Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Filipinos / South Korea

Hello! I am refering to the below quote:

"Circumcision of males is a religious requirement of the Muslim and Jewish faiths, commonly, but not exclusively, performed on the eighth day after birth. It is also practiced by the majority of Americans, South Koreans and Filipinos."

Since the first sentence talks about infant circumcision it seems that the second sentence is refering to infant circumcision in those countries. However, I know for a fact that in Philipines that they do circumcise, but they do it when the boys are around 8-10 years old, and not during when they are babies. I believe that is what South Korea does too.

It doesn't really suggest that it is performed on the 8th day by Americans, South Koreans and Filipinos but it does suggest that this is the case for Muslims. It would be more accurate to say "Circumcision of males is a religious requirement of the Muslim and Jewish faiths [leaving it at that since Jewish religious circumcision is discussed elsewhere and the 8th-day timing isn't common among Muslims] and is also practised by the majority of Americans, South Koreans and Filipinos." Masalai 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The article should emphasize the specific laws for Judaism and Islam (perhaps, as you suggest, some clarification would be appropriate for the Islamic requirements) because some activists have been arguing here and elsewhere in Wikipedia that all circumcision of minors is a violation of human rights and should be criminalized, and it is important that this argument doesn't result in an anti-religious POV being inserted into circumcision-related articles. Dasondas 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't that go in the subsections specifically dealing with Judaism and Islam?Masalai 09:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a judgment call. Typically I'd say yes, and in a perfect world it would be so. But religious circumcisions account for a large majority of circumcisions performed, and if there is an active attempt by others to insert a religiously hostile (and culturally hostile, in the case of the Philipines, South Korea, and many African nations) POV into the article it may be important to more prominently establish the importance of the circumcision of minors to these cultures and religions. I'm not "married" to any particular wording or formulation here, and you make some excellent points; but I'm not willing to concede to the anti-circumcision advocates at Wikipedia that their viewpoints on the circumcision of male minors deserves anything close to equal representation to the viewpoints of the various religions and cultures which have had this rite as a central tenet of their beliefs/practices for thousands of years in some cases and which account for over 500 million circumcised males alive today. Dasondas 15:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Religious circumcision is by far the MINORITY of circumcisions performed - unless you count all the circumcisions in america as religious because the puritanical anti-masturbation anti-pleasure pro-genital mutilation group that started male AND female genital mutilation in america. Furthermore your admission "I'm not willing to concede to the anti-circumcision advocates at Wikipedia that their viewpoints on the circumcision of male minors deserves anything close to equal representation" should disqualify you from EVER making an edit to this article EVER again. You just admitted that you are ENGAGED IN BAD FAITH EDITING. Furthermore your argumentum ad antiquitatem is NOT valid. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right OR acceptable. Circumcision is a human rights vilation plain and simple.
Despite my opinion of the practice I'm more than able to edit in good faith and equally represent your viewpoint in the article - and by your own hands you have admitted that you are going to REFUSE to follow NPOV policy. You have NO BUSINESS being on Wikipedia. Lordkazan 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's enough.
  1. Please see WP:CIVIL
  2. Please see WP:NPOV. Pay particular attention to the section on undue weight, since your comment indicates that you're not familiar with it. Jakew 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
your interpretation of that rule is POV-pushing. Sorry Jake, no abusing the rules for you today. Undue weight would be not representing either. Both positions are FUNDAMENTAL and should be equally represented. Lordkazan 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It is simply a fact that the vast majority of circumcisions around the world are done for religious reasons. There are over a billion Muslims, and pretty much all of them have their male children circumcised. As for the rest of your post, it speaks for itself. Dasondas 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
85% of the men on this planet are intact. So if you count every single muslim as circumcised then the sum of circed+intact goes over 100%. Assuming everyone of a certain religion follows every tenant of that religion is a fallacy.
Simple facts:
* you have admitted to bad-faith editing.
* you commited argumentum ad antiquitatem in justification for the above
* you have engaged in vicious personal attacks in the past on people who disagree with you
* you have admitted, indirectly, that you are using this article to push your pov.
I keep my POV in userspace and on the talk page - I only edit the article when I have sources and I do not censor information. I give your position equal representation, even though I consider it a reprehensible violation of human rights for which you should be tried and convicted and sentanced most severely. I have the ability to suspend my POV for the sake of the encylopedia, until you learn to be able to do this you should leave wikipedia. Lordkazan 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion-mandated circumcision

I really don't like to weigh in here because I am sure that the discussion has gone off track. Perhaps it's worth a small effort to bring it back on track.

