Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60

MgmBill etc

I'm reverting this edit, which has several problems:

  • A bill known as the Genital Mutilation Prohibition Act seeks to amend the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 so that boys, intersex individuals, and nonconsenting adults may also be protected from genital mutilation.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://mgmbill.org/usmgmbill2009.pdf |format=PDF|title = Genital Mutilation Prohibition Act}}</ref>

Several problems here:

  1. unreliable sources. MgmBill.org is a self-published source, and hence is unsuitable for use as a source.
  2. Accuracy. It's questionable whether the word "bill" can accurately be used. Until adopted and sponsored by a legislator, it is merely something that a private individual would like to see as a bill.
  3. Questionable notability. The existence of a pdf file, purporting to be a "bill", on a privately held website is not a good reason for it to be mentioned in Wikipedia. We would need evidence that this bill is notable, and sufficiently so to warrant inclusion.
  4. Lack of neutrality. The phrase "may also be protected from genital mutilation" implies that circumcision is a form of mutilation. Some hold this opinion. Others do not.
  • The US Federal Law states that whoever knowingly circumcises any part of a female who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined or imprisoned. No such law exists pertaining to male circumcision.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC116 |format=HTML|title = U.S. Code Laws}}</ref>

Again, some problems here:

  1. This article is about circumcision of males, which the source does not even mention. This violates WP:NOR, which requires that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (emph in original)
  2. Since the source doesn't mention circumcision of males, it should be blatantly obvious that the source does not support the claim that "No such law exists pertaining to male circumcision". Again, this is original research.

Jakew (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


MGM Bill

  1. As the rules state, it must been previously published by reliable third-party publications. It has been re-published on the following reliable third-party publications.[1]
  2. The bill has been adopted by numerous legislators as you can easily find here[2]
  3. See responses to one and two.
  4. That is a direct quote from the bill itself. We can edit it, or you can censor what you don't want others to see. It appears you have chosen the later. Let's set bias aside please.

US LAW

  1. The law is regarding the bill, which pertains to male circumcision. Regardless of the fact that it was probably the most relevant entry under the section of Consent, and the most balanced and neutral of all views under this section by nature of it's inclusion of both sexes, unlike what is there now (which is besides the point, because it was pertaining to the bill which is about male circumcision).
  2. We could edit it, or you can censor what you don't want others to see. It appears you have chosen the later. Let's set bias aside please.

--201dan (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being helpful, Jake is being deliberately difficult trying to stop this information being put in. A quick google search shows that the MGM bill is real: CNN, A proposed bill to ban male circumcision. It is obviously relevant to the topic of male circumcision. Tremello22 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPA. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
201dan, let me address your points in order:
  • First, if reliable third-party publications have published something about a website, then those may be reliable sources. However, the page to which you link appears to be a list of anti-circumcision websites (most of which are also WP:SPS). The CNN link cited by Tremello is better - that is at least a reliable source, though of course that doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be included in this article.
  • Second, the search page to which you link does not support your assertion that the "bill" has been adopted by numerous legislators.
  • Third, material can be edited for neutrality, but there is no point to doing this unless it is clear that material belongs in the article. As I noted above, the notability of the "bill" is questionable.
  • Fourth, you've failed to address the fact that policy prohibits inclusion of material that is not directly related to the subject of the article. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I upset you Jake- it was merely a valid observation. I think I am allowed that. You do make it difficult. One big problem with your way of looking at things Jake. From what I understand, when a statement is questionable then it is helpful to provide a source. Otherwise you could have the earth article reporting that the world is flat. When it is not (which is clearly the case here)- it isn't a big deal. Your objection is that there is no source to state that there isn't a law against Male genital mutilation. Well there obviously isn't a law. Tremello22 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Tremello, it's not "a valid observation", and you are not "allowed that". Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert Jake. Source is valid and on topic. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted your revert. The material is dubious, and in any event not on topic. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In contrast, I believe as the others here do that when CNN reports about a proposed bill in the U.S. to ban male circumcision, it is quite on topic for the male circumcision article. It seems to be self-evident. I have restored the CNN material, as there seems to be absolutely no argument about the reliability of the source, nor are any OR-based arguments applicable, despite the seemingly inaccurate edit summary left by Jayjg referring to this material as OR, when Jayjg deleted the material in this edit. Blackworm (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There is indeed no question as to the reliability or relevance of the CNN source. However, as noted above, there is a question of notability or, put another way, undue weight. Presumably you would not argue that every single news article out there warrants mention in this article, and would agree that some are notable enough to warrant inclusion and others are not. The fact that CNN begin by saying that the proposal has "not yet found a Congressional sponsor and is therefore unlikely to go anywhere in the near future" does not exactly give one confidence that it is of earth-shattering importance. I would think it questionable whether it even belongs in circumcision and law, where there are fewer space limitations. I can see no compelling case for its inclusion here. Indeed, there seems to be a compelling case for omitting it, since inclusion would imply greater significance than is actually the case, and would hence paint a misleading picture. Jakew (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is notable that that there is an organisation that wishes to prohibit male genital mutilation, especially considering they re-submit it every year. It is not relevant what their chances of success are. It is also notable that there exists a law that prohibits female genital mutilation but not one that prohibits male genital mutilation. Tremello22 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, as a hypothetical, consider the following. I register a website called anticircactivistbill.org, in which I propose a "bill" making it illegal to be an anti-circumcision activist. I send it to a bunch of legislators, none of whom express any interest. Undaunted, I send it to them again the following year, and so on. According to your reasoning, it it "notable" that my website (or "organisation") exists, and especially so because I persist in spite of the fact that no legislators have adopted my bill. By that standard it seems that just about anything is notable enough to be in WP. I think we need to set somewhat higher standards than that... Jakew (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Suppose you stick to the point Jake and stop making straw man arguments. If you want to convince me you will need to come up with a better analogy. The difference is that nobody would take seriously your hypothetical organisation. It also not part of a wider movement. It is plainly stupid and everyone would see that. CNN obviously takes this seriously - they would not report on your hypothetical organisation unless it was to make fun of it. Tremello22 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This information may be suitable for opposition to circumcision, but given that it has no legal legitimacy (at this point), I don't think it is notable enough for the main article or circumcision and law. If it finds a sponsor and is submitted to the legislature (i.e. becomes an actual bill), I would favor inclusion. AlphaEta 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Some more links. Here is an article in the Washington Post that mentions the bill :[3] Here is an article in the British medical journal as well: [4] Another article: [5] Tremello22 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Also AlphaEta I disagree with you putting it in the law section. It would be more appropriate in the ethics section. The reason for the bill is that "male circumcision violated the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights."[6] Tremello22 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course it notable. If the above sources including CNN find it notable it should be good enough for Wikipedia. These objections would be more realistic if it wasn't just pro circumcision editors objecting. This needs to stop. I would be happy to open this up to everyone else through request for comment if necessary. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I find it rather incivil to describe editors as "pro-circumcision" (or "anti-circumcision"), and especially so to insinuate that this is the sole basis for their position. Opening a Request for Comment isn't a bad idea, though. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Many apologies Jake if I offend your delicate sensibilities but if your suggesting this being a coincidence I find that laughable,unrealistic and insulting. I'm trying to showcase a demonstratable bias and your illustrating the point. Yes its sad state of affairs but ignoring the situation will not make it go away. All of us need to be as neutral as possible and accept the fact that we have personal bias that flavors our POV. Yes I'm commenting editors and not content. All I'm asking is to stop the petty bickering and wiki lawyering. I revert con and pro sources alike when improperly sourced or clearly OR. If there is notable information pertaining to circumcision it needs to be in this article regardless of our POV. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Gary, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Period. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see your on board with trying to get everyone to work together Jayjg. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) It is clear that there is no consensus for this addition. I have therefore removed it. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jakew that the material is not sufficiently notable for this article. I saw on my watchlist that it had been deleted, and went to insert it into the Circumcision and law article, but see that essentially similar information is already there. It's just a proposed bill, not actual law, and just in one country. It isn't even being promoted by a congressperson, apparently: it's just a proposal to congress by a group. If it gains a more official status (e.g. if congress is voting on it) then a very brief mention may be appropriate in this article in my opinion (not sure: I'd decide later depending on the situation). Garycompugeek, please see remedies C1, C4, C5, C6 and C7 here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee what a surpise. I will open a request for comment. Let us see what others think who are not involved. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: MGM Bill

Is this | notable? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article? Similar material is already in the subarticle Circumcision and law. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, like i said above, it also has to do with Ethics. It should go in the Ethics section. "Mr Hess pointed out that “in the real world circumcision is forced upon helpless children.” He said he found it ironic that the UN condemns female circumcision as a human rights violation but encourages male circumcision as a preventive health measure." [7] A short sentence is all that is needed. Alternatively, we can create a new section about the anti-circumcision movement and put it there. The wider anti-circumcision movement is notable and yet there is little mention of this. So a new section is probably best. Tremello22 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
To be precise, the question is not whether the source is notable, but whether what it describes is sufficiently notable that it can be discussed in this article without giving undue weight. The existence of the source simply means that a WP:RS could be cited if the subject were judged sufficiently notable. Jakew (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The CNN article talks about legislation proposed by an advocacy group that was never adopted by any legislator and never made it to the floor of Congress. The other references in the legal section discuss actual laws and court rulings. The CNN editorial is NOT notable enough to be included. --Wawot1 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a quote of a CNN reporter's opinion about ethics is not notable here, but that a quote of Hess (the head of the activist group) may just possibly be marginally notable in the ethics section, of similar notability to the quote of J.M. Glass in the pain section; I suggest that both or neither of these quotes be included in the article, unless good arguments can be made for retaining one but not the other. Following Wawot1's argument I don't think it's notable enough for the law section of this article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of its content, at this stage the document is simply a proposed bill that has been posted to the internet and unsuccessfully sent to members of Congress. It isn't an actual bill (law) and doesn't seem notable enough for the main article. AlphaEta 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact the Bill is not Law is a red herring and irrelevant. The fact that it is about circumcision and talked about by multiple sources is relevant. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That "it is about circumcision and talked about by multiple sources" represents an extraordinarily low criterion for inclusion/notability. I'm considering the notability of the "bill", not the media coverage of it, but my logic may be flawed. AlphaEta 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It's published news. It's notable, clearly. It's relevant. It's part of the controversy behind circumcision, of which mention and discussion is sorely lacking in this article due to years of unbridled pro-circumcision POV edits, activist edits, with no balancing view, followed by massive disputes, demonization and attrition when neutral editors arrive to try to change the established order. Mention of the massive controversy behind male circumcision and indeed all circumcision is actively opposed and unjustifiably restricted in this article, right down to the organization of the articles themselves. This effort is obviously notable, if Fox News reported on it, and the resistance to any mention of notable, organized opposition to circumcision, while expected in a climate of extremely polarized controversy, must be stopped if WP:NPOV is to ultimately take hold over this highly unbalanced, disputed, pro-circumcision pamphlet. Blackworm (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Should there be an "opposition to circumcision" section? AlphaEta 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it may be a good idea to have a short subsection, possibly about advocacy both for and against circumcision, if there's notable advocacy for it. This MGM bill would then fit nicely in there (with a quote of Hess, not a CNN reporter's opinion about ethics). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions, AlphaEta. Would an "opposition to circumcision" section discussing only male circumcision be WP:NPOV? Would that answer depend on the title of the article? The UN uses "male circumcision" when they want to discuss male circumcision.[8] Is what the UN is saying more, or less neutral than what we are doing, in your view? I anxiously await your answers, if you wish to provide them. Blackworm (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a mistake to have an "opposition to circumcision" section, because that would then need to be balanced with a "promotion of circumcision" section, and the article would thus grow considerably without providing much more information about circumcision, and would very possibly present an inflated picture of the prominence of anti- and pro- circumcision advocates. A single "proponents and opponents" section would be slightly better, but would still be problematic.
Another concern is that the views of opponents and proponents are already included in this article. Looking at the parts of the article that happen to be in or near 'ethical issues' (for no better reason than that I happened to have that part of the article visible in a tab), I find these views clearly represented in the first para of 'ethical issues', paras 3 and 4 of 'consent', 'acknowledgement of pain' (apparently), and 'psychological and emotional consequences'. If we had a separate section as well, then what should be done with this material? Should it be moved to the new location? Should it be deleted to avoid giving excessive weight to the extremes of the spectrum of viewpoints? I think it's more sensible, and ultimately more informative, to discuss a range of related viewpoints together (eg., discussing viewpoints about consent together) rather than grouping together a bunch of otherwise unrelated viewpoints that happen to share a stance for or against circumcision. Jakew (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had seen in one of the sources a quote of someone named Hess who was the head of an activist group. I searched refs in the page history and can't find that now. Anyway, the CNN columnist is "a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, New Jersey", so I guess a quote from such a person is OK. I was going to propose deleting the quote from this article anyway just to keep things short and avoid undue weight, but actually I like the way it reads now: the quote adds life to the section, and gives food for thought by mentioning a number of interconnected ideas. I moved the MGM bill near the bottom of the legal issues section to reduce its prominence, and I think it looks OK to keep it. Although it isn't an actual law, if it were it would be more notable than the Finnish and Swedish paragraphs, because it's proposing outright banning rather than details of how it's done or the experience of just one person. The botched circumcision thing also looks OK to me now that it's been shortened. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I strongly disagree, Coppertwig. The Finnish and Swedish paragraphs are far from perfect, but they do at least describe real laws and legal interpretations by appropriate authorities (ie., courts). At present, MGMbill has no legal status, it is nothing more than wishful thinking from an activist group that would like circumcision to be illegal. That isn't by itself notable. Nor is it even a legal issue (though it could become one if the "bill" became a law). Yes, the proposal is more extreme than the actual laws, but - again - it is a proposed bill by an activist group, so that isn't terribly surprising.
The problem with including this material is that it gives far more weight to this subject than it deserves, and as a result it makes the article look amateurish. It makes it appear, to borrow AlphaEta's words, as though there is an "extraordinarily low criterion for inclusion/notability" in this article. Just as using low quality sources reflects poorly on WP, so too does including non-notable information, or giving too much prominence to matters of low notability. Fundamentally, this is an encyclopaedia, and the "legal issues" section should be a summary of the key points of the circumcision and law article. Here we have a proposed "bill" from an activist group that has "not yet found a Congressional sponsor and is therefore unlikely to go anywhere in the near future", and this is given one quarter of the weight of all legal issues. Does this seem proportionate? Or does it seem as though we're promoting an activist effort by giving a level of coverage that implies that it is more significant than it actually is? Jakew (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I guess you're right, Jake. Now that I think of it: it happened in 2005, I think, and was reported in the news as something interesting at the time, but I don't think we have a source saying what happened afterwards, i.e. was it rejected? Did it get anywhere? If it was notable, there should be some sort of conclusion or end to the story or updates if it's still an ongoing story. So I guess it's probably not notable enough for inclusion. Anyway, I guess we've only had one outside respondent to the RfC (Wawot1) who says it's not notable enough for inclusion, so I guess we'd better take it out. Incidentally, here's the source with the quote from Hess: [9] (BMJ) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Google News, it seems that there was some news coverage from 2004-6 (mostly in '05, apparently), but with the exception of a press release, there's been little since then. There have been several press releases from MGMBill (mostly via PRWeb; see here), which seem to indicate that they resubmit the proposal on an annual basis, but I found little recent news coverage.
I agree that the material should be removed, as there's clearly no consensus for it at the present time. I guess that could change before this RfC closes, and if it does then the material could be re-added. Jakew (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we promoting an activist effort by filling half this article with UN pro-circumcision activism? Why isn't that viewed as a problem, but one line from an anti-circumcision group is? Blackworm (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Half this article" is something of an exaggeration, Blackworm, but you're correct in noting that we do document UN/WHO material that could be described as pro-circumcision. The question is whether we are "giving a level of coverage that implies that it is more significant than it actually is" (to quote from my post above). Like it or not, the UN/WHO are a very prominent and influential organisation. At the present time, MGMBill.org is not. Consequently, the appropriate level of coverage for one is not the same as that for the other. Jakew (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The UN is a prominent and notable organization; it makes sense to give them significant weight. The same can't be said of J.M. Glass, though, as far as I know. As I think I said above, if we take out the MGM bill, I think Glass should go too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to move Glass to brit milah. The narrower scope of that article makes it possible to include more detail. That said, can I request that we discuss Glass in a separate section, in order to keep this RfC focused? Jakew (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is a bill does not make it notable nor does the fact that an anti circumcision group started it (doubtful a pro circ group would) but once again the material became notable when other organizations started commenting on it. They found it notable and became the secondary source commenting on the primary source. This is exactly the type sources we are supposed to include in the article. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary. I wonder if you'd mind answering three questions for me. First, do you agree that the size of this article is limited, as a practical matter? Second (and assuming that your answer to the previous question is 'yes'), do you agree that the limited space means that we cannot include every comment made by every secondary source out there? Third (again assuming 'yes' answers), how do you propose to select material for inclusion? Jakew (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree the article is big Jake. I also feel the information is important and illustrates many concepts. Do we exclude everything from here on out because the article is big? Of course not. We have to use common sense and only add things that bring something new that was currently missing to the article. This source meets that criteria quite well. If your serious about shortening the article, that can be easily done. This article should cover both male and female circumcision and then stub out to each in greater detail. This would allow us to consolidate some data and parse out others through the stubs. It would also conform both this article and Female genital cutting to a more neutral setting. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Gary. So you think that the material is "important and illustrates many concepts". Can you elaborate on that, please? What makes it important? What concepts does it illustrate? Jakew (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
First and foremost we had nothing in the article about a bill to oppose circumcision. It also compares male and female circumcision in a very neutral way. It also ask excellent rhetorical questions about whether the law should intervene or not. I find it a very informative article that is very well balanced. I'm surprised at your vehemence towards it considering, if you've read the entire article, the author believes that ultimately the Law should not intervene because she does not believe male circumcision is truly harmful. Naturally I oppose that view point, but if you were too use it as a source I would not give you this amount of static. The source touches on a few other things I would like to see in the article and will probably try to add when I have million hours to debate with you. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Gary, I think we may be talking at cross purposes. You've made several points here about the source: that it compares in a neutral way, asks rhetorical questions, and is informative and balanced. You also appear to mistakenly believe that I object to the source itself. As I've stated above, that isn't the case: I consider it a reliable source, "though of course that doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be included in this article." To be absolutely clear, I'll put that another way: if we agreed that the subject of MGMBill should be discussed in the article, I would think that this is a good source to use to do so. However, I think that it's too early to discuss the merits of sources before we've decided to include the subject matter.
What I'd like to know is why you think this subject is important. That is, given that the source is reliable and therefore could be included, I want to know why you think it should be. You say that "we had nothing in the article about a bill to oppose circumcision", but as a reason for inclusion that seems a little like George Mallory's rationale for climbing Everest ("because it's there"). I'd hope that we'd have better reasons for selecting material to include material in an encyclopaedia article than "we haven't already included that". Jakew (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Jake you've said we cannot possibly put everything in the article and I agree. I've explained that just because of the article's large size is no reason to exclude information as long as it brings new information and is notable. The information is not currently in the article so it would meet the first criteria. CNN and other publications found it notable enough to comment on, therefore it merits inclusion if editor here wishes to include it. I will not debate this point with you any longer. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Gary, I respect your choice not to take part in further debate. Nevertheless, I feel I must comment on your argument here. Your argument is essentially that information is notable if sources comment on it. However, the existence of a reliable source must be presumed for any information, otherwise Wikipedia could not include it per WP:V. So this criterion for notability is effectively useless for the intended purpose of such a test, that is, given a large number of sourceable pieces of information, to select the most notable information for inclusion. Jakew (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have received zero response from outside this page which is the purpose of the RFC. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now closed

