm willing to accept options 1 and 2 below. I'm undecided ("neutral" in scare quotes) about options 3 to 5.

1. Leave things as they have been.
2. Rename to "Male circumcision" and leave "Circumcision" as a redirect to it.
3. Rename to "Male circumcision" and make "Circumcision" a redirect to Genital modification (which could be expanded and (ahem) modified). This would work better if "genital modification and mutilation" were renamed to "genital modification" instead of the latter being a redirect as it is now.
4. Leave things as they have been, but add a wikilink to "Genital modification" in the first sentence of this article, e.g. "Male circumcision is a form of genital modification which involves ..." Similarly, better if the other article is named "genital modification".
5. Rename to "Male circumcision" and (as I think Blackworm has suggested) have "Circumcision" a short summary article linking to "main article[s]" Male Circumcision and Female Genital Cutting. I retract my previous argument that this would be a topic of very low notability because there is, as far as I know, very little material on circumcision in general in the form of statements about circumcision as a single concept both male and female. I now think possibly the notability could be established by things like a book about circumcision that covers both male and female forms, even if the book says different things about them and covers them in separate sections of the book. By putting them in one book the source would be doing something similar to what we would be doing here, putting them in separate sections of one article. Remaining problems for this option would be that possibly it would be non-NPOV to use the terminology "female circumcision", and that it would be difficult to define the scope of the topic since in the case of females the term is often used to cover a broader range of procedures; it would then be tempting to also include more male procedures such as subincision and then to rename it to "genital modification" or something, which is why I thought of options 3 and 4.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of mouth?

I've heard a few times that the person performing a circumcision might use their mouth in the procedure, whether for sucking the blood, or using teeth to remove the foreskin. I'm surprised this article doesn't mention that, even if it is a misconception. --Bahati (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Brit milah#Metzitzah technique, where there is (fairly) extensive discussion. It's relatively uncommon (or so I gather) among Jewish ritual circumcisions, which themselves represent only a small fraction of all circumcisions, so I'm not sure that discussing it in this article would be appropriate in terms of weighting. Jakew (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, there it is, thanks! The article you pointed to does mention medical issues, and while I agree discussing it at lenght is not appropriate I believe there's room in the Medical aspects section of this article for a short sentence that would link to it. After all that was the information I came for and failed to find it. --Bahati (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

By the same argument, though, a person might conceivably seek any piece of information, so should we include everything in this one article? I think the answer to that should be obvious... Jakew (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Intaction, 5 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Looking to add www.intaction.org to the External links - Circumcision opposition Intaction (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

\

Intaction (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Blatant COI here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)