Your position is clear, LK, as to circumcision that is required by the tenets of religion being negotiable by adherents of such religions. It would not seem that way to such adherents. But this is a red herring: granted there are a few Jews and Muslims who choose not to follow the command but that does not alter the fact that they believe it is commanded. And that is all the article says, which is nothing more than the plain fact. What puzzles me is your statement that religiously-mandated circumcisions are the minority of circumcisions. There are a billion Muslims, a fifth of humanity -- half of them are male but the point doesn't need repeating for each population, obviously. (There are also a few million Jews, though in comparison with a billion Muslims this is not a significant number.)

Those who circumcise for non-religious reasons live in significant numbers only in the USA (298 million), the Philippines (89 million), South Korea (49 million) and parts of sub-Saharan Africa (but many of them alongside many Muslims, for example in Nigeria -- the most populous subsaharan African country -- whose 130-odd million are approximately equally divided between Christian and Muslim). Significantly less than a billion altogether, even using the higher estimates for the total number of circumcising non-Muslim black Africans. And even if there were a billion, that wouldn't make religiously mandated circumcisions a minority of all circumcisions.

But even if they were, that is still neither here nor there. The article reports on why circumcisions are performed -- not whether the reasons are objectively good reasons; that really doesn't matter for our immediate purposes, which are simply descriptive.

So, to return to the point where this tangent took off, can you agree that Jews and Muslims circumcise because they believe their respective religions require it? (You may say that they are not really required to do so, but again, that isn't really relevant: what is relevant is their belief that it is required, which leads them to circumcise.) That's a rhetorical question only. Masalai 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said they didn't believe their religions required it - many people have belived their religions required various forms of violence over the years (the crusades for example) - this is yet another one of those. I made a context error when i said religious circ's where a minority, i'm too used to only discussing the USA as that is where i live and have to tolerate having had my body violated irreversably.
Whatever they believe does justify mutilating another. How is it so difficult for them to simply wait until the person can choose to have it done to themself, as an adult, like a certain editor i butt horns with regularily did. Lordkazan 00:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
But you are arguing that they shouldn't circumcise, or at least that they shouldn't circumcise when their religions say they should. And that they shouldn't is what cannot go in the article. (Nor, for that matter, that they should.) What goes in the article is that they do, and why they do, which is that they believe they must. That's all.Masalai 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't the foggiest idea where you're getting the idea i want that in the aritcle. Lordkazan 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
How is it so difficult for them to simply wait until the person can choose to have it done to themself, as an adult, like a certain editor i butt horns with regularily did. Lordkazan 00:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC) That's what you said. You are arguing that they should not circumcise in childhood but should wait till adulthood, though they believe their religions require it in childhood.Masalai 01:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
that is what i'm arguing, but that isn't what i'm arguing should be put in the article. It's my opinion, not my opinion of what should be in the article. Lordkazan 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This talk page is not for arguing your opinions. It's for discussing changes to the article. Jakew 09:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Penile Cancer

I re-wrote the section. Some refs were improperly formatted, others duplicated existing refs, and the entire thing was a quotefarm. I do not believe I changed any of the text except to paraphrase where before there were direct quotes and redo the citations. There exists a main article for this topic, so this section should be no more than a summary anyway. Please let me know if I missed anything. -- Avi 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment re: Filipinos and superincision

I've removed the following which was added recently, for reasons set out below. "The traditional procedure in The Philippines does not resemble circumcision as practiced [sic] elsewhere. Rather, it is a supercision [sic]where the foreskin is drawn away from the body and then a 1/2" slit is made from the tip of the dorsal side of the skin tube, toward the body. No tissue is removed. The point is to allow the skin to be rolled back to expose the glans. This procedure is so different from Western circumcision that including The Philippines when compiling statistics about benefits and risks of circumcision could be misleading."