This RfC has now been closed. Including posts in both this and the section immediately above, 201dan, Tremello22, Garycompugeek, and Blackworm have argued in favour of including this material. Myself, Jayjg, AlphaEta, Coppertwig, and Wawot1 have argued against. I shall not attempt to summarise the reasoning expressed, as I feel that any summary would likely be inadequate.

It should be obvious, I think, that there is no consensus for this change. In spite of this, it has been present for most of the time that the RfC was active. Now the time has come to address it. Since there is (and never was) a consensus for this change, the appropriate response is to revert it, given that the standard approach across Wikipedia has always been to fall back on the previous version whenever a consensus for a change cannot be found. I therefore propose to do this shortly. Jakew (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is greater consensus for at least a mention than there is for nothing at all. How about you suggest a compromise. Tremello22 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of article

AlphaEta brings up a suggestion about a opposition to circumcision section. I think that would solve a lot of the disputes we have been having about notability for inclusion. Notability is surely dependent on context and section heading. In the context of an opposition to circumcision section, the MGM bill is pretty relevant. In a legal issues section which documents actual laws - maybe not as much.

So, to maybe satisfy some of Jake's concerns (I think he overstates his case somewhat), a section entitled "Infant Circumcision debate" would be better. This section would concentrate more on the social aspects of the circumcision debate rather than the studies. Here is a first draft proposal ( I have yet to include references but these are easily found):


Infant Circumcision debate

There has been opposition to circumcision for thousands of years. The Ancient Greeks valued the foreskin and were opposed to circumcision. Ancient Romans passed laws to ban the procedure.

In the late 1800's, circumcision became medicalised and soon circumcision came to be performed on infants for supposed prophelactic reasons. Since this time, considerable debate has emerged. Most medical organisations do not recommend routine infant circumcision. Routine infant circumcision is rare now in the English speaking world, apart from the USA where the newborn circumcision rate has remained above 50% to this day. Because of this, the circumcision debate is most prominent there. A number of organisations have been set up to educate the American public about circumcision and to promote the idea of "intactness"; there are even campaigns to make it illegal to circumcise, so that males have equal parity with females in terms of genital integrity.