Superincision was also the procedure in Polynesia and those parts of Melanesia which are described in the article as practising "circumcision," apart from Fiji where the surgical minutiae varied drastically in various parts of the islands. But it has largely now been medicalised in those parts of the South Pacific where it has not fallen into desuetude (such as Madang, New Ireland and New Hanover) and it has also been medicalised to a considerable extent in the Philippines. So the comment seems superfluous, certainly at the point where it was inserted.Masalai 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also completely lacking in sources, and the last sentence in particular appears to be pure original research. So I think you were right to remove it. Jakew 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External Links and Wikipedia is not a repository of links these links are not needed, and not pwr Wikipedia policy. Just because they have been there for some time does not make them violate policy any less. Useful information should be incorporated into the body of the article. References for those facts should be in the references section. Already this article has 107 references. Do the external links in question *really* add to the quality of the article? Is their really information there not represented in the article? The links are not necessary. Atom 15:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is great controversy surrounding neonatal circ's. Having pro and con links makes sense from that perspective. The pro and con links also add a great deal of informatin now missing (or misrepresented) in the article. The Techniques section certainly contains information not found elsewhere in the article.
The External Links serve the reader who seeks additional information. They are circumcision activism and information (not sales related) sites. Many Wiki articles provide that same type of service.TipPt 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
From your Wiki link above there's an encouragement for the external links found in the topic: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other."TipPt 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Link war - we should have links to additional information and pro-circ and anti-circ groups. Many articles have a lot more links than this so I don't really see any WP:EL objection to what is there. Let's stop revert waring that and discuss here. [fergot zee siggi] Lordkazan 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate fact that many (probably most, in fact) Wikipedia articles do not conform to Wikipedia policy. That includes this one, but it's getting there. Jakew 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It has a long way to go yet as a large volumne of medical information about the long term negative effects is still missing. Lordkazan 18:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue or propagate the matter. We should be discussing it, which is why I started the section on discussion. Tipt should have explained his rational here rather than reverting. The Wikipedia policies are there for a reason. They could be clearer about External links, but I think they are intentionally ambiguous in order to leave leeway for discussion in special cases. In general, there should be NO external links in an article. Exceptions to this, in my opinion, are things like, an article under development, where information that should be in the article, but isn't yet is referred to temporarily. At some point in time this information is added to the article, and proper references are made to the primary sources.

This article has been under development for a long time. It currently has 111 citations to information in the article. The article is longer than it ought to be. It is not comprehensive, but I am not sure that it needs to be in order to be a solid encylopedic article.

Everyone here has discussed NPOV in the past, and it doesn't mean removing information, it means including information that can be cited in order to represents facts from different views (not opinions).

What external links are NOT:

  • Long term references to information not in the article.
  • Support for statements made in the article (those go in the references section).
  • Extension of a POV battle to add information that isn't, can't be, shouldn't be in the article. In this article, and others that I edit, people frequently want to use external links to poing to POV things that can't be in the article (because thet are nor reliable sources, or they are opinion with no statements.)
  • There to change the balance of POV of the article.

The kinds of things that they might be good for in an article might be:

  • To refer to a highly detailed technical, mathematical, scientific, or medical description of a point made in the article (and this still probably ought to be in the references section)
  • (as mentioned above -- a temporary reference to material that will soon be added to the article)

In our specific case we've discussed this before, and had a balance that all "factions" were satisifed with, and when someone came along and added more, and then I reverted and removed links, this caused the current problem.

What I want to do is come to an an understanding, a consensus of the people that interact here, and agree on a policy, just for this article, that we can use as precendent in the future. Whatever it is, I will respect it (even if it is against Wikipedia policy to remove external links). The last thing that we agreed to left a very small number of very technical links and balanced both major perspectives. They seemsed to balance POV without any highly POV links.

Just in terms of length, the way I see it, once all the citations have been vetted, I am all for spinning off sumsections, especially medical and history, into their own articles, or moving most of them into their own articles, and just leaving brief mentions here. However, instead of checking each of those, I've been concentrating on checking this article. That's my opinion; obviously, I cannot speak for anyone else :) -- Avi 13:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable edits to introduction

Two editors have tried to edit the second paragraph of the article as follows:

  • Change "The American Medical Association, in a report confined to discussing circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes, states that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend “non-therapeutic” circumcision, which it defines as non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns.[7]" to "Non-therapeutic infant circumcision has become controversial in recent decades. The American Medical Association defines “non-therapeutic” circumcsion as non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision.[7] Speaking specifically about such procedures, the AMA states that “recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.” .[7]"

As well as introducing typos in the form of 'circumcsion' and an extra full stop (period for American readers) at the end, this a) introduces an unsourced claim in the first sentence, b) uses lengthier quotes rather than accurately rephrasing, and c) adds two sentences and approximately 10 words while adding no information.

  • Duplicates the following sentence: "In the US when non-ritualistic elective circumcision is chosen, it is largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.[7]"

Is it really necessary to say this twice in the same paragraph?

Also, the revert to this version introduced a warning and reintroduced the external links discussed above. I'm just at a loss to understand why this version is perceived as so much better. Jakew 19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Because that wasn't the only thing in the edit possibly? Reverting generally isn't the solution to a typo or an accidental duplication either. The Edit also contained information increasing the NPOV status of the article discussing the contraversial nature of the subject. Lordkazan 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that my summary above is an exhaustive description of the differences. Could you be a little more specific? Jakew 19:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Jakew misrepresents the general purpose (to accurately convey the AMA statement).TipPt 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Initial paragraph (moving right along)

I presume that the "citation needed" tag can now come off the end of the last sentence; I have provided academic citations for South Korea and the Philippines. Unless of course a citation is required for the USA, but there is ample discussion of that later in the article. As for the eighth day, as I said, this applies in Judaism; there are some isolated indications in the Muslim authorities indicating that this is an optimal time, but it is honoured almost exclusively in the breach: performed on newborns where it is medicalised and birth is in hospitals (as in Iran and among urban middle class Pakistanis and Indians); performed much much later in traditional settings.Masalai 07:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Filipinos again

I have introduced the adverb "speculatively" in two places a propos of obviously amateur (albeit longstanding) conjecture as to the origins of circumcision in the Philippines. I trust this is uncontroversial: the speculations are clearly questionable, notwithstanding their venerableness. The fact is that circumcision is practised in a geographical trail across the Pacific left by Austronesian migrants originally from Taiwan during the past 5,000 years, spottily in coastal and insular Melanesia (intermittantly on the north coast of New Guinea -- Biak, coastal Sepik, Madang, West New Britain, New Ireland and New Hanover -- and Vanuatu: it was clearly introduced far more recently to Fiji by Polynesian colonisers from Tonga) and in Polynesia (other than in New Zealand) and Micronesia. To suggest that traditional Filipino circumcision is the result of either western colonial influence or, before that, to Islamic influence, is quite ludicrous, though to make any bold commonsense statement as to its actual origin there would violate the No Original Research rule. The references deserve to stand at all only because of their ancient provenance.Masalai 09:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Image

I cannot imagine what Atomaton's issue is here. Avraham is quite right in my recollection: the current image is the one that was agreed on by a wide consensus. Are there any other comments here? Is there a problem? Are not other issues to discuss?Masalai 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked through all archives, and there is no discussion whatsoever of what image should be used. Actually I checked back, and this is the image on the page on 1 JAN 2006 Image:Uncircpn.jpg. Here is the picture on 16 Jan 2006 Image:Penis reduced.jpg[1] It would seem that you have it backwards. Atom 10:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The caption, incidentally, is ambiguous. It should say "an uncircumcised penis..." Jakew 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That is intentional Jake. It isn't un-circumsized, it is merely a normal penis, with no changes. That was a change to make it NPOV, rather than people arguing about it. Atom 10:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That may be the intention, Atom, but the result is to make the description ambiguous. Furthermore, the caption "a penis" applies to both photographs with equal validity. If one gets a qualifier, then so too must the other.
And incidentally, it is uncircumcised: literally 'not circumcised'. In a different context, your argument might have more merit, but the purpose of having the image there is to illustrate the difference between one that is and one that isn't circumcised: we are quite intentionally drawing attention to the lack of one change in particular. Jakew 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
By all means. The only issue that might be taken, surely, is that the photo of a circumcised penis depicts one that is orange and inflamed, and surely this can be corrected using photo editing programs. (This too was previously discussed, at inordinate length.)Masalai 14:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me apologize if I am confused, first. I edit many sexuality articles. One of them is the penis article, and the same issue is happening there, where the image in common use "Penis corrected.jpg" keeps getting replaced by someone with image "UncircumcisedPenis.jpg". There was discussion about it, and a consensus was reached on "Penis corrected.jpg".