As you can see, it is fairly short and would solve a lot of problems. Tremello22 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained the fundamental problems with such a section in my comment above (dated 08:48, 14 April 2009).
As well as these fundamental problems with the idea of such a section, there are some additional problems with the text you propose:
  • As you note, there are no sources, but I do not share your confidence that this problem is easily rectified.
  • Although the title is "Infant Circumcision debate", the content is entirely about opposition to circumcision, thus increasing the weight given to one point of view at the expense of another.
  • The first paragraph is problematic for several reasons. First, it is partly redundant, in that it contains similar information to the history section. However, unlike that section, it is entirely one-sided. Additionally, it violates WP:ASF by asserting as fact something that can only be opinion (as I've already explained to you here).
  • Moving on to the next paragraph, there are further problems:
    • "In the late 1800's, circumcision became medicalised" - It is slightly unclear what "medicalised" means in this context. A more serious problem is that this sentence applies to only a small number of countries, but is presented as though it were the case globally. A further problem is that it is not a statement about the "infant circumcision debate".
    • "and soon circumcision came to be performed on infants for supposed prophelactic reasons." - "Supposed" comes across as scornful in this context.
    • "Since this time, considerable debate has emerged." - I suspect this is unsourceable.
    • "Most medical organisations do not recommend routine infant circumcision." - this is an argument often employed by those opposing circumcision. It is not a comment about the debate itself.
    • "Routine infant circumcision is rare now in the English speaking world, apart from the USA where the newborn circumcision rate has remained above 50% to this day." - as noted previously, "routine" infant circumcision is non-existent. And again, this is not a comment about the debate.
    • "Because of this, the circumcision debate is most prominent there." - this would be difficult to source.
    • "A number of organisations have been set up to educate the American public about circumcision and to promote the idea of "intactness"" - "educate" is a problematic term in this context, as it implies that they have access to more information than the American public. "...set up to oppose circumcision" or "...to lobby against circumcision" is a more neutral way to put it.
    • "there are even campaigns to make it illegal to circumcise," - just one, and it is of questionable notability.
    • "so that males have equal parity with females in terms of genital integrity." - this is problematic for several reasons. First, it is not expressed neutrally. Rather, it implies that the campaign is for something that is desirable. Second, it employs the ill-defined neologism "genital integrity", while expecting the reader to understand what it means. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Personally, I think we should have a section entitled "routine infant circumcision" or "infant circumcision". That way we could include the history of the procedure, the debate, and the Policies of various national medical associations. Then we would have another section entitled "medical studies" or "suggested benefits." As it stands, medical aspects (or medical analysis as it used to be called) does not refer to infant circumcision. In the case of HIV it is referring mainly to men voluntarily getting circumcised. Incidentally, why aren't you complaining about that? Moving on. Another section could be "adult circumcision"; here we could include circumcision for medical reasons - phimosis etc. Tremello22 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, the subject doesn't divide cleanly into "infant circumcision", "adult circumcision", etc, because many (if not most) of the statements that can be made about one also apply to the other (and let's not forget "childhood circumcision"). The "medical aspects" section is a good example: if you examine the available sources, you'll find that, as a general rule, they discuss "circumcision", not "infant circumcision" or "adult circumcision". We do note when sources specifically state that the age at circumcision has an effect (eg., "The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection."), but we cannot impose a narrower interpretation than that of the sources, even if such a narrow interpretation could be justified. Jakew (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you haven't quite understood. The "medical studies" or "suggested benefits" section would be a separate section. It would basically remain the same as it is now. In this new 'infant circumcision' section, it would include the policies of various medical associations on infant circumcision. In the new 'adult circumcision' section it would include the policies of various medical associations on adult circumcision, or as they generally term it, therapeutic circumcision. On second thoughts, maybe we should call this section 'therapeutic circumcision' or 'non-infant circumcision' ? That would solve the child/adult problem you mentioned. Each medical organisation does have policies for each, as seen here.
Circumcision in the English-speaking world is basically the history of routine infant circumcision. So this information would be included in the 'infant circumcision' section. Ethical, psychological and legal considerations also seems only to refer to non-consental circumcision and would go in this 'infant circumcision' section. Also the first 3 paragraphs of the history of circumcision section as it stands now should be incorporated into Cultures and religions. Tremello22 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I'm afraid that I disagree with this proposal, for several reasons.
First, this proposal would effectively increase the emphasis given to infant circumcision in English-speaking countries, which strikes me as a move in the wrong direction. For example, your proposal would in effect reduce "history of circumcision" to a subsection of "infant circumcision", on the basis of the content of "circumcision in the English-speaking world". Concern has previously been raised, however, that the "English-speaking world" section may itself represent undue weight and/or Anglo-centricism. See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 51#Arbitrary subsection 5.
Second, it would create an incompatibility between the scope of the section (which is supposed to summarise the detailed article) and the scope of the detailed article. To use again the example of the "history of circumcision", this article is about the history of circumcision, not the history of infant circumcision, but the article structure you propose would suggest otherwise.
Third, it would leave no obvious place for material on the history, ethical, psychological, or legal aspects of non-infant circumcision. In effect this would not only increase further the emphasis on infant circumcision, but it would make it more difficult to restore balance, because that would involve creating several new sections in an already-long article.
Fourth, the treatment of historical material would be very uneven, effectively implying that historical material is an aspect of circumcision in cultures and religions unless it involves circumcision of infants in English-speaking countries. This seems extraordinarily Anglo-centric.
Finally, while this is a minor point, I think it would be helpful to clarify what you mean by "infant circumcision". I say this because "therapeutic" is not the opposite of infant circumcision. For example, young Masai warriors are often circumcised in adolescence; these circumcisions could not be described as either infant nor therapeutic. Jakew (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
increase the emphasis given to infant circumcision in English-speaking countries.... It is about weight. I find it strange you bring this up. It seems to me the majority of this article contains studies examining routine infant circumcision in English-speaking countries. Also, traditional and religious circumcisions aren't done primarily for the health benefits. A distinction should be made between the reasons for doing it. At the present time it is mixed up. I find this problem outweighs any of your minor criticisms. If you look at this map by circumstitions.com you can see that routine infant circumcision in the USA comprises a large part of the total percentage circumcised.
it would create an incompatibility between the scope of the section... The history of circumcision that isn't about routine infant circumcision/circumcision in English-speaking countries, is already represented in the Cultures and religions section. See next point too.
Fourth, the treatment of historical material would be very uneven... Surely that is already the case now? I actually mentioned this in my previous reply. I fail to see where you are coming from with your objection that it is Anglo-centric. How so? We are writing about both but in different sections - not excluding anything. The purpose of separating the 2 is because RIC is obviously totally different and should be treated as such.
an already-long article Medical aspects: contains 21102 characters. Whole article: contains 49338 characters. So, medical aspects comprises 42% of the whole article. So it baffles me how you can use this as an argument to veto a good idea. It is also pretty irrelevant because we can always prune it down after the change.
Finally, while this is a minor point, I think it would be helpful to clarify what you mean by "infant circumcision..." The new section would be better entitled 'Routine infant circumcision' as most people refer to the operation done at birth to baby boys in the USA as this. Tremello22 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Tremello, I'm afraid that some of your response is somewhat hard to understand. I'm going to reply to what I can, and ask for clarification about the other points.
"It is about weight." -- I don't understand what you mean here.
"It seems to me the majority of this article contains studies examining routine infant circumcision in English-speaking countries." -- I don't think that's true. If it is, then it may reflect the available sources on the subject of circumcision, or it may mean that our choice of sources is poor.
"Also, traditional and religious circumcisions aren't done primarily for the health benefits. A distinction should be made between the reasons for doing it. At the present time it is mixed up. I find this problem outweighs any of your minor criticisms." -- I don't understand this point. Are you saying that we should imply that the existence of (proposed) health benefits depends on the reason for performing circumcision?
"If you look at this map by circumstitions.com you can see that routine infant circumcision in the USA comprises a large part of the total percentage circumcised." -- sorry, circumstitions.com is not a reliable source, and in my experience is quite unreliable.
"The history of circumcision that isn't about routine infant circumcision/circumcision in English-speaking countries, is already represented in the Cultures and religions section." -- I don't understand what you're saying here.
(re uneven treatment of historical material) "Surely that is already the case now? I actually mentioned this in my previous reply." -- we currently have a "history" section, in which the history of circumcision is summarised. I don't understand why that's uneven.
"I fail to see where you are coming from with your objection that it is Anglo-centric. How so?" -- because it effectively divides material into "circumcision in English-speaking countries" and "circumcision in the rest of the world". That gives an inflated view of the importance of the English-speaking world.
"We are writing about both but in different sections - not excluding anything." -- perhaps I misunderstood. My understanding was that you were proposing to make the "circumcision in the English-speaking world" section a subsection of "infant circumcision", and then move the remainder of the "history of circumcision" section into "cultures and religions". That would, in effect, delete the "history" section.
"The purpose of separating the 2 is because RIC is obviously totally different and should be treated as such." -- obvious to you, perhaps.
"... So, medical aspects comprises 42% of the whole article. So it baffles me how you can use this as an argument to veto a good idea." -- I don't understand this argument.
"It is also pretty irrelevant because we can always prune it down after the change." -- some structures are inherently shorter than others. An article structure that forces creation of parallel sections ("history of infant circumcision/history of non-infant circumcision", etc) is likely to be longer than a simpler structure.
"The new section would be better entitled 'Routine infant circumcision' as most people refer to the operation done at birth to baby boys in the USA as this." -- as you know, this term is problematic. What do you actually want to discuss? Is it that you want to discuss circumcisions performed at birth in the USA, specifically? What about Muslim circumcisions performed at birth in Nigeria? Jakew (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It takes a long time discussing point by point going back and forth and I really feel like I am wasting my time here as this could go on forever. So, better to summarise. I think this article is structured badly. For instance, the history of circumcision section which starts with It has been variously proposed that circumcision began... should not be at the bottom of the page. It should be before the cultures and religious section. In other words - chronological order - circumcision has to originate before it becomes part of a culture. So those 3 paragraphs (currently in the history of circumcision section at the bottom of the page) could easily be placed at the start of the cultures and religions section. Then what are you left with? Circumcision in the English speaking world. This section is better titled 'routine infant circumcision'. Routine infant circumcision developed at a different time than traditional circumcision. It has a different history. It is part of the medicalisation of circumcision. The 'Medical aspects', 'Ethical, psychological and legal considerations', 'Policies of various national medical associations' and 'Modern circumcision procedures' sections make up the majority of the article and are all as a result of the medicalisation of circumcision in the English speaking world. Yet the history of this is buried at the bottom of the page. Tremello22 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be several issues here. I'm going to comment on four of these in turn.
First, you argue that the history of circumcision section does not belong at the end of the page, because it discusses the origins of the practice. I disagree with this argument, because although I think it makes sense to present the history in chronological order, I don't think that it's meaningful to talk about "chronological order" for much of the rest of the content of the article. For example, medical aspects (potential benefits and complications) are essentially timeless. Consequently I think that is a poor basis for structuring the article.
Second, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the history section is in the wrong place, then there is a far simpler, and more obvious solution, and that is to simply move the section. So the "solution" that you propose seems far more drastic than necessary to solve the "problem" that you identify.
Third, you again propose the title of 'routine infant circumcision', but as I've pointed out previously, this term is problematic, because it lacks a clear definition (I note that you've previously stated that you are unsure of its meaning). It is therefore inappropriate to use the term, because a) using a term with ill-defined meaning is insufficiently precise for an encyclopaedia, and b) we cannot create a definition for the term without performing original research.
Fourth, you argue that the 'medical aspects', 'ethical, psychological and legal considerations', 'policies of various national medical associations' and 'modern circumcision procedures' sections are "are all as a result of the medicalisation of circumcision in the English speaking world" (by "a result of" I presume you must mean "an aspect of"). This argument is highly questionable. Let's consider each section in turn, comparing the elective circumcisions typically performed at birth in the USA with Muslim circumcisions performed at birth. The potential medical risks and benefits of a "medical" circumcision of an infant are exactly the same as those of a "religious" circumcision of an infant. The ethical arguments for differ in some respects, but those against are almost identical. Similarly, legal arguments made about one would mostly apply to the other. The psychological aspects are likely to be similar in some respects, but perhaps not in all. The procedures can differ, and some policies (eg that of the AMA) do specifically exclude religious circumcisions from discussion. Jakew (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the title routine infant circumcision - there are many articles that mention this term. The question of whether should boys be circumcised routinely is a question that many medical journal articles have sought to answer. The fact that boys were routinely circumcised is also a key part in the history of the medicalisation of circumcision . So I see no problem with using this term in the subtitle.
No, I don't mean 'aspect of'. The majority of the literature is centered on routine infant circumcision - mainly in the USA because that is virtually the only country that routinely circumcises. There are virtually no articles around questioning the ethics of traditional African circumcision - maybe because of fears they'd be accused of cultural imperialism. Tremello22 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that many articles use the term does not mean that we must do the same, Tremello (except, of course, in the context of a direct quote). According to Viens, routine infant circumcision means circumcision of all newborn boys:
"I believe that the term "routine infant circumcision" is a misnomer. It denotes a position that nobody really holds, namely that as a matter of routine, all healthy boys should be circumcised." Viens AM. Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty. J Med Ethics. 2004 Jun;30(3):241-7
Given that definition, it is nonsensical to discuss the history of routine infant circumcision in the USA, for example, because the circumcision rate has never reached 100%, so routine infant circumcision has never actually existed. But there is no guarantee that every source uses Viens' definition. It may be that some sources use it to mean something like "elective circumcision of newborns, as often happens in the USA". Unfortunately, few sources define what they mean by the term, so we can't be certain. What we need to avoid is implying that a) there is one definition of "routine infant circumcision", or b) that one definition is correct. The best way to avoid those things is to avoid using the term.
I have reverted your edit to the article. I've explained the problems caused by it above. It should have been blindingly obvious that there was no consensus for this change, and I'm rather surprised that you made it anyway; I encourage you to get consensus for major changes before making them. Jakew (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Routine infant circumcision is the term most often used. Using it in the subtitle differentiates it from other types of circumcision. We could use neonatal circumcision but then that would include Jewish circumcision. Considering the problems I have listed with the previous version, I think my version is a definite improvement. I also added a long overdue section on circumcision for therapeutic reasons. As for consensus , it seems like it is just you and me debating here and I have already listed major problems with the current version. So I am surprised you are surprised. Tremello22 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The term most often used for what, Tremello? For the circumcision of all newborn boys, as in the definition supplied by Viens? Or for something else? Apparently something else, since you indicate a desire to exclude circumcision of Jewish boys. The problem is that you haven't yet defined exactly what you want to discuss. And that makes it difficult to suggest clearer terminology.
I believe I've addressed above the perceived problems that you identify. I've also outlined several specific problems that your proposal would cause. See the earlier part of this discussion, immediately before you abandoned it by stating that it "takes a long time discussing point by point going back and forth and I really feel like I am wasting my time". Finally, the fact that you and I are debating the proposal is a clue that there is no consensus: if there was a consensus then an active debate would be unlikely. Jakew (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus can be met without your approval Jake. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite so, Gary. Nevertheless, in this particular situation, in which there were two participants in a debate, one proposing a change and one opposing, it would be quite absurd to claim that there was a consensus. Jakew (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The definition of the term may be ambiguous ( a bit like phimosis in that respect), however, there have been many occasions since the medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries from the late 1800's onwards, where the question has been asked: should all boys be routinely circumcised? If you look at the statements down the years - all medical associations have been formulated in respect to the question of routine infant circumcision: Statements of medical associations So the subtitle refers to the "idea" of routine infant circumcision. Even today, the same question is being asked: MSNBC: Should all males be circumcised? Some U.S. doctors are reconsidering their position. In regards to your points of excluding religious circumcision and traditional circumcisions, I also addressed this point. The title of the new section is "Routine infant circumcision and the circumcision debate". Most of the literature in the debate centers around RIC not traditional or religious circumcision. As I have said on other occasions no solution is perfect, the important question to ask is which is the better. I could easily nit-pick little problems with your version if I had bags of time - hence why I 'abandoned the debate'. I believe this version I proposed is an improvement on the current version. Notice that there is a clear distinction between different types of circumcision - first there is traditional circumcision, then there is religious circumcision, then there is the medicaisation of circumcision and info about the idea of routine infant circumcision. Next there is therapeutic circumcision ( need I point out that this type of circumcision isn't listed in your current version - why not?) Finally there is the medical studies to do with circumcision. In the current version - these medical studies are mixed up with routine infant circumcision. Why? They are only tangentially related to routine infant circumcision. I can only assume that you, as someone who is a circumcision advocate, wants to influence the reader by giving them the message - this is why you should be circumcised at birth - or else you will get these diseases. So, I don't think there is much to discuss - your version is clearly biased - mine is not - it gives the full picture and doesn't deliberately mislead the reader. Tremello22 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tremello, I don't see how the heading refers to the '"idea" of routine infant circumcision', as you put it. If you examine the 'history' section of the section entitled 'Routine infant circumcision and the circumcision debate' in your version, you'll see that it has nothing to do with the circumcision of all newborn boys. In fact, the percentages quoted in that section vary from 12% to 91%, which is considerably fewer than all. At best, then, the heading is confusing, but at worst it is more serious than that, because it subtly implies that the phrase "routine infant circumcision" means "circumcision of some boys at birth". To demonstrate why this has the potential to mislead, consider how the reader might interpret the following words from the AAP's statement: "these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". If the article implies that R.I.C. means circumcision of some boys, (s)he would likely interpret it as meaning that the AAP judged the evidence insufficient to recommend circumcision of any infant boys, when in fact their statement was about circumcision of all newborn boys (according to their "Circumcision Information for Parents" publication: "not sufficient [...] to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised"[10]). This is why using an ambiguous term can be misleading.
Next, you argue that most of the debate centers around RIC rather than religious circumcision. This is certainly true of some papers, but I think it is erroneous to say "most".
Next, you argue that in your version there is a "clear distinction between different types of circumcision", but you then contradict yourself by including "the idea of routine infant circumcision" among these types. But the very fact that you have to identify it as a type of idea rather than a type of circumcision indicates that it does not belong. And that is because this division is artificial. As I explained at the very beginning of this thread, the subject matter does not lend itself to being divided in this way.
Next, you ask why therapeutic circumcision isn't listed in the current version. The answer should be obvious: this version doesn't explicitly list types of circumcision. As I remember, there was at some stage a mention of the fact that circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis or balanitis, but this was removed (judging by the history) sometime in early 2008.
Next, you say that in the current version the medical studies are "mixed up" with routine infant circumcision, which is not the case - the article generally avoids even using the term "routine infant circumcision" (the term is used seven times in the body of the article: once with attribution to the source, and six times as a direct quote), as it is problematic for reasons discussed above. Incidentally, your assertion that they "are only tangentially related to routine infant circumcision" seems to be incompatible with your earlier argument that "all medical association[']s [statements] have been formulated in respect to the question of routine infant circumcision"; bear in mind that most policy statements discuss the medical evidence relating to potential benefits and harms at considerable length.
Finally, you erroneously describe me as a "circumcision advocate". Not only is this wrong, it is also a violation of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Do not do this again. Jakew (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't contradict myself I said the medicalisation of circumcision. If you want, we can call the section "The medicalisation of circumcision and the circumcision debate". It is distinct from traditional and religious circumcision.
If we implement the above suggestion then this becomes irrelevant. But just to clarify, in regards to the term RIC, there have been articles asking if boys should be routinely circumcised. They have called this RIC. Viens view that it is a misnomer is a recent view - it is after the fact, revisionist history. It is obviously a minority view because the articles wouldn't have used the term if they followed Viens view. It is kind of a moot point because as I alluded to above there have been articles asking if all boys should be circumcised. Obviously that was never going to be the case, but the idea was there. The reason the circ rate is so high in the USA is because of articles that suggested that boys should be routinely circumcised. I find it odd that you are trying to hide the fact that the USA is the only country that routinely circumcises neonates. So forgive me if I don't believe you when you say you aren't a circumcision advocate because your actions speak otherwise.
The medical aspects section as it stands is titled RIC or neonatal circumcision in all but name. In order for the medical associations to make a decision on whether male infants should be routinely circumcised, they take everything into account. To mix the suggested benefits up with neonatal circumcision is tantamount to original research because you are assigning great weight to the suggested benefits of being circumcised even though the medical associations do not recommend RIC because they take everything into account. So if that isn't biased I don't know what is. Tremello22 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted this to Tremello's version. This version is better organized and more neutral. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Tremello, "the medicalisation of circumcision and the circumcision debate" is a somewhat better heading, but it is still problematic. What does it actually mean? I suppose it means something like "a process in which circumcision becomes medical", but this is itself vague and imprecise. For example, in many Muslim societies, circumcisions are performed by doctors, so this is arguably "medicalised", but it isn't what you mean (or at least, I don't think it is — you haven't explained clearly what you do mean).
As I've commented above, there are several significant problems with the structure you propose, and the choice of heading is a comparatively minor point.
I am not "trying to hide the fact that the USA is the only country that routinely circumcises neonates", not least because this isn't a fact. As I've pointed out, the USA doesn't routinely circumcise: instead, elective circumcisions take place in (depending on which source you consult) about 55-80% of cases. Nothing is hidden: statistics for English-speaking countries are included in both versions.
You assert that the medical aspects section is "titled RIC or neonatal circumcision in all but name", but you offer no evidence in support of this claim. We assign no more weight to the potential medical benefits than do the medical organisations themselves. For example, the AAP dedicate approximately 2,670 words (50% of the approx 5,340 total) to discussion of potential benefits and 179 (3%) to discussion of complications. For comparison, of a total of approx. 7,300, we dedicate 1,555 (21%) to potential benefits and 648 (9%) to potential complications. If you look at these figures, you'll see that the AAP actually put more relative emphasis on benefits than we do: for every word that the AAP dedicate to potential complications, they dedicate 15 to potential benefits, whereas for every word that we dedicate to potential complications, we dedicate 2.4 to potential benefits. Jakew (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the medicalisation of circumcision, you mention Muslim circumcisions being performed by doctors. That is fine. However - it doesn't negate the fact that the medicalisation of circumcision in the 1800's is a major part of the circumcision subject. And in the current version this isn't adequately weighted. The wealth of literature on circumcision is as a result of the medicalisation of circumcision. To not give sufficient weight to this would make the article a deliberate misrepresentation of the true facts.
Jake - it doesn't matter how many words the AAP tale up to discuss the matter. Why would it - they are discussing the literature to make a decision. We are not discussing it to impose the decision on the reader of this article- that is the difference. That is why I said it is tantamount to original research. For instance - by tying together the HIV section with medical policies on RIC, you are over-riding the views of the medical organisations because the African Trials for instance, have nothing to do with routine infant circumcision in the USA or Britain, say. Tremello22 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Tremello, I'm not sure that I agree that the "medicalisation" (you still haven't explained what you mean by this) of circumcision in the 1800s is a major part of the subject of circumcision. I would say that it is a part of the history of circumcision, but only a part, and only affecting a small number of the world's countries. In my view the "Circumcision in the English-speaking world" is, if anything, longer than it ought to be.
You haven't offered any evidence in support of your assertion that the "wealth of literature on circumcision is as a result of the medicalisation of circumcision".
You say that it "doesn't matter how many words the AAP tale up to discuss the matter". Actually, it does, because a good test of an appropriate amount of weight is that given by reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:WEIGHT.
I can make no sense whatsoever of your "original research" argument. Medical organisations issue policy statements on circumcision. These are documented in the article. Medical studies investigate effects of circumcision. These are documented in the article. Jakew (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tremello22, re "I can only assume" and "deliberately mislead": please assume good faith. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

At this point I'd like to briefly review Tremello's proposal, and suggest a possible compromise.

  1. Moving "history" to the start of the article is acceptable, but fragmenting it is not. One section should act as a WP:SUMMARY of the history of circumcision article, splitting it across two (1 & 5.1) is messy.
  2. The "Routine infant circumcision and the circumcision debate" heading is problematic, as discussed at length above, as it has the effect of implying a definition for this term that may not match those used by sources.
  3. It is a mistake to make "Ethical, psychological and legal considerations" a sub-heading of "infant circumcision" (or whatever the heading should be), as all of these sections are summaries of articles that are not specifically about infant circumcision. Indeed, there are several statements that are not about infant circumcision in the sections themselves. Consider, for example, "[the BMA] state that competent children may decide for themselves", "UNAIDS states that "[m]ale circumcision is a voluntary surgical procedure and health care providers must ensure that men and young boys are given all the necessary information to enable them to make free and informed choices either for or against getting circumcised."", "In 2006, a Finnish court found that a parent's actions in having her 4-year-old son circumcised was illegal.".
  4. The placement of "policies" is problematic for similar reasons to "history". The "medical aspects" section summarises the medical analysis of circumcision article; breaking it across two sections (5.3 and 7) makes little sense.
  5. Although I am not opposed to the idea of a "Circumcision for therapeutic reasons" section, the content is problematic, and indeed contains an WP:NPOV violation.
  6. Renaming "Medical aspects" to "medical studies" is silly. It is like naming a history section "history books". Headings describe the content, not the sources.

I therefore suggest the following compromise (section numbers refer to the current version):

  1. Move all of "History of circumcision" (s7) to immediately after "Modern circumcision procedures" (making it s2). I'm suggesting moving it after "procedures" rather than before because it makes no sense to talk about the history until we've explained what it is.
  2. Introduce a short "Circumcision for therapeutic reasons" subsection of "procedures". Wording to be agreed.
  3. Possibly also introduce a short "Infant circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons" subsection. Again, the wording would need to be agreed.

Jakew (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


I still prefer my version, for the reasons I mentioned above. I had a think and came up with an alternative title to the problematic section that you may prefer: 'Medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries and the infant circumcision debate'
Considering it is a choice between 2 versions, then all that matters is which one is best overall. More importantly given the accusations of bias I think this structure will solve a lot of the disputes. What people object to most with your version Jake is that with the current structure it makes it seem like that there is tremendous evidence in favour of the decision to circumcise infant males. I and others object to this because the medical associations do not share that view in regards to RIC.
We could nitpick at each version for days on end. I will list a few problems I see with the (your) current version. Firstly the Ethical, psychological and legal considerations section. This assumes routine infant circumcision / child circumcision without saying so. Why?
'Medical aspects' is more confusing and ambiguous in the overall context of the current article than 'Medical studies' is in the context of my version. In your argument you said you were trying to match the weight of the medical aspects section with the weight given by the medical policy statements on routine infant circumcision. Why? If, according to you, it is supposed to be referring to all types of circumcision (including religious, traditional and circumcision for therapeutic reasons) then there is no reason to follow that logic. Also, as I have mentioned before, they have formed an opinion based on everything and have come out not recommending the routine circumcision of boys. To follow your logic we would have to match each section of the policy statement with each section in the wikipedia article to make it a fair representation of their view of circumcision's effect on various diseases etc. This is quite ridiculous and is original research.
As for the medicalisation of circumcision; if you do not know what this means then read this article: From ritual to science the medicalisation of circumcision in America by David Gollaher. There are plenty of other sources on this page too: http://www.cirp.org/library/history/. There is also a website http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/ by a man who wrote a book called "A surgical temptation: The demonisation of the foreskin and the rise of circumcision in Britain." This is the reason there were calls for the routine circumcision of boys. It is also the reason that the medical statements are centered around the question of whether all boys should be routinely circumcised. Because in the past, people such as Kellogg[11], Remondino [12], Wolbarst, Dean [13] and more recently Wiswell(because of his studies on UTI's) and Schoen, among many others, and that article by MSNBC I listed above, have spoken out in favour of non-therapeutic infant circumcision and in some cases recommended all newborns be circumcised. Lets look at the various reasons that circumcision achieved popularity. First it was prevention of masturbation (late 1800's- early 1900's), then it was penile cancer (in the early part of the 20th century - because Jews had lower rates of cancer - later a better explanation emerged -it was because of their lifestyles), then it was UTI's (in the 1980's largely due to Wiswell) and now it is prevention of HIV (late 1980's as a result of the drive to reduce HIV infection in Africa - never mind that most observational studies in developed countries have found no protective effect). Just on the point of HIV - you will notice here: BBC News, Call for higher circumcision rate: UK scepticism that the UK has expressed scepticism of the randomised control trials and so presumably this would mean that they are no closer to expressing support for non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision in Britain. So in your version - the who's recommendations are in direct contrast to the British policy in regards to RIC. This is what I mean when I say that your version is biased, badly structured and gives out an incorrect message.
To go over your proposed version and objections:
  1. Moving "history" to the start of the article is acceptable, but fragmenting it is not. It is perfectly acceptable. One is labeled origins, the other describes the medicalisation of circumcision in English-speaking countries. Origins is a better title because there isn't much history to speak of because nothing has really changed that much. The medicalisation of circumcision from the late 1800's onwards in English speaking countries does have a history - a varied and interesting one. I obviously therefore disagree with your calls to make it shorter.
  2. As I have already explained, the term RIC isn't really problematic - it is only you who thinks so. This issue shouldn't be used to stop the change which would overcome greater problems in your version.
  3. It isn't a subheading of just routine infant circumcision (or whatever) because it includes the words 'and the circumcision debate'. Also, the debate centers more around RIC in English-speaking countries (hence why we only include medical policies on RIC from English-speaking countries) than traditional/ religious circumcision.
  4. The placement of policies is not problematic - that is just your opinion. The same goes for your other points - look at the overall picture . Gary and I agree that your version is biased and tries to obscure information. You also want to play down any notion of a circumcision debate.
  5. Sorry I don't see how the inclusion of circumcision for therapeutic reasons violates NPOV. I presume you mean that you object to the word "therapeutic" because it implies that infant circumcision is not therapeutic? Well the fact is that most medical organisations use these definitions - and for obvious reasons; an infant is circumcised when there is nothing wrong with him - hence non-therapeutic. see following sources: [14],[15], BMA says non-therapeutic circumcision needs consent of both parents, [16], [17], [18]
To address your compromise version:
1. You say [re move history section] it makes no sense to talk about the history until we've explained what it is. I disagree. We have already described what circumcision is - in the first line of the article. Also - these procedures are as a result of the medicalisation of circumcision might I add.
3. Introduce a short "Infant circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons" What would this section entail? I presume you mean religious/traditional circumcision. This is already included in the religions and cultures section. Tremello22 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that, as a heading, 'Medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries and the infant circumcision debate' is less than ideal. One problem is that the construct "and" suggests that it is about two subjects (as seems to be the case). Another is that "medicalisation" is fundamentally a historical viewpoint because it describes a historical process rather than a current state — this would be fine if it contained just historical material, but you seem to want to include material that is not historical in nature.
You have not provided any evidence in support of your assertion that the current version gives the impression that there is "tremendous evidence in favour of the decision to circumcise infant males".
You say that the "Ethical, psychological and legal considerations" section "assumes routine infant circumcision / child circumcision without saying so". That is incorrect. As I pointed out in my third point above, the content of this section ("...competent children may decide for themselves..." "...must ensure that men and young boys are given all the necessary information...") refers to circumcision of children and adults, as well as infants.
You haven't provided any evidence in support of your argument that "'Medical aspects' is more confusing and ambiguous in the overall context of the current article than 'Medical studies' is in the context of my version."
You say "In your argument you said you were trying to match the weight of the medical aspects section with the weight given by the medical policy statements on routine infant circumcision." This is not quite what I said. I stated that "a good test of an appropriate amount of weight is that given by reliable secondary sources". In the case of the policy statements on circumcision that have been issued by medical organisations, these are very reliable secondary sources, and hence good indicators of an appropriate amount of weight.
Regarding "medicalisation", I'm specifically asking what you mean by it. I'm not going to get involved in an off-topic discussion with you about the history of circumcision, nor about present-day attitudes towards it. I should point out although your last argument is flawed (an entire country cannot express skepticism towards anything, and the BBC article you cite does not cite any representatives of the BMA), it is probably true to say that the BMA are unlikely to recommend circumcision of all newborn boys in Britain in the foreseeable future. I don't understand what to make of your statement that "the [WHO]'s recommendations are in direct contrast to the British policy in regards to RIC" - the World Health Organisation haven't actually recommended circumcision of all newborn British boys, but even if they had, we would need to document both viewpoints per WP:NPOV.
Moving on to your comments on my summary:
Re fragmentation, the situation is that this article is written in summary style. That means that each section is acting as a summary of a much larger article (imagine this article as the visible tops of a group of icebergs). That works well when there is one section per larger article, but it rapidly becomes much harder to understand when summaries are broken across multiple sections. I hope this helps to clarify my concern.
Regarding the term "RIC", your dismissiveness is frankly rather rude.
Regarding my 3rd point, the fact remains that the presentation you propose would suggest that "Ethical, psychological and legal considerations" is about infant circumcision. As I pointed out, that is not the case.
Regarding my 4th point, your dismissiveness is again incivil.
Regarding my 5th point, there are NPOV problems with some of the content, but - as I stated - the idea of the section is okay. I did not raise any issue about the heading. I was actually referring to material such as "normal developmental non-retractability should not be considered a problem", which asserts an opinion, and which we've already discussed over at Talk:Phimosis.
Finally, re my proposed compromise:
Re point 1 ... hmm, okay. I'm willing to accept "history" as the first section.
Re point 3, I'm not referring to religious/traditional circumcision specifically; the intent is to provide a short section for matters specific to elective infant circumcision (that is, the type commonly performed in the US). Jakew (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided any evidence in support of your assertion that the current version gives the impression that there is "tremendous evidence in favour of the decision to circumcise infant males" I don't know what you mean by evidence - my impression is all I have - I presume others feel the same way as there wouldn't have been so much conflict in regards this article. I have heard on many occasions since I first started editing the article (about 10 months ago) other editors state that this article is biased; I have looked at the archives and found the same disputes occurring. If this isn't what the dispute is about then I don't know what they are referring to. Maybe they just like complaining then? Just to be clear I am not seeking to hide the fact that medical studies have been done showing that circumcised males have lower incidences of certain diseases. But this isn't directly related to the issue of infant circumcision.
I could continue addressing all your points in turn and we could repeat ad nauseam. But I don't think we'd get any closer to a resolution. So i have made what I believe to be a reasonable proposal. I am still not completely satisfied since I still think that at first glance, to a lay reader with no medical expertise, the medical aspects section gives out the impression that the case for routine infant circumcision is greater than it is. But, anyway.
I have expanded the medicalisation of circumcision section to include more detail on how circumcision came to be touted as a cure for diseases. I have called the section "Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision' " Notice I have put the term 'routine infant circumcision' in inverted commas. This serves a few purposes. It indicates ,as you said, that the term is ambiguous, but more importatntly it doesn't omit from the article what was a central idea to the early circumcision advocates. I have also included Viens quote for good measure.
I have put the origins of circumcision in the most logical position , at the top of the page.
I have put the prevalence after the discussions of the traditional, religious, and medicalised circumcision history sections. Tremello22 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Tremello, it's true that several editors have argued that this article is biased, but it is important to recognise that while some have argued that the article is biased in favour of circumcision, others have argued that the article is biased against circumcision (for an example of the latter, consider "...the article is unmistakably slanted toward the view that circumcision is a negative procedure..."). It would seem unlikely that the article is simultaneously biased both for and against circumcision, so I think we need some kind of objective evidence before we conclude that the article actually is biased.
In order to view a diff of your additions, I have attempted to reconstruct the reordering of sections in your edit. Your above description is not quite accurate, I fear, as it omits movement of "modern circumcision procedures". Here is, I think, a more detailed description:
  • Moved first three paragraphs of "history" to new section, "origins". Comment: as I stated above, moving the entire section is acceptable, as is the name change, I suppose, but fragmenting the section is not.
  • Moved remainder of "history" to after "cultures and religions", renaming the section from "Circumcision in the English-speaking world" to "Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision'". Comment: using quotation marks around "routine infant circumcision" does not change the fundamental problems with using this poorly-defined term in the first place. What is wrong with "Circumcision in the English-speaking world"? I've commented on fragmentation in the above paragraph.
  • Moved "modern circumcision procedures" to a subsection of "medical aspects". Comment: this is somewhat questionable. The section does contain information on Jewish circumcision procedures, which are not strictly "medical", hence it is slightly inappropriate.
  • move "prevalence" to after "cultures & religions". Comment: this is acceptable, I suppose.
After having made these changes to the structure, you then proceeded to add an enormous amount of material. There are multiple issues with these additions. I wish you'd heed the advice at the top of this page: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them..." Here are just a few of the issues:
(General) There is far too much of it. As noted above, concerns have already been expressed about the amount of material in the current version. Roughly doubling the size of the section only increases the amount of weight given to this relatively small fraction of the world.
"In late 19th century English-speaking countries, circumcision was uncommon, mainly occurring for therapeutic reasons and religious reasons.[39] According to Gollaher, this all changed when in 1870, Lewis Sayre, a noted physician, reportedly cured a 5 year old boy's paralysis through circumcision. Subsequently, Sayer began to believe he had found a cure for mental illness, basing his theory on the idea that the foreskin led to disorders of the nervous system. Sayre trained other doctors to look for genital irritation and phimosis (an abnormal tightening of the foreskin) indicating it as "a cause of paralysis, reflex muscular contraction, curvature of the spine and acquired deformity". His work, along with that of other circumcision advocates, provoked a great deal of interest among the medical community. At around the same time, awareness of the germ theory of disease elicited the image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function." Major problem: This is far too much detail for this article. Minor problem: Citation to Gollaher seems to be missing.
"According to Derby, in the late 19th century, doctors "extended their ambit from the cure of disease to the enforcement of puritanical standards of sexual morality, and exerted a powerful influence on public law." Circumcision was seen as a method of preventing masturbation in both boys and girls at this time. It was thought the foreskin not only compelled a person to masturbate but that masturbation itself was a serious disease. This view linked in to an earlier belief centered around the idea that loss in seminal fluid led to ill health through a condition known as spermatorrhoea." Major problems: first, the order is wrong (Darby is quoted before explaining what he is commented on). Second, it is again too long, and too detailed for this article. Minor problems: Darby's name is misspelled.
"Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public skepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it;[41] and " [Minor point: "and" is unnecessary here] "Duinsmuir and Gordon say that a large element of surgical self-interest drove claims that circumcision had protective effects.[42] Around the turn of the century, circumcision began to be performed on infants as a preventative measure in the United States, Australia, the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom.[41]" There is another ordering problem here: why are we saying that circumcision began to be performed long after giving the reasons? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that it began to be performed and then say why?
"Due to earlier studies showing Jews to have lower rates of genital cancers, a debate emerged in the 1930's." No, this isn't what the source says. It states that "A few reports had appeared in the early 20th century indicating that carcinoma of the penis was rare in circumcised men, but not until the debate over neonatal circumcision erupted in the medical press in the 1930s that this surgical `mantra' was put to the test".
"Since this time it has been shown that "general hygiene, demographic and other factors such as human papilloma virus and smoking status are probably just as important" This is taken out of context. The source states, "With this survey, he [ie., Wolbarst] was able to show that penile cancer virtually never occurred in circumcised men and that the risk related to the timing of the circumcision. Over the years this association has been reaffirmed by many research workers, although general hygiene, demographic and other factors such as human papilloma virus and smoking status are probably just as important".
"Dunsmuir and Gordon describe Gairdner's landmark 1949 paper in the British Medical Journal[43] as the first to recognise that the foreskin has a function, noting that at birth, it was normal for the foreskin to be attached to the glans in early infancy. Gairdner felt that "the prepuce had a protective role and noted that meatal ulceration only occurred in circumcised boys."" All this has virtually nothing to do with the subject of this section.
"In 1985, Dr. Thomas Wiswell published a study indicating that circumcision reduced the incidence of urinary tract infection." 3 years earlier, in 1982, Ginsburg and McCracken did likewise.... Besides, UTIs are already covered elsewhere.
"Many disagreed with this finding and a debate ensued." (fixed 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) According to the source cited at the end of the para: "Subsequently, studies were published from other institutions that corroborated this finding"
"In the late 1980's and early 1990's medical articles emerged in the USA hypothesising that low rates of circumcision in certain parts of Africa were partly responsible for the continent's high rate of HIV infection.[46][47]" Early 1990s? Both of the primary sources cited date from 1986. HIV is already covered elsewhere.
"Recently the National Institutes of Health funded 2 randomised control trials in Uganda and Kenya "to determine whether adult male circumcision is safe and can prevent men from acquiring HIV infection in geographic areas where heterosexual transmission of the virus is most common.[48]" "Recently" is vague.
"Some describe the USA as having an "obsession with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections."[49]" "Some" say no such thing. Colm O'Mahony says this, and it is questionable whether this quote belongs.
"Due to conflicting studies, the noise made by lay anti-circumcision groups, together with the recognition of female circumcision forced the AAP to re-issue a new statement in 1999.[45]" I wonder if any other sources agree on these reasons.
"They concluded that there may be medical benefits however there is not enough evidence to recommend routine infant circumcision, adding that the decision lies with the parents providing they are given accurate information." Almost the same as the 1989 statement, then. To quote from its concluding paragraph: "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. When circumcision is being considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained." So why present it as though there was a major change?
"According to Viens, the term "routine infant circumcision" is a misnomer. It denotes a position that nobody really holds, namely that as a matter of routine, all healthy boys should be circumcised."[50]" NPOV does not imply that we can use a term in a heading as though it meant one thing, and then say "oh, by the way, someone else thinks it means something else." There's no need to use "routine infant circumcision" in the heading, and hence there's no need to include this.
For these reasons, I'm going to revert this edit. Jakew (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
While I applaud compromise Tremello, you will never appease Jake. He doesn't see anything wrong with the article so how can he agree to any changes? I find Tremello's version much easier to read as far as layout and logical flow go. I would ask other editors to try and read it with an open, literate eye and give your honest opinion. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Gary, the same could be said the other way as well, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Or fortunately, depending on who massively changed the article, and now enjoys a shared "consensus" as to its contents. On deleting sources because Jakew "wonders" if other sources agree on those reasons seems like a diametrically opposite stance from the usual stance when another source's view is given, i.e., "until we find another source countering this one, or holding an alternate view, this is the source we use." Now, that guideline seems trumped by one editor's "wondering." Blackworm (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Blackworm, nothing in WP policy requires us to assert X just because a source asserts X. Actually, two parts of NPOV policy indicate that we should be cautious about doing so. WP:ASF indicates that we should attempt to distinguish between fact and opinion, and WP:WEIGHT indicates that we should be cautious about giving minority views undue weight. Dritsas does not cite any sources, and I have not seen these reasons given by other authors (it is of course possible that I've overlooked some sources, hence my comment), so I believe it is appropriate to exercise caution. Jakew (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely then Jake , it is up to you to find a source that says differently. Otherwise it comes across as just you who disagrees with the source. If Dritsas, for instance, is wrong it should be fairly easy to prove otherwise. I'd rather take the word of an article in a medical journal than yours. The alternative is we don't give any information on the history of when circumcision came to be seen as having a protective effect on certain diseases. This seems a rather strange solution. I know UTI's are discussed elsewhere (in the medical aspects section) but it improves the article to include information about when circumcision came to be seen as protective against UTI's. This is the history section after all.
In regards to your accusation that it is too much information. I disagree. If we want to shorten the article we can start by reducing some of the medical aspects subsections. Your accusation that it is too long seems rather arbitrary to me. It probably has more to do with the fact you don't like the information than any constructive reason. If we reduce the medical aspects section then the article wouldn't be any longer than it was previously. I haven't added that much. I only added historical information that was sorely needed. Just to illustrate what I mean:
If we do a character count of the different sections in my version it becomes apparent that the 'Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision' isn't too long at all:
Cultures and religions: Cultures and religions: 3905
Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision': 6967
Ethical, psychological and legal considerations: 6284
Medical aspects : 23825
Policies of various national medical associations: 5494
as I stated above, moving the entire section is acceptable, as is the name change, I suppose, but fragmenting the section is not. Why not? It is in perfect logical order. As Gary seems to agree. Cultures and religions comes after the origins of circumcision. Also, 'Origins' is describing something different to the medicalisation of circumcision. They are expressing 2 different histories - so how can we have it under the name of 'Origins'? The section describing the history of the medicalisation of circumcision isn't describing the origins of circumcision. The history of the medicalisation of circumcision occurred in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Why would they go before 'Cultures and religions'?
There is another ordering problem here: why are we saying that circumcision began to be performed long after giving the reasons? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that it began to be performed and then say why? It doesn't seem a problem to me. Certainly no reason to for you to remove this information anyway.
Regarding: No, this isn't what the source says. It states that "A few reports had appeared in the early 20th century indicating that carcinoma of the penis was rare in circumcised men and This is taken out of context. The source states... I have tried to include information about genital cancers (not just penile cancer - since the studies are somewhat related - linking circumcision to lower rates among Jews) to put it in it's historical context. The source also mentions lower rates of cancer of the cervix being attributed to the fact that Jewish men were circumcised. The source goes on to say: "Handley [54] reported on the infrequency of carcinoma of the cervix in Jewish women. He suggested that this related to the fact that Jewish men were circumcised. Not surprisingly, this spawned a mass of contradictory studies and over the next 50 years the champions of both camps have sought to establish the importance or irrelevance of circumcision in relation to penile cancer. The pendulum has swung both ways and the current evidence suggests that other factors are probably more important [55,56]. A similar debate has raged for 50 years over concerns for the risks of urinary tract infections in young boys and currently, any decreased risk associated with circumcision remains tentative but not proven. Now, as space is limited I had to put it in my own words - I am not going to quote in full for space reasons.
3 years earlier, in 1982, Ginsburg and McCracken did likewise... We can include a mention of this study if you want, but I got the impression that the Wiswell study provoked the debate and is therefore more worthy of mention. If we include more than one study it would increase size of the section without providing the reader with any more understanding of the history of UTI's in relation to circumcision. The source says "Everything changed again in 1985..". With limited space it seems like we should be careful which studies we pick to include, so I followed the source in this respect. You say we should include "Subsequently, studies were published from other institutions that corroborated this finding" Dritsas also includes the criticisms aimed at the study:"The major complaints were that (a) a case record analysis of urinary tract infections may have missed many infants who were treated as outpatients and not admitted, (b) the study was not a "cohort-based" study with control groups, (c) the reasons that circumcision was not performed could have predisposed the baby boy to UTI (e.g., premature birth), and (d) most of these studies had a number of confounding variables present that were not accounted for. A short article published in Lancet also questioned the connection between UTI and circumcision by suggesting that modern medical intervention in the entire birth process exposes the infant to nonmaternal bacteria strains. With regard to increased UTI incidence, the authors postulated that "if [the UTI studies] are correct, this will be the first known instance of a common potentially lethal disease being preventable by extirpation of a piece of normal tissue. To reconcile this phenomena with existing views of evolution and biology, it is suggested that the affects of one unphysiological intervention are counterbalancing those of another---ie, colonization of the baby's gastrointestinal tract and genitals in maternity units by Escherichia coli strains of non-maternal origin, to which the baby has no passive immunity." (Winberg et al., 1989)
The 1989 statement says that : "these studies in army hospitals are retrospective in design and may have methodologic flaws. For example, they do not include all boys born in any single cohort or those treated as outpatients, so the study population may have been influenced by selection bias."[19] So, I think I phrased it in a pretty neutral way. Also I thought we were meant to put things in our own words anyway - not just quote all the time.
Colm O'Mahony says this, and it is questionable whether this quote belongs. Why is it questionable? I have heard others express this view too. The alternative is that we don't include any criticism. You'd prefer that though I guess. Unfortunately the reader would lose out because (s)he wouldn't be getting a neutral view of the situation. It seems you just want to include positive aspects without criticism.
All this has virtually nothing to do with the subject of this section. Yes it does. It is has been described as a landmark medical journal article. It illustrates the reason that he doesn't think circumcision should be preformed - because the foreskin has a function. Again, I don't see how this harms the article.
HIV is covered elsewhere Except it isn't. This is the history section.
I wonder if any other sources agree on these reasons. How about you go and find some sources that disagree. I'd be happy to present both opinions. The alternative is we give no reason - which isn't helpful.
NPOV does not imply that we can use a term in a heading as though it meant one thing, and then say "oh, by the way, someone else thinks it means something else." There's no need to use "routine infant circumcision" in the heading, and hence there's no need to include this. Dunsmuir and Gordon use this term. Dritsas's historical review paper is called: Below the Belt: Doctors, Debate, and the Ongoing American Discussion of Routine Neonatal Male Circumcision and Darby's paper is entitled The masturbation taboo and the rise of routine male circumcision: A review of the historiography. So that is just 3 articles describing the history of the period in question, I could find many more. So I'd rather take the word of notable scholars on the subject over yours, quite frankly.
I will implement some of the changes you suggested - not that I need to- but because I am someone who can compromise. Next time instead of reverting, try to see it from someone else's point of view and assume good faith. Tremello22 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Jakew, nowhere do I suggest doing such a thing. I'm asking that we assert "source X asserts Y," not assert X because a source asserts X. Quite an important difference. The usual way of dealing with situations where an editor feels that us relating the fact of source X asserting Y violates WP:UNDUE is to present sources with contrasting viewpoints. I invite you to do so. Blackworm (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for the misunderstanding, Blackworm. I agree that the view could be attributed, but (as I've noted below) doing so wouldn't address the undue weight problem. WP:UNDUE actually applies whether or not contrasting viewpoints exist. For example, if a single source asserted that circumcision prevented heart disease, it would likely violate undue weight to include it, regardless of whether other sources explicitly disagreed. The point is whether a viewpoint is a minority one, and while it's helpful to examine other viewpoints, it's not essential to do so. As I've noted below, the problem here is that very few sources have discussed the reasons why the AAP issued the 1999 statement, and none (to the best of my knowledge) corroborate Dritsas' account. Still, since you asked, here is one source that offers a different explanation:
Most recently, in March 1999, the Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics issued yet another "Circumcision Policy Statement."23 In all likelihood, that statement was prompted at least in part by the by the [sic] 1997 JAMA report [ie., Laumann] and is a reaction to its conclusions. In contrast to the JAMA report, the latest policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force reiterates the balanced conclusions of the earlier 1989 report and in a nuanced manner is even somewhat more supportive of circumcision. J. David Bleich, Bioethical Dilemmas, Targum Press 2006, ISBN 1568714084, p62. Jakew (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2nd arbitrary section break