Here are the images that we are discussing.

Now, regarding THIS article, I look through the articles, and I see no discussion (perhaps I have missed it) on discussion of the "UncircumcisedPenis.jpg" the consensus. I look at the two, side by side, and previously "UncircumcisedPenis.jpg" was dark and hard to see. Now comparing using the lightened image, is seems to me that still "Penis corrected.jpg" shows a closer view, it shows the foreskin more clearly, and the lightened image now looks lighter, but "bleached". My judgement call is that, just as on the penis page, that "Penis corrected.jpg" is a better image of an uncircumcised penis. I admit the differences are relatively minor, and hence more of a motive to use the image that other reached on the penis article (some of those people could edit this article also. If in doubt, go with what has worked elsewhere.)

Since apparently, there has not been any detailed discussion in the past to arrive on a consensus image here for this article, I welcome a discussion of that now. Regardless of which one (or another) is agreed on, I am happy to support a consensus decision, rather than an image pushed on us.

We are working on guidelines for images in sexology and sexuality articles, including a discussion of this kind of thing at WIP-image-guidelines and welcome your participation.

Per those guidelines, I suggest reviewing available images on the commons web site, and requesting images at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. The purpose of this would be to:

  • Get a wider variety of potential images, allowing for the best quality image available.
  • Reduce the possibility of a "vanity" image thrust into the article by one of the article contributors.
  • The process upon completion will allow us to resist changes in images without discussion first.

Atom 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Medicare Canada

This statement is no longer valid: "In Canada, individual provincial health services began delisting circumcision in the 1980s. At present, only Manitoba pays for the procedure." In fact Manitoba has long since delisted routine circumcision. The statement as it stood was not sourced in any case; perhaps the second sentence can now come out.Masalai 12:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Article is bias

This article makes male circumsision look like Osama bin Laden! Why don't you just add swastikas to the article? How come liberals are always so eager to explain to a non-circumsised lad that his penis is certainly normal, and yet they make fun of a circumsized boy? In front of his classmates? As if he's the one that's not normal? Disgusting liberal bias. If you want your sons to have penises soaked in smegma that badly, go ahead, but don't call it normal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.207 (talk • contribs) 14:34, October 6, 2006 (UTC)

Well, if pro-circ people think the article is anti-circ, and anti-circ people think it is pro-circ, then no one can tell the POV of the author and it is about as NPOV as one could get -- Avi 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I actually find that comment quite promising for the article. LWizard @ 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I wonder if our original poster is aware that Osama bin Laden is almost certainly circumcised (You don't suppose that explains...nah, couldn't be...) Avi, maybe we should try to get that photo to put an end to the penis-picture dispute. Dasondas 23:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is most certainly biased, just not in the manner you think - and contrary to Avraham's snark, it's not NPOV - it's omitting significant amounts of medical information and is beyond hope of repair thanks to certain subversive elements Lordkazan 16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Avraham is quite pro-circ for religious reasons. His approach is honest, but he omits or does not support relevant facts. Specifically, he may not distinguish between techniques (I'd choose a Mohel over a typical US hospital doctor to perform a circ on my baby!) and their potentially different impacts on sexuality. Note that he and Jakew and Dasondas get along great...