Please see this diff comparing your new "compromise" with your previous version.

  • As I commented above, moving "modern circumcision procedures" to a subsection of "medical aspects" is questionable, because the section does describe Jewish (ie., non-medical) circumcisions. You seem to have responded to this by removing this material, placing it instead in "cultures and religions". The trouble is, this distributes information about various procedures across the article. The poor reader would have to make a lucky guess to find the material. It would have been more logical to keep the section as a top-level section.
  • You've inserted a reference to Gollaher.
  • You've made a very minor change to the wording of the 'genital cancers' section, but you haven't addressed the major problem that I outlined: by omitting D&G's comment that "Over the years this association has been reaffirmed by many research workers", you're changing the meaning of what follows.
  • You have addressed my point about Wiswell.
  • You've addressed my point about the dates of the HIV papers.
  • You've partly corrected the weasel wording around the O'Mahony quote, but haven't addressed the more important point about whether it belongs.
  • You've attributed the AAP reasons to Dritsas, but haven't addressed issues of weight.
  • You've made a minor change to the wording re Viens (for no obvious reason), but haven't addressed the larger NPOV issue of using the term in the first place.

I have to say that this is a remarkably strange "compromise". Of more than fourteen points that I raised above, you've directly addressed only three, and have addressed minor aspects of four more.

Could we please agree on major changes to the article here, on the talk page, before making them?

Responses to above

"Surely then Jake , it is up to you to find a source that says differently. [...] If Dritsas, for instance, is wrong it should be fairly easy to prove otherwise." On the contrary, it would be almost impossible to prove Dritsas wrong. It might be possible to prove that there were multiple viewpoints. But in this particular case, the question is not whether Dritsas is right or wrong, but whether other sources corroborate his account. There are three possibilities: 1) other sources do corroborate his account, 2) other sources contradict his account, and 3) other sources say nothing on the subject. As noted, my suspicion is that the third possibility is the case, but it is logically impossible to prove that sources do not exist. As I said above, caution is advisable, and since this material is not essential, there is no reason why it cannot be left out.

"Your accusation that [the section] is too long seems rather arbitrary to me. [...] I haven't added that much." You caused it to approximately double in size. By my reckoning, "Circumcision in the English-speaking world" (that is, the long-standing version) is 7,203 characters in total, and your "Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision'" is 13587 characters (I'm not sure why we're getting different figures; perhaps you're counting displayed text rather than source text). In the preceding discussion, I've noted that concerns have already been expressed about the length of this section before doubling its size. This is because it is fundamentally about the history of circumcision in only a small fraction of the world's countries.

(Re fragmenting the history section) "Why not? It is in perfect logical order." As I've explained already, sections are in summary style. The way that's supposed to work is that the section includes a "Main article: ..." link at the top, and then summarises the content of that article. It doesn't work very well when two or more sections both try to summarise the article. "As Gary seems to agree" And as Avi and I seem to disagree. "Also, 'Origins' is describing something different to the medicalisation of circumcision. They are expressing 2 different histories - so how can we have it under the name of 'Origins'?" There's no desperate need to retitle it 'origins', just keep the current name ("history") instead, and preserve the current arrangement in which "English-speaking countries" is a subsection of "history".

(Re the ordering problem) "It doesn't seem a problem to me. Certainly no reason to for you to remove this information anyway." Had this been the only problem, I would have corrected it.

(Re "Due to earlier studies showing Jews to have lower rates of genital cancers, a debate emerged in the 1930's.") "I have tried to include information about genital cancers..." The source does not state that a debate emerged in the 1930s because of such studies. It says that a debate emerged (for unspecified reasons) in the 1930s and then the theory was put to the test.

(Re Ginsburg and McCracken) "With limited space it seems like we should be careful which studies we pick to include, so I followed the source in this respect." I understand, but as I pointed out, the source notes that subsequent studies reported similar findings. Reading your version, one gets the impression that Wiswell reported reduced risk of UTI in circumcised males and pretty much the rest of the academic community disagreed with him.

"The 1989 statement says that..." Sorry, I don't understand what point you're making.

(Re Colm O'Mahony) "Why is it questionable [whether it belongs]? Because it is an opinion expressed by a single person in a single news report. It is an extraordinary amount of WP:WEIGHT to give such an opinion. A better question is, what is significant about it?

(Re Gairdner) "It illustrates the reason that he doesn't think circumcision should be preformed - because the foreskin has a function." If we included the reason why every person opposes or is in favour of circumcision, this article would be twenty times as long, and for all that length it would be only marginally more informative.

(Re HIV) "This is the history section." Yes, but there's no point in repeating material.

(Re "I wonder if any other sources agree on these reasons") "How about you go and find some sources that disagree." Please see above.

(Re "routine infant circumcision") "So that is just 3 articles describing the history of the period in question, I could find many more." There's no need. I've never disputed that sources use the term. "So I'd rather take the word of notable scholars on the subject over yours, quite frankly." If you find notable scholars arguing that Wikipedia should use the term, then please let me know. Until then, we have a choice: we can use the term, or not. And if using the term would imply that it has meaning X, while scholars such as Viens give another definition, then using the term would create NPOV problems that are best avoided by not using the term. (fixed 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) Jakew (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the debate, I think we may have some potential for agreement on the following:

  • Move the history section to the beginning of article (without renaming)
  • Move the prevalence section to after "cultures and religions"

Please signify whether you agree to this or not. If everyone is in agreement, then we can go ahead and implement the change. Jakew (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jake why do you wish to suppress circumcisions orgins? Garycompugeek (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't wish to do that, Gary, so I should probably answer "mu". I have stated the reasons for my opposition to these edits, clearly, and in detail, and these reasons do not include a wish to suppress circumcision's origins. What I oppose is the addition of large amounts of material that further increases the weight given to a subject (circumcision in English-speaking countries) that is already over-represented in the article (please bear in mind that the history of circumcision article goes into great detail on the subject, so it is not as though the information is excluded altogether). I especially oppose such additions when they are less than neutral, poorly represent the source material, and suffer from many other problems as outlined above. I oppose the use of ill-defined terminology in such a way that appears to contradict one of the few sources to offer a definition for the term. I oppose taking a perfectly logical organisation ("procedures" as a top-level heading, "history" as a single section in summary style), and changing it for no apparent reason, making the article more confusing for the reader in the process. And so on.
I think it's going to be difficult — though not impossible — to find a compromise that's acceptable to all (it should be obvious, I hope, that a compromise that isn't acceptable to all isn't really a compromise). Tremello22 (and apparently you) want drastic changes. I (and apparently Avi) think the proposed changes are detrimental to the article. So it seems obvious that any compromise is going to involve fewer changes than you and Tremello want, but more than Avi and I want. I've identified two changes that we might be able to agree on. I presume that none of us will be completely satisfied with them, for varying reasons. But I want to put a stop to these harmful edit wars. It's far better to agree on changes before making them: that way we can make an edit with confidence that it will stand. So if we can get consensus on these two changes, then we can implement them, and the article can remain stable while we discussing the way forward from there (which may include further change such as, perhaps, a paragraph to be added to 'Circumcision in English-speaking countries'). Jakew (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Clever that Jake but your actions ,as Tremello has pointed out, speaks volumes. How I hate this tit for tat but I shall endeavour.... You said I oppose is the addition of large amounts of material that further increases the weight given to a subject (circumcision in English-speaking countries) that is already over-represented in the article, How so? This is the english speaking Wikipedia is it not? Should we concentrate our material on non-english speaking countries? I oppose the use of ill-defined terminology, you mean oppose terminology that caste circumcision in a bad light? Tremmello has taken all of this from medical journals and text books. I oppose taking a perfectly logical organisation ("procedures" as a top-level heading, "history" as a single section in summary style), and changing it for no apparent reason, making the article more confusing for the reader in the process., The article has been confusing and contradictory since I have beheld it. It took me four months just to get certain editors to admit there was controversy surrounding circumcision. In it's previous state it did not have a logical flow "how?" and "why?" that Tremello has rectified with origins. These origins are true whether you wish to believe them or not and all properly sourced. To be frank, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than it did. I don't like edit wars anymore than you and the reality is we are not having one. Tremello keeps trying to placate you with compromises and I have been reluctantly supporting him even though I do not agree with all of them. No we are not going to agree on everything but you must learn to bend more or take a step back and let others voice their concerns. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the Wikipedia written in the English language. It's not the Wikipedia written about English-language countries (only or primarily). Nor is it the Wikipedia whose viewpoints are based on English-languages sources (only or preferentially). "Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." (emphasis in the original). WP:V. NPOV means NPOV, not the POV of English-language sources or the POV about English-speaking countries. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Third non-arbitrary section break - Discretize the process

Before this breaks down yet again, could we agree to deal with the prospective changes in manageable chunks? The amount of changes, IMO, are too many to approach completely and consistently. Perhaps we should discuss section order first, and then section-by-section change suggestions? -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse this proposal. Jakew (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'm setting up sections for discussion of each proposed change, and I invite comments within each section. Feel free to add more sections for other proposed changes; I'm not sure I found all the changes in Tremello22's edit, and of course other new proposals can also be made at any time, here or in another section. In particular, I think there was some other added material in Tremello22's edit that I haven't listed; it would be helpful if someone would create subsections for that, quoting each proposed addition.
In future, when making significant changes, please discuss them on the talk page and get consensus before editing. I prefer to see changes described in detail on the talk page for discussion before being edited in (except minor, uncontroversial changes); for example, quoting on the talk page material that's to be added. When making a number of changes like that, you might want to make them in a sandbox, as I did when I was shortening the article around July 2007. I let people see the new version in the sandbox and have an opportunity to comment when it was there (although as far as I remember nobody did!) before I edited it into the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you have noticed that only the pro circumcision editors have participated in your break down of Tremello's proposed changes? First I'd like to ask you why do you think that is? Second, as you can see by this, viewing someone as pro or con circumcision based on behavior and edits is not incivil but it maybe construed the opposite way around. I also find it illuminating that Jake now disavows that he is a circumcision advocate considering his actions. To go even farther I find it disruptive to the project to say one thing and do another and would welcome a review of everyone's behavior on this page. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Gary, no one is stopping you from discussing each of these sections. Is there a reason you are abstaining? You usually have intelligent thoughts to add; why is now different? -- Avi (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping someone would take a stab at actually answering my question but I will answer yours Avi. I think it's completely inappropriate for Coppertwig to try and break down Tremello's revision without at least his help or blessing. Much of the changes rely on the other changes to make sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm assuming good faith and feel Coppertwig is just trying to help but it is a bit pretentious in my humble opinion. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think C-twig did a decent job of breaking down Tremello's multiple changes into their component parts. However, if Tremello feels that a different partitioning of the many changes would be better, I'd be more than happy to archive everything below in this section, let him post his breakdown of the editing changes, and we continue to discuss them as we are now. However, I do not think that C-Twig misrepresented any of the changes, only possibly missed a few, so the discussion below is still both necessary and valid. Other than the unintended appearance of hubris, do you have an issue with C-Twis's compartmentalization? -- Avi (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I would think that would be obvious Avi, considering my last two post on this subject, yes I do take issue with it. Like I have previously stated, many of these changes reply on other changes to make sense. Coppertwig has completely left out some important additions that are part of the whole ie regarding 'Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision',
"In late 19th century English-speaking countries, circumcision was uncommon, mainly occurring for therapeutic reasons and religious reasons.[39] According to Gollaher, this all changed when in 1870, Lewis Sayre, a noted physician, reportedly cured a 5 year old boy's paralysis through circumcision. Subsequently, Sayer began to believe he had found a cure for mental illness, basing his theory on the idea that the foreskin led to disorders of the nervous system. Sayre trained other doctors to look for genital irritation and phimosis (an abnormal tightening of the foreskin) indicating it as "a cause of paralysis, reflex muscular contraction, curvature of the spine and acquired deformity". His work, along with that of other circumcision advocates, provoked a great deal of interest among the medical community. At around the same time, awareness of the germ theory of disease elicited the image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function. According to Derby, in the late 19th century, doctors "extended their ambit from the cure of disease to the enforcement of puritanical standards of sexual morality, and exerted a powerful influence on public law." Circumcision was seen as a method of preventing masturbation in both boys and girls at this time. It was thought the foreskin not only compelled a person to masturbate but that masturbation itself was a serious disease. This view linked in to an earlier belief centered around the idea that loss in seminal fluid led to ill health through a condition known as spermatorrhoea.[39] John Kellogg, the founder of the Kellogg’s cereals empire, advocated circumcision as "an unashamedly punitive approach."[40] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public skepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it;[41] and Duinsmuir and Gordon say that a large element of surgical self-interest drove claims that circumcision had protective effects.[42] Around the turn of the century, circumcision began to be performed on infants as a preventative measure in the United States, Australia, the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom.[41]"
Why? It's not just about changing a title or merging a section. We are trying to explain circumcision's origions here in the United States. This is all properly sourced and makes for logical happenstance. Crys of undue weight or not NPOV are lame. This is properly sourced historical fact being suppressed. I would be more than happy to take this to arbitration because I am tired of all the bullying I see happening on this page. Jake is back with his ironfisted grip and same song and dance "undue weight", "article too big", "NPOV violation" backed by you, Jayjg, and usually Coppertwig. The four of you have been running off any opposition to circumcision. ie Blackworm's RFC, Tremello's Wikiquette, and you baiting Tip into a block. This behavior needs to change. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my frustation bleeding through here and would like to say I respect everyone I have mentioned above here. Please let us continue to work together. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gollaher has a bias, Gary, as you well know. See http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/. The very first quotation in that work indicates Gollaher's bias "The mutilation of the genitals among the various savage tribes of the world presents a strange and unaccountable practice of human ideas, which one is not able to reconcile with any reasoning power." There are plenty of people who do not believe circumcision is a mutilation, actually from what I understand most people do not believe it to be mutilation, even if they themselves choose not to be circumcised. It is the genital integrity minority who are the ones zealously trying to influence the public. So, Gary, giving Gollaher a position of prominence may well be the worse bias as opposed to leaving him out or giving him the weight in the proportion genital integrity people have as a part of the population as a whole. I am afraid that your characterization above can equally likely, if not more so due to statistics, apply to yourself, Balckworm, Tremello, and Michael Glass. So can we dispense with the name calling and proceed to discuss bias or lack thereof? -- Avi (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your statement that "most" people do not believe circumcision to be a mutilation. From the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica entry for "Mutilation:" Mutilations of the sexual organs are more ethnically important than any . They have played a great part in human history, and still have much significance in many countries . Their antiquity is undoubtedly great, and nearly all originate with the idea of initiation into full sexual life . The most important, circumcision (q.v.), has been transformed into a religious rite.[20] That was Britannica 100 years ago. Just because it's today extremely politically incorrect, or viewed as insensitive to circumcising groups, to call circumcision mutilation, (c.f. "female genital cutting" instead of "female genital mutilation") does not mean that a majority of people don't still see it as such. And logically, too, since it follows directly from the defintion of "mutilation:" to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of.[21] (Note the definition of "essential:" of, relating to, or constituting essence : inherent[22].) In Europe, and other areas where circumcision is shunned, I'm quite most still view circumcision as mutilation, despite the recent doublethink in circumcising areas like the U.S.. Blackworm (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gary, why don't you compare Gollaher's treatment of the history with Remondino's treatment of the history. Rather telling, no? -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has bias Avi. The WHO and Schoen are two examples of two prominant circumcicion advocates. Do we give them too much weight because of it? We have to try to balance opposing view points but certainly not hide them. If they are informative and properly sourced they belong in the article. You may add opposing viewpoints that are properly sourced etc.. If you have an opposing origin viewpoint by all means please add it. Do you see me crying undue weight whenever a properly sourced pro circumcision viewpoint is added? My desire is to make the most informative article possible showing both sides of circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


  • Coppertwig acknowledged that (s)he may have missed some changes, and invited others to add to the list. Since Gary raises the issue of this paragraph, I thought it might be helpful if I colour-code the paragraph, in order to show a) new material that is already discussed below (red), b) alteration of existing sentences (green), c) sentences or sentence fragments that are unchanged (blue), and d) new text (black). (I have not been able to show material that was deleted, nor have I been able to show the original version of material that was changed.)
"In late 19th century English-speaking countries, circumcision was uncommon, mainly occurring for therapeutic reasons and religious reasons.[39] According to Gollaher, this all changed when in 1870, Lewis Sayre, a noted physician, reportedly cured a 5 year old boy's paralysis through circumcision. Subsequently, Sayer began to believe he had found a cure for mental illness, basing his theory on the idea that the foreskin led to disorders of the nervous system. Sayre trained other doctors to look for genital irritation and phimosis (an abnormal tightening of the foreskin) indicating it as "a cause of paralysis, reflex muscular contraction, curvature of the spine and acquired deformity". His work, along with that of other circumcision advocates, provoked a great deal of interest among the medical community. At around the same time, awareness of the germ theory of disease elicited the image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function. According to Derby, in the late 19th century, doctors "extended their ambit from the cure of disease to the enforcement of puritanical standards of sexual morality, and exerted a powerful influence on public law." Circumcision was seen as a method of preventing masturbation in both boys and girls at this time. It was thought the foreskin not only compelled a person to masturbate but that masturbation itself was a serious disease. This view linked in to an earlier belief centered around the idea that loss in seminal fluid led to ill health through a condition known as spermatorrhoea.[39] John Kellogg, the founder of the Kellogg’s cereals empire, advocated circumcision as "an unashamedly punitive approach."[40] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public skepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it;[41] and Duinsmuir and Gordon say that a large element of surgical self-interest drove claims that circumcision had protective effects.[42] Around the turn of the century, circumcision began to be performed on infants as a preventative measure in the United States, Australia, the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom.[41]"
I hope that this will make it easier to identify specific changes for discussion. Jakew (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well done Jake. That does make it much easier to see what is transpiring. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether to move History of circumcision to the beginning of the article

Based on this edit by Tremello22.

  • Neutral Weak Support. It's OK to put the history section first. Ordering can be somewhat chronological, or based on something else (what?). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    Changing to weak support because history first makes sense to me chronologically, even if the other sections can't be ordered chronologically. However, many other arrangements are probably also possible. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It makes most sense, to my mind, to fully define something first, then discuss background issues. Thus, we should start with what circumcision is (procedures), then what it does (medical aspects, etc), then look at who and why (cultures and religions), then finally history. (I realise that this is not quite the current arrangement.) For this reason, I believe that 'procedures' should be the first section. I am willing to compromise on this. Jakew (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support As long as a basic explanation of the process is in the lede, I am comfortable putting the history before the detailed explanation. -- Avi (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Avi. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether to split History of circumcision into two parts

Based on this edit by Tremello22, which puts the cultures and religion section between two parts of the history section.

  • Oppose. I agree with Jakew that having the history section all in one section is better. Putting cultures and religions between the two parts of the history section seems to imply that cultural and religious circumcision is all old hat. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please see above sections for my reasoning. Jakew (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Coppertwig. -- Avi (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I'd appreciate some elaboration on this from you guys. Jake, maybe you could re-iterate your reasons instead of me having to trawl through everything above. Coppertwig, Putting cultures and religions between the two parts of the history section seems to imply that cultural and religious circumcision is all old hat. I disagree with this. Maybe you and Avi could elaborate. Anyway I have made changes that there doesn't seem to be major opposition to for the time being. Also, not just on this discussion but the other discussions Coppertwig has created, can I ask people not to write "see above". I know it is easier to write that but it is hard to know where 'above' to refer to. Tremello22 (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As requested: "Re fragmentation, the situation is that this article is written in summary style. That means that each section is acting as a summary of a much larger article (imagine this article as the visible tops of a group of icebergs). That works well when there is one section per larger article, but it rapidly becomes much harder to understand when summaries are broken across multiple sections. I hope this helps to clarify my concern." (copied from my above post of 16:17, 21 April 2009). Jakew (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      Re saying "see above": quoting as you just did seems fine to me; and alternatively I think it would probably also be fine if you just specify e.g. "see my post above of 16:17, 21 April 2009". On my browsers I can search for a string on a page using control-F, so it's easy to find a post if the date and time are given. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    Tremello: to explain why I think putting "cultures and religions" between two history sections makes it look old: the reader may naturally assume the three sections are more-or-less in chronological order, so it makes it sound as if all the stuff being talked about in the "cultures and religions" section applies primarily to a period of time after the end of the first history section and before the beginning of the second history section. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. It makes perfect sense to me. First we talk about the earliest "Why" and "Where" then we go into culture and religion which was the prime motivator for early circumcision and finally the medicalization of it. It's a logical sequence of events that makes hell of a lot more sense than before. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming part of History section to "origins of circumcision"

Based on this edit by Tremello22.

Renaming part of History section to "Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision'"

Based on this edit by Tremello22.