My main objection is the continued POV that there are "no effects" on sexuality. It contains a misleading table full of "no difference" when it's actually just finding nothing statistically significant in the subjective responses (a lousy type of study). We should discuss the specific types of nerve and androgen receptors lost, relatively sensitive mucosa versus skin lost, frenulum lost or not, tight or loose shaft skin/mucosa ... even stating that the frenulum is an erogenous zone is deleted! Ufortunately, the article is very unstable and will probably never be complete or therefore accurate.

Put differently, I bet there's minimal effects to the man if it's a loose circ leaving the frenulum and the mucosa. I found a surgeon in Los Angeles for a neighbor ... you can ask that only skin ... no mucosa ... is removed to expose the head. Our readers don't know anything about that technique or it's purpose! Why? I really think some people should fear hell.TipPt 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

estrogen receptors not androgen receptors Lordkazan 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Estrogen is an androgen, and the receptors respond to other androgens besides estrogen.TipPt 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken - estrogen is not an androgen - the two are physiological antinyms. Androgens are the precursor of estrogens, but estrogens are not androgens. Estrogen states "In the body these are all produced from androgens through enzyme action". Lordkazan 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Neutrality is disputed (POV tag)

1. The sexual effects section is a joke..."They are discussed more fully in the full article." Makes me smile every time, but I here's relevant information for the reader (currently blocked, mostly by Jakew):

We know that the frenulum is a primary erogenous zone, and it (or part of the delta zone) is generally reduced and may be removed during neonatal circs. The following information is blocked: Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum or that include a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," "very reactive," and "seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft," according to Hass and Crooks in college sexuality textbooks.ref Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100. Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129 The frenulum is a primary site for eliciting ejaculatory response.[2][3][4]

2. Given the importance of the frenulum, the article should inform the reader immediately (in sexual effects) of the following: "In 28 percent of our pediatric population undergoing elective circumcision we have demonstrated a previously undescribed ventral chordee of the glans, the result of a tethering effect of an unusually prominent frenulum ... Twenty of the 70 boys (28%) demonstrated a ventral glandular tilt (glandular chordee) due to an unusually prominent frenulum ... Persistent frenular chordee after circumcision may result in deformity of the penis on erection making sexual intercourse difficult or uncomfortable." AS. Griffin and RL. Kroovand, Frenular chordee: implications and treatment, Urology 1990 Feb;35(2):133-4

THERE MIGHT BE A ~28% CHANCE THAT A (hospital setting) NEONATAL CIRC ALSO REMOVES THE FRENULUM

3. The main article is too long, but potential medical benefits are listed and detailed as though they are particularly relevant to the decision to circ (or medicine). They are not (according to the AMA), but they are detailed again in the medical aspects main article. They are listed again in the CPS statement. The following sections should be summarized in the main (circ) topic, and then detailed in the "main article." (Medical analysis of circumcision) should be combined with the main (medical aspects) article ... 4.2 HIV 4.2.1 Studies 4.2.2 Methodology 4.3 HPV 4.4 hygiene 4.5 Infectious and chronic conditions 4.6 Penile cancer 4.7 Phimosis and paraphimosis 4.8 Urinary tract infections.

4. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Hygiene [5]: 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." [6] Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”[7]. 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.” [8]

5. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality) because it is a later statement, which qualifies that cited statment.[9]: 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. These results cannot be generalized to neonatal circumcision.”[10]

6. Any or all of the following paragraphs, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality): There are few studies on sexual partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are varied. The intromission function of the foreskin may facilitate penetration and vaginal wetness.[11][12]

7. The medical association opinions should be edited to reflect their full (unbiased) statements and current position (especially the reaffirmation by the Canadians (CPS) that there is no medical purpose for the neonate).TipPt 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Repetition Jakew 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