  • Oppose. Weak oppose. Doesn't sound NPOV to me. The word "medicalisation" might only be used by people with some POVs; I'm not sure. It might also imply that circumcision has been medicalized, thus implying that religious, non-medical circumcision no longer occurs. It's not clear exactly what "medicalisation" means. If "scare quotes" are needed around "routine infant circumcision" then just possibly (not necessarily) it isn't NPOV enough for a section heading. The section heading seems rather long. Saying "advent of" is not NPOV, since according to Viens, nobody advocates routine infant circumcision (therefore how can it have come into existence, according to that POV?) I'm trying to think of a different title and am not sure I can come up with anything very good: "Medicine and circumcision", "Medical circumcision", "History of circumcision as a medical procedure", "Infant circumcision". I think "Circumcision in the English-speaking world" is OK as a section heading. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Such a section title would be incompatible with NPOV for reasons explained at length above. I agree with Coppertwig that "Circumcision in the English-speaking world" is okay as a heading - it's not perfect, but at least it is clear, unambiguous, and neutral. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "medicalization" gives the implication that prior to this "sea change", no one was under the delusion that circumcision had any benefits, medical or otherwise. The lead of Medicalization should make the negative connotations clear. Coppertwig's suggestion is much more neutral and acceptable. -- Avi (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. "Medicalisation of circumcision" is a common term in medical text books. This describes how circumcision crossed over from cultural and religious reasons to science. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "Circumcision in the English-speaking world" is okay as a heading - it's not perfect, but at least it is clear, unambiguous, and neutral. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on why it isn't perfect. Anyway, by moving it nearer 'cultures and religions', this aspect of circumcision's history doesn't seem as hidden - so the title isn't as much an issue for me anymore. I'd disagree with you that it is unambiguous because there is no mention of Jews and Muslims in this section. And Jews and Muslims have lived in the English speaking world. The section mainly describes the medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of routine infant circumcision. I have discussed the term 'routine infant circumcision above' Coppertwig and feel I have put up a sufficient case for the term's inclusion. Another reason I'd oppose sticking with the title 'Circumcision in the English speaking world' is because it makes it seem like the only reason we have called it that is because this is an English Wikipedia article and we ought to give some information on circumcision in English speaking countries - i.e just blatant, unashamed anglo-centricism. This is not the case - the reason we make an issue of English speaking countries is because circumcision was first medicalised in English speaking countries. In other countries, non-religious medical circumcision never became popular. If it did, (such as in South Korean) it was only as a result of English-speaking country influence in regards medicalised circumcision. Tremello22 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    Changing to "weak oppose" after reading Tremello's comment. Maybe some other title, using "medical" or something rather than "medicalisation". The problem with "routine infant circumcision" is that its meaning isn't clear and it may not be NPOV: there may be a POV that medical circumcision wasn't "routine" but was offered as an option rather than a routine, even if the term "routine" is used in some sources. For it to be NPOV we'd have to establish that the term "routine" was generally used, not just used in some sources while others perhaps choose their words differently in order to make a distinction. But that's impossible: since Jakew has given a source above (Viens) with a different POV about the term, use of the term would not be NPOV. "Medical circumcision and nonreligious, nontherapeutic infant circumcision" might be a possible section heading.
    I looked at some of your comments above about "routine infant circumcision". For example, you say "Routine infant circumcision developed at a different time than traditional circumcision." There may be something to that; however, I believe Jews were routinely circumcising infants a very long time ago, so it would have to be worded differently. I see what you mean about the other sections really being about medical circumcision (in that same comment of yours of 20:35, 18 April 2009). It's just somewhat difficult to express things when there are different POVs and we have to word it in a way that doesn't contradict any significant POV, and there are also a lot of exceptions. Even if most people use the term "routine infant circumcision", it may not be an appropriate term to use in an encyclopedia. We need to use terms that are sufficiently precise. (See Jakew's comment of 21:02, 19 April 2009 above; although you replied to it, it doesn't seem to me that you addressed the point Jakew raised in it.) Re the article you mention, "Should all males be circumcised? Some U.S. doctors are reconsidering their position": it seems to me to be implying that up until now, circumcision has not been routine but has been offered to parents as an option, but that doctors are beginning to think about possibly starting to make it routine. Re "Notice that there is a clear distinction between different types of circumcision": I don't think there's such a clear distinction in the real world. For example, some Jews may have their boys circumcised by a doctor, and the doctor may be aware that religion is a factor. Circumcision can happen at various ages for various combinations of reasons. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    Tremello raises a legitimate point, I think, about the ambiguity over Jewish and Muslim circumcisions in the English speaking world. Changing the title to something like "Non-religious circumcision in the English-speaking world" would address this ambiguity. I don't think we should shy away from calling it "...in the English-speaking world" because that's what we're describing, and that's because it's what the sources tell us about. We don't know for sure why that is. It may be (as Tremello states) because this phenomenon occurred only in English-speaking countries. It may be that English-speaking historians have analysed English-language sources, leading to the lack of information on other countries. Jakew (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Avi:The term "medicalization" gives the implication that prior to this sea change, no one was under the delusion that circumcision had any benefits, medical or otherwise. Not if we include a date on the end (1850 to present day) Also before this time it wasn't done primarily for health reasons. That is the point. You even admit it was a see change so why not let the reader know this?
My apologies, I was playing "devil's advocate" and I did not make myself clear. I am not making my /own/ opinion known in that statement; rather, saying that calling it "medicalization" implies that there was a sea change, when that in and of itself has not yet been determined as fact, but is opinion. -- Avi (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"medicalization" implies that there was a sea change, when that in and of itself has not yet been determined as fact, but is opinion. Really? I think it is fact. What are you denying exactly just so I am clear.
I am unsure that prevailing opinion prior to 1850 was that circumcision had no medical benefits, which is what you are taking as fact. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see this which I wrote above: Not if we include a date on the end (1850 to present day)
It may be (as Tremello states) because this phenomenon occurred only in English-speaking countries. It may be that English-speaking historians have analysed English-language sources, leading to the lack of information on other countries. Sorry, could you clarify what you mean by this? Are you saying that non-therapeutic circumcision was taken up in great number (say 15% or more) in other non English speaking countries? If so, what is your source? Because Gollaher, Glick and Darby specifically state that this was a phenomenon unique to English speaking countries. They seem pretty certain on this point.
Re "Notice that there is a clear distinction between different types of circumcision": I don't think there's such a clear distinction in the real world. For example, some Jews may have their boys circumcised by a doctor, and the doctor may be aware that religion is a factor. Circumcision can happen at various ages for various combinations of reasons. This is baffling to me. Jews do it because they are Jewish and they are commanded to do it in a certain way. I realise that some Jews may have their son "done" in hospital but then that isn't a Jewish circumcision. If they are doing it in hospital then that would be described as a medical circumcision; most people would call it a "routine infant circumcision"
Re the article you mention, "Should all males be circumcised? Some U.S. doctors are reconsidering their position": it seems to me to be implying that up until now, circumcision has not been routine but has been offered to parents as an option, but that doctors are beginning to think about possibly starting to make it routine. This comment makes sense if you understand the term 'routine infant circumcision' to mean that all boys in the USA are circumcised. However if you do s google search for the term you will see that routine infant circumcision is used as a way to describe non-therapeutic infant circumcision done in a medical setting. This is presumably because it is an easy way to distinguish it from any other type of circumcision. So my proposal to include it in the subtitle isn't because I'm biased, it is only because I am thinking of the lay reader. And the lay reader normally describes the type of circumcision done in a hospital on infants as a 'routine infant circumcision'.
Anyway, saying all that, I'm happy to go with 'Non-religious circumcision in English speaking countries' for now. At least this solves the problem of what type of circumcision the section talks about. You may also comment on another proposal I thought of: "Infant Circumcision becomes a standard medical procedure in English speaking countries"? I think you should think again over 'Medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries' We could include "1850-present day" on the end or not. With this title it would also help us include other things. Such as - maybe a brief mention of the circumcision debate in a historical/social context - it doesn't have to be long. We could also include when circumcision was first though to protect against certain diseases. Tremello22 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether to move Prevalence section to near the beginning of the article

Based on this edit by Tremello22.

  • Neutral. At the moment I don't see any reason one way or another. It may help to keep the History and Prevalence sections close to each other, as there tends to be some overlap. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, please see my comments about moving "history". Jakew (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral While I do not think that prevalence before history or history before prevalence makes a major difference,I can understand the idea that we would want History, then detailed definition, and then prevalence as a logical order, so I'm staying neutral on this one. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for new structure. I think it flows much better than before. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding sentence re "circumcision was uncommon"

Based on this edit by Tremello22 which I believe added "In late 19th century English-speaking countries, circumcision was uncommon, mainly occurring for therapeutic reasons and religious reasons.[1]"

  • Neutral. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, partly because the source doesn't seem to support the statement attributed to it (although another source could probably be found), partly because (as written) it is too vague ("late 19th century"), and partly because it seems rather long-winded. Jakew (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    I don't have time to read the whole source. Tremello22, if you think the source supports the statement, could you please specify where in the source? (e.g. which sentence of which paragraph, or quote the beginning and end of the passage). Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think much better material can be culled from this source. With the publication of David Gollaher's path-breaking investigations into its history, international efforts to ban the circumcision of women (female genital mutilation) as performed by some traditional Islamic and east African cultures, continuing protests against the survival of routine circumcision of male infants in the United States and parts of Canada, and a contrasting campaign on the part of some medical conservatives in Britain, the USA and Australia to restore the practice as a public health measure, scholarly interest in the origins and evolution of "the world's most controversial surgery" has never been more intense.[23] Wow, you sure wouldn't think that from reading this article. Blackworm (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That's because there is no controversy according to the pro circ editors who lobbied for months to try and keep controversy sentence out of the lead and under the rug. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't understand why this is an issue. We can tweak the verbiage if you wish Jake but the sentence is essentially correct. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    As noted, the source cited doesn't support the claim, so there is a serious WP:V problem. Furthermore, there is some redundancy given that we already say that infant circumcision was taken up at around the year 1900: how can something be taken up if it was already common? So actually this sentence provides little additional information, yet adds bulk to the section, further exacerbating the undue weight problem. Jakew (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    Jake I think you may be misunderstanding the nomenclature. The 19th century is the 1800's. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    I know that, Gary. Let me explain again. We already have a sentence that says that circumcision was taken up in about 1900. To state that it was taken up in about 1900 implies that it was uncommon beforehand, so it is unnecessary — redundant — to state that circumcision was uncommon in the late 1800s. I hope this is now clear. Jakew (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding material re paralysis as major reason

Based on this edit by Tremello22 which I believe added "According to Gollaher, this all changed when in 1870, Lewis Sayre, a noted physician, reportedly cured a 5 year old boy's paralysis through circumcision.[2]Subsequently, Sayre began to believe he had found a cure for mental illness, basing his theory on the idea that the foreskin led to disorders of the nervous system. Sayre trained other doctors to look for genital irritation and phimosis (an abnormal tightening of the foreskin) indicating it as "a cause of paralysis, reflex muscular contraction, curvature of the spine and acquired deformity".[2]"

  • Weak oppose "noted physician" may be too subjective for NPOV. However, my weak oppose is mainly due to increased length of the article. This section should represent a reasonable, balanced, short summary of the history of circumcision article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as excessive detail leading to undue weight for the section as a whole. Jakew (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per C-Twig and Jake on this one. -- Avi (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per my lengthy post in above section concerning this restructuring. Very important informative origins information being suppressed. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as much more relevant to scholarly research into the origins and evolution of circumcision, as that is a strong interest of scholars, rather that the current focus on details of modern, sterilized, medicalized male circumcision. That is the real WP:UNDUE violation in this article, and a long standing one at that. Blackworm (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously Coppertwig: However, my weak oppose is mainly due to increased length of the article. This section should represent a reasonable, balanced, short summary of the history of circumcision article. 2 things to say here. 1)You're presuming that the history of circumcision article is well written and gives a good account. It doesn't. It is largely cobbled together. 2) In regards length, I think I did a comparison on length above. I'll repeat it here - Character count (excluding titles but including subtitles within section) using this tool: http://www.seoimage.com/seo-tools/count-url-characters-and-words.html:
   'Circumcision in the English speaking world' (current version):  3393
   'Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision': 7003
   Cultures and religions: Cultures and religions: 3769
   Modern circumcision procedures: 2796
   Ethical, psychological and legal considerations: 6424
   Medical aspects : 20966
   Policies of various national medical associations: 5522

Here is the version I am talking about: [24] Like I said before: it is a few extra lines to include important crucial information and to give the full story. All that was added was info on reflex neurosis theory (which came before germ theory if I am not mistaken). This linked into masturbation causing nervous disorders. I also mention spermatorrhoea and link that into masturbation. To contrast, the 'Medical aspects' section is longer and largely goes into detail about something the lay reader will be less interested in. If anything, the section lengths should be the other way round. I feel that in the midst of all the criticism a little perspective was lost. The thing we should keep in mind is: which version is better - and can we take at least something from the proposed edit? I could easily criticise the current version - for instance:There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. What is this supposed to mean? We know why it was taken up - it was a combination of all the reasons was it not? If that is the case, why aren't we mentioning reflex neurosis theory and Lewis Albert Sayre? Someone asked whether Lewis Sayre was a noted physician - yes he was he was: [25][26]. He was president of the American medical association. Gollaher and other circumcision historians (Darby and Glick) devote a lot to reflex neurosis theory, and 'phimosis in infants' being the cause of numerous nervous conditions. We don't even mention it currently. A lot of the extra length is due to the wider scope of the subtitle. I include information on the social/historical aspects of the medicalisation of circumcision. So there is discussion of when circumcision was first mentioned as protective against certain diseases. I also briefly mention policy statements from the original 1970 one to the 1999 one by the AAP. Is this not information of interest to the reader? I think more so than going into detail on primary studies in the medical aspects section. Tremello22 (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Compensation for botched circumcision

Foxnews: Family Awarded $2.3 Million for Botched Circumcision and Law.com: Jury Awards $2.3 Million for Botched Circumcision

Other articles on same story here: http://news.google.co.uk/news?um=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=1323186198

This article gives more info: Prweb.com: $2.3 Million Dollar Jury Verdict for Mother and Son for Botched Circumcision

Should be mentioned in the legal section. The size of the payout makes it notable. Tremello22 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this addition and have moved it to circumcision and law, where there is more space. This personal injury lawsuit occurred as a result of a botched circumcision, but it isn't about the legality of circumcision per se. Jakew (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I know. That is why I changed the title to legal issues and put it under compensation. Tremello22 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that changing the heading to "legal issues" helps, Tremello. The problem is that this lawsuit is only tangentially related to circumcision. If a doctor botches a surgical procedure, especially in the US, then a lawsuit is not uncommon. This one happened to involve circumcision, but I'm sure that you can find similar personal injury lawsuits involving practically any procedure. Also, given the subject of this article, "compensation" is a poor choice of sub-heading, since it would suggest compensation for circumcision rather than compensation for a botched circumcision. Jakew (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Tangentially related or not - it is relevant to the article on circumcision because it was the circumcision that was botched. It is a surgical procedure that doesn't have to be performed. Therefore taking into account the legal considerations when it goes wrong is relevant. In regards to the title I disagree with your assumption. When people read the article they will see that it is compensation for a botched circumcision. Tremello22 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not a persuasive argument, Tremello. It's not, strictly speaking, necessary to visit a dental hygienist either, but to litter that article with "legal issues" about personal injury lawsuits resulting from gum injuries would reduce the encyclopaedic value of that article, too.
I agree that people who have already read the section will understand what it discusses. However, that is not a reflection on the heading itself. If a good heading is chosen, however, its meaning will be clear and unambiguous before people read the content.
And while I remember, please would you not use PRWeb press releases as sources. They are self-published sources, and as such are unsuitable for use in Wikipedia. Please see WP:SPS. Jakew (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop using bad analogies and using them as staw men arguments. What real harm will come from a trip to the dental hygienist? There is a difference in terms of severity. There have also been many documented cases of circumcisions gone wrong. Not just severe complications either. Circumcision is damaging by it's very nature. In regards to PRweb see WP:SENSE and WP:IAR. It improves the article because it provides additional info. I also provided another source so the content is not contentious. Also see WP:WL and WP:GAME.
I can't think of a better sub-title. Here are some additional suggestions: "Compensation payout for botched circumcision" , "Medical malpractice compensation payout". Considering these are quite clunky I suggest we leave it as it is. It may not be perfect but it is the best title I can come up with. Tremello22 (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what harm can come from a visit to a dental hygienist, but I am quite prepared to believe that considerable injury can occur. If I was sufficiently interested I'm sure I could find some sources, but they aren't necessary to make my point, which is that personal injury lawsuits that happen to involve a given procedure are basically trivia within the context of an article about that procedure, and littering an article with such trivia reduces the article's encyclopaedic value.
Regarding your comments about PRWeb, WP:SENSE is neither policy nor guideline, and the purpose of WP:IAR is to apply the intent, rather than necessarily the letter, of policy. It should be used with great care, and certainly does not entitle you to ignore both the intent and the letter. In this case, the obvious intent of WP:SPS (and the letter as well) is to insist on high-quality, reliable, objective sources, and a press release from the law firm representing one of the parties is none of these.
Regarding the sub-heading, I agree that your suggestions are "clunky", but I think this simply reflects the clunkiness of the subject matter. Any accurate heading would probably be clunky, simply because the subject matter is such a poor fit for this article. I am surprised that you overlook an alternative, however, and that alternative is to have no sub-heading at all.
(Edited to add final paragraph.) Jakew (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) When 'complications' happen a lot , they are not trivia Jake. Circumcision isn't just 'a given procedure' as you euphemistically put it. Many complications occur as a result of circumcision. You can't really compare a controversial non-consental, invasive operation like circumcision to dental hygiene. You aren't making a good point, so no, sources aren't necessary.