As mentioned by Jakew, the "contribution" above is a cut-and-paste edit of material that already appears on this page and has been discussed at lenght. Its reinclusion adds nothing to the discussion and appears to be an example of trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for grandstanding a minority POV. Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox Dasondas 16:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
None of the above have been properly discussed, but rather dismissed without cause mostly by Jakew ... the ~owner of this topic. You are encouraged to look at Jakew's link [13] to see for yourself.
The "contribution" appears on a different page, so I'm just saving readers time looking. The above citations are valid, and the content fairly represented above ... but NOT IN THE TOPIC.TipPt 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The reader might benefit from looking at [14]. Take a look at some of Jakew's statements ... that sound quite reasonable (he's great at cut and paste Wiki policy as though it's applicable) but misrepresents the citations! Look especially at the sexual effects discussion.TipPt 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
For example, [15] is not "original reasearch."
Jakew and I wasted many hours discussing the frenulum, with him insisting (from personal experience, I assume) that it's not an erogenous zone! (he had his frenulum removed) He blocked two university professor citations as "opinions" (though they are citations from sexuality coursebooks in the UC system ... found in the Central library at UCLA). I'm wasting time again, sorry.TipPt 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
TipPt, please don't personalize this. I find your comments above to be more focused on jakew than on the topic at hand. Please take this opportunity to review WP:NPA. As for the material at the beginning of this talk section, if you really felt it necessary to try to reignite the conversation on those points you could have provided a diff with a brief recap of the issue at hand. Repeating all of the previously-presented arguments verbatim was unnecessary. Dasondas 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only relate my personal experience. Your's is obviously different. I'm just saving everyone time keeping the list up-to-date (searching for some inclusion).

I present properly cited, relevant information, not arguments. Jakew has been the primary agent blocking that information. He has misrepresented the applicability of Wiki policy. He has dominated this topic. Note his contributions! how long and frequently he reverts, and his rational. I have also found you personally odd; I devote several paragraphs to present new information, and you mostly see me point a (very) few words at Jakew. Odd.TipPt 18:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of me as "personally odd" is a personal attack of the kind specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Please stop this behavior, and once again I urge you to familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. Dasondas 18:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I was quite specific as to the odd behavior. Pointing to specific actions is encouraged. There's a huge difference between saying she's odd, and I (myself, personally) find her odd because she misrepresents the facts. My responce to Jakew's summary conclusion ("Repetition")has to be directed to Jakew.TipPt 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You were quite **not** specific about distinguishing between my actions and me as an individual, or, to put it into Wikipedia's preferred language, between the contribution and the contributor. It is important that you are able to make these distinctions in the future so as to avoid further violations of Wikipedia policy. Dasondas 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry my sentence chould have been better constructed. I personally have found you to be odd, because you object to my pointing to Jakew though I'm responding to his summary conclusion "repetition." The entry was primarily devoted to information blocked from the reader and explaining the POV tag.TipPt 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be unclear on how to make a proper distinction between individuals and their actions on Wikipedia. Your "clarification" that you "personally found me to be odd" is simply a repetition of your previous personal attack. However it is that you "personally find me" has no place anywhere in Wikipedia. Please rephrase your comments to say something along the lines of "I personally find your recent contributions on this topic to be odd because...". **That** would be an appropriate distinction between contribution and contributor. Dasondas 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone sees your actions, and I will let them draw their own conclusions in the future.TipPt 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

TipPT is not the only person who considers many of the "information blocking" techniques that Jakew egnages in Wikipedia Rule-gaming. -- TipPt, your inforamtion is well cited, stick it into the article, you don't need Jakew's permission. He doesn't own this article, nor does he own wikipedia. Removal of well-cited information constitutes blanking and is vandalism, so if he engages in it he can be blocked. Lordkazan 18:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One of these days, you'll actually read WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Who knows, you might even read WP:VAND ("While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.")... Jakew 18:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not misrepresent wikipedia policy. The section you are refering to is talking about rewrites and moves to the talk page for content discussion (of text that doesn't meet standards). The removal of well-cited, WP rules conforming information from an article is vandalism. Stating that several people are of the opinion that you are engaged in rule-gaming isn't a violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIV - it is a statement of fact - several editors, who have interacted with you significantly, have come to believe that you are not acting in good faith through your behavior. It is specifically stated that is is an OPINION of several editors. If those editors are mistaken then please show them that they are, when they bring cell cited information forward and you dislike the citation help them find better citations. Lordkazan 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If you go to my first comment in this section, Lordkazan, you will find that it is a link to the last time we discussed Tip's proposed addition. You will find that that section links to the previous time... To cut a long story short, you will eventually find that these issues have been discussed at length, and that Tip's proposed text uses inappropriate references (eg historical policy statements since replaced), misrepresents opinions as fact, or gives a completely scrambled interpretation of the references. Hence, removal or moving it to the talk page would be entirely appropriate.
As for the other editor's opinions of me, those are inappropriate here. Discuss edits, not editors. Jakew 18:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Instead of making blind assertions, why don't you go up and copy+paste each of his citations and state your specific objections to each citation. Baselessly asserting WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR does not advance your position, you must specifically state your objection to each entry. I will look at them when I have time, and any one of them that I find in compliance will wikipedia policy will go into the article as an exercise of WP:BOLD Lordkazan 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I consider it a waste of time to cut and paste discussions that have taken place previously. I invite you, once again, to follow the links back to the original discussion. Jakew 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I will evaluate the content of the citations TipPT provided above myself. Lordkazan 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics

Moving right along,

Circumcision may be undertaken as a body modification of the genitals to change the look of the penis to appeal more to certain aesthetics. In a few cultures, circumcision may be one of other modifications of the penis, such as a split penis or a subincision.

I wonder if this section really needs to be included. Could it not now simply be deleted? It contains no citations; it is impliedly included in several other sections, especially those which discusss purely cultural issues: in Fiji and various West African societies, for example, where circumcision had a traditional significance which is now largely lost and where it is now medicalised and continues a matter of aesthetic preference. (Fijians, who are almost entirely Methodist, nowadays sometimes rationalise the traditional custom on the basis of the Old Testament — one wonders whether they consult the New as to this — and clearly it is now simply a matter of cultural and aesthetic preference: “Iliesa, little Mosese is getting to be a pretty big boy: don’t you think that it’s time for him to take him to the doctor and get that foreskin removed? We don’t want him to be a kulina.”: in Fijian, a “kulina” is a dog and also an Indian — ie an uncircumcised adult male.) In traditional Fiji society there were customary rites of circumcision (actually in many parts of Fiji a superincision or dorsal slit) but these have long since been abandoned, but 10-or-so year old boys are still taken off to the clinic to be circumcised as a matter of now-aesthetic preference. Fijians who visit Australia as tourists and wind up on nude beaches are invariably astonished at the number of "kulinas" there: "But aren’t they Christian?" Masalai 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aposthia

The useful point that "Jewish law requires males born without a foreskin or who lost their foreskin through means other than a formal circumcision ceremony (brit milah ברית מילה) to have a drop of blood (hatifat-dam, הטיפת דם) let from the penis at the point where the foreskin would have been (or was) attached": "the blood of the covenant must be drawn from the glans" is well known and highlights the distinction between the Jewish, ritual, outlook on circumcision and the Muslim, non-ritual outlook on the requirement. However, it appears only to be supported in readily available literature in http://www.arikah.net/encyclopedia, a reference I am dissatisfied with. I note that user Benami has brought the same reference to bear in the article on Aposthia, however. Perhaps he or another user could provide a more reliable source. The point is far from abstruse and I am sure that such sources must be readily to hand. Masalai 10:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to source this to mediaeval compendia of Jewish Law such as the Shulkhan Aruch (once I get home). Is this what is sought? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I figured it would be. Masalai 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we quote this in Wiki format, but it's Yoreh Deah 263:4 . -- Avi 18:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm having to guess what Yoreh Deah is, but this page might be of help: Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. Jakew 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yoreh De'ah 263:4 should do it, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tke a look at what I did, please. Thanks -- Avi 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks sufficient to me. Masalai 20:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I've been preëmpted! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks great, Avi. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Eighth day in Islam

The footnoted reference to the statement, "Some Muslim communities perform circumcision on the eighth day of life, as with Jews; others, earlier or later," does not support the statement at all: it states that there are various scholarly dicta on the recommended time and no consensus; the eighth day is not mentioned. I have therefore deleted the statement. The reference, if anyone cares to check it, was:

Al-Munajjid, Muhammed Salih. "Question #14624: The time for circumcision". Islam Q&A. Retrieved 2006-07-01.

Masalai 10:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision/Archive_18&oldid=1136614351"