The intent of WP:IAR is to ignore rules when they inhibit you from improving the article. The PRweb article provided additional information. Information within the PRweb article certainly matches information given in other more reliable articles. What is more, the information added by PRWeb isn't highly contentious. The intent of WP:SPS is to insist on high-quality, reliable, objective sources. This is a noble policy, specifically on a contentious issue, and when high-quality, reliable, objective sources are available. By being difficult you are violating WP:GAME which is a guideline and seems to be policy. Tremello22 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tremello, this particular complication, and resulting lawsuit, has happened once. I'm not saying that it is unique, but to argue that it isn't trivia because it "happens a lot" needs some justification and sourcing. Specifically, one would need a source that comments on the frequency of such complications. But here's the thing: if we found such a source, then it would be far more logical to cite that source instead (and probably in the complications section rather than the legal issues section).
Regarding PRWeb, it may have provided additional information, but it is questionable whether it is encyclopaedic information. How accurate do you imagine it is? How neutral do you think it is? Suppose (as a hypothetical) that lawyers representing the other side were asked to comment on it. Do you imagine that they would praise it for its accuracy and objectivity? I don't know, but I couldn't answer "yes" to that question with any confidence.
I am not "being difficult" regarding this source. I have explained my objections to it, which are sincere, and I resent the implication otherwise. By the way, WP:GAME is a behavioural guideline, not policy. In that respect, it has the same status as WP:AGF, which - incidentally - you might want to re-read. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the points Jakew makes in this section. If such a complication is rare, it probably doesn't need to be mentioned. If it's frequent, a good source would be a peer-reviewed review article assessing how frequent such complications are. When people make mistakes, the U.S. justice system moves large amounts of money around: that doesn't necessarily say anything much about circumcision per se, even if circumcision was involved in this particular mistake.
This article is a very brief summary of all the available information about circumcision. The information has been moved [27] to the circumcision and law article; it's reasonable to have it there. Here, it isn't of comparable notability to the other information in this article.
Tremello, in the interests of keeping the subarticles up-to-date and in line with this article, I suggest that in future you add information to the sub-articles first, and then afterwards, if you think it appropriate, add the same information or a brief summary of it to this article. I encourage you to follow bold, revert, discuss rather than re-adding [28] material to which opposition has been expressed before there has been time for a good amount of discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, it isn't about the complication per se and how rare it is; it is about the massive pay out as a result of the botched circumcision. You copy Jake's weak point about it not being related to circumcision. Seems like you are clutching at straws there. You also make a point about quality of source which I have already expressed my concerns about. The point is: you go with the best source available to improve the article. Maybe next time you can read the whole discussion before commenting? Otherwise, it might seem like you are looking for reasons to remove information. I realise you and Jake both share a pro-circumcision point of view, that differs from mine, but compensation due to botched circumcision is notable and in this instance particularly notable due to the size of the payout and because it may set a legal precedent. Following bold, revert, discuss, I am willing to leave it at Jake's version because I find arguing and being pedantic over minor things tiresome. Tremello22 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I see: by "Jake's version" apparently you mean this shortened version. When I saw the shortened version, I changed my mind and decided that it seemed OK to keep the material in the article, because the shortened version doesn't take up too much space and doesn't give a lot of weight to the material. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jake and C-Twig on this one. This section should be dealing with the inherent legality of circumcision, not legal cases which involve circumcision. The analogy to the dental hygenist is spot on. Compare with the article Surgery. There are no listings there of any legal cases, even though in both absolute and relative terms, the number of lawsuits relating to surgeries far, far dwarfs those relating to circumcision. Also, the point about reliable and verifiable sources is both correct and non-negotiable. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparing it with surgery is inadequate. Maybe you would like to read the discussion again. It can't be compared to dental hygiene either. Circumcision is unique in that it is an operation performed on children without their consent and with questionable benefit. There is also a lot of opposition to it making it controversial. The alternative is no mention of what happens legally when things go wrong. This would not be right. So keeping a brief sentence is OK. Tremello22 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is solely your opinion, Tremollo, that the differentiation should lead to a different treatment of circumcision and surgery. Furthermore, there are plenty of neonatal surgeries that take place daily. I do not see a list of lawsuits on Pediatric surgery or Fetal surgery, which is obviously performed without consent on fetuses and neonates. Your differentiation conflates fact with opinion, suffers from the fallacy of Special pleading by "alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves", and is contradicted by other similar wikipedia articles. -- Avi (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Please let me make it clear that I am not implying above that you are trying to intentionally mislead the article, but that the reasoning you brought to revert my removal (which was in accord with the reasonings of others above) suffered from what I believe are logical flaws. This is a matter of debate and forensics. -- Avi (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Avi's analysis. Regarding Tremello's comment about "what happens legally when things go wrong", I would not be opposed to including a short sentence citing a reliable secondary source that makes a general comment about the legal ramifications when complications occur. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised you say you agree. I actually don't. Avi there are no logical flaws in my argument. Circumcision is unique. It cannot be compared with the examples you gave because with the examples you gave, it was a therapeutic operation. Neonatal circumcision is non-therapeutic. The child doesn't need to have it done to stay healthy. I have explained why it is a unique case so it isn't special pleasing. I agree with Jakew that it would be preferable to have a secondary source, however in the absence of that I don't see it as a big problem to include this. I think it adds to the article. It is better than nothing. Tremello22 (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cir

Sometimes these discussion pages can be as informative as the article itself. Keep up the good work!

Peter Charles Remondino, another source for history

It seems that this book, due to its age, has entered the public domain: "History of Circumcision, from the Earliest Times to the Present, by Peter Charles Remondino" 1900. Dr. Remondino seems to have been rather well respected in his day, see http://sandiegohistory.org/bio/remondino/remondino.htm. He also seems to have been a very strong proponent of circumcision, writing a 353 page treatise on its history and its benefits that is now freely accessible as public domain scanned pages online here, downloadable as a pdf, or text online here. I'm sure this could be used to flesh out the history section. A member of the American Medical Association, the city physician of San Diego, and the first president of the San Diego Board of Health should be eminently reliable. -- Avi (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your idea to 'flesh out' the history section seems at odds with other views from pro-circumcision editors that any more addition to the section would make it too long and detailed. In regards my proposed edit to this section I still stand by the view that it doesn't make the section too long. I disagree on how reliable you see Remondino. On the whole, he isn't reliable because most of what he wrote has been thoroughly debunked. Take a look at what Robert Darby has to say on him: History of circumcision: Fear of the foreskin reaches new heights of eloquence
He was writing over a century ago. Why on earth would we give his ill-informed opinions the same weight as modern authors such as Gollaher and Darby, who have the benefit of hindsight and greater medical understanding? Tremello22 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with adding material to the 'history' section, but I ought to comment briefly on your argument that "he isn't reliable because most of what he wrote has been thoroughly debunked". This argument is fundamentally flawed, because the concept of "debunking" is somewhat at odds with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, which is largely framed in terms of opposing viewpoints. To rephrase in NPOV language, you are effectively arguing: "one or more other authors disagree with much of what he wrote, therefore he isn't reliable". The trouble is, that's equivalent to saying: "one or more other authors disagree with much of what he wrote, therefore these other authors aren't reliable". The only thing that we can conclude from one source criticising another is that disagreement exists. Jakew (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That is not exactly true Jake. Many people still believe the earth is flat and there would be disagreement if our article on Earth gave that impression, however it would be OK to include a source stating a notable person or group believed the world was flat in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. The trick is to weight it accordingly. Should we present ideas like "Circumcision cures masturbation", or "Circumcision is necessary for a clean healthy penis"? They should presented as historical fact and then debunked with current scientific consensus. In the circumcision world there are two sides to every story but we must weight scientific consensus accordingly. With that in mind this article is not weighted properly and we should review our facts and ask ourselves "What does the majority of the world believe?" Garycompugeek (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross-purposes, Gary. What I'm talking about is the reliability of a given source: it is erroneous to argue that a source is unreliable because other sources disagree with it. I completely agree with you that appropriate weighting is essential, but to my mind that issue is distinct from reliability. Jakew (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I think I am saying the same thing as Gary. You don't seem to understand what Gary is saying. At the time Remondino was influenced by reflex neurosis theory - something that Lewis Sayre championed :Relex neurosis theory of disease; Frederick Hodges Sayre thought that the normal non-retractability of the foreskin was pathological. He thought the 'irritation' invoked a nervous disorder - by cutting it off, the nervous system was put right and miraculously on this basis it could cure people of paralysis and other illnesses. This is the kind of junk science that convinced Remondino to write his book. Tremello22 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Tremello, are you seriously suggesting that the influences that perhaps led Remondino to write his book have anything whatsoever to do with its reliability? If not, what is the purpose of the above? Jakew (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but people may be talking about different definitions of "reliability" here. It might help if you focus on something specific you might want to say based on the book. The book may be a good source for matters of history (facts about what happened when) and perhaps for facts about what people believed about circumcision back then, but not a good source for facts about medical benefits of circumcision, for which we would tend to prefer relatively recent sources of types described at WP:MEDRS. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Avi's original post suggested using Remondino as a source for history. I presume that Avi's intent is to use him as a secondary source for what was "history" from Remondino's own point of view, rather than using him as a primary source for his own role in history. As I said in my post of 15:49, 6 May 2009, I actually disagree with this proposal, but I am alarmed by the desire to classify a source as "unreliable" based on the fact that others may have criticised the author. Besides the obvious conflict with NPOV, this line of argument has absurd consequences — if Remondino is unreliable because Darby has criticised Remondino on his website, then by the same reasoning Darby is unreliable because Halperin and Bailis were critical of him in their BMJ review of his book (BMJ 2006;332:183). What we need to do is to recognise that, as is so often the case, multiple viewpoints exist, and while we as individuals may personally consider some to be "right" and others "wrong", as editors we have a responsibility to remain detached and objective. I am concerned to see any viewpoint dismissed as "debunked" or "junk science", because describing sources in such judgmental language is incompatible with NPOV. Jakew (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] I do not recognize The San Diego Historical Society's web site, as a reliable source to back up a claim of this person's notability. I dismiss the argument that A member of the American Medical Association, the city physician of San Diego, and the first president of the San Diego Board of Health should be eminently reliable, on the grounds that the claims made by this person are very old for the subject matter. Jakew and Coppertwig correctly oppose Avi's suggestion, but appear to have missed the point. Avi is arguing that this source (i.e., Remondino) is "eminently reliable" -- what, I ask Jakew and Coppertwig, do you think Avi is referring to? That Remondino is "eminently reliable" on what Remondino wrote? That much is obvious. No, Avi can only mean, in saying this while presenting this person's medical and political credentials, that Remondino himself is "eminently reliable" in his claims. Such a clearly non-NPOV statement doesn't only merit unanimous opposition, as we have seen here, but merits a re-examination of the mindset of the high-ranking Wikipedia officials who have charged themselves with assessing consensus in circumcision-related articles. Or, will Avi please explain this most recent grave error in judgment? Blackworm (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, once again, you let your personal zealotry interfere with what should be a basic understanding of the English language. The operative sentence, which I will quote for your benefit, is "I'm sure this could be used to flesh out the history section." Note the section referenced, not the section on benefits and/or issues, but the history. Could it possibly be that one of the more influential texts in the perception of circumcision in the United States, penned by a well-known, notable, and perhaps famous doctor, may have some bearing in the article? The issue is not to use Remondino as a source for currently accepted medical understanding, we have the statements of the medical associations for that. However, your quickness to assume once again seems to have misled you. I hope your misunderstandings have been clarified. -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"Personal zealotry?" Taking a cue from Jayjg on the personal attacks? What if I start discussing your political zealotry, Avi? Your pro-circumcision zealotry? What other zealotries do you have? Power zealotry? A zeal for acquiring positions of power? Zealotry for sternly resisting a balanced approach to the treatment of circumcision, in favour of implicitly expressing the point of view held by this ancient, fanatical Remondino, who is in your view "eminently reliable," and who demonizes the foreskin in the same way you do by resisting the use of the words "severed," "cut off" etc. to describe it, in favour of the pathological "removed?" Do you really want to talk about zealotry, Avi? Blackworm (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose² -- Avi (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And that's just the way you, Jayjg, and Jakew like it. The pro-circ way. Your way. Blackworm (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Blackworm, I see no reason to bring Avi's rank into this. It's my understanding that he's participating here as an ordinary editor. I didn't say anything about what's-his-name not being reliable; on the contrary, I said he may be a reliable source for certain things (I haven't really looked into the situation). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, you did not answer my question. As for participating as an ordinary editor, I don't believe you need to be reminded of the harsh threats of reprimands often heard from Avi here, and repeated reversions and stern, chilling warnings against changing the content -- based in an apparently singular notion of "consensus." As bureaucrats are trusted by the community to evaluate this consensus, and considering Avi's long-standing involvement with circumcision-related articles and familiarity with the material, I believe that making note of his rank in this grave error of judgment is appropriate, and not a personal attack on Avi. Would you like me to provide quotes and diffs, or do you accept that as read? Blackworm (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Remondino's book is public domain, Blackworm, and I gave three separate links to where the text may be found. I believe that it is as relevant to the history of circumcision in the US as is any other, being one of the more influential texts of its era. Whether or not it is considered scientifically relevant now is a separate issue, which is why I suggested that it go into history, as opposed to benefits/problems. Perhaps you should distance yourself from argumentum ad hominem and focus on content and not editors, which is, of course, wikipedia's policy. You seem to be very aware of wikipedia user groups, perhaps focusing on other wikipedia polices would serve you well too. -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually know quite little about the world of Wikipedia interest groups, not belonging to any and opposing special interest groups in general as a source of non-neutral POV and activism. I have no idea why you bring that up here. My focus is on policy, and as is apparent, your suggestion to quote Remondino's ancient book fails policy and is rejected here on WP:UNDUE grounds unanimously. Moreover, your statement that Remondino is "eminently reliable" remains unclear. You seem to now correctly avoid the question of whether his claims are reliable, but claim it was an influential text. If we accept it as influential, how does that make Remondino himself "eminently reliable?" Why not quote a secondary source discussing this "eminently reliable" Remondino. How about this one: ...The outcome of these developments was what I have called the demonization of the foreskin. It ceased to be a normal part of the body and became a pathogenic structure guilty of provoking a host of medical problems -- either indirectly by encouraging masturbation, or directly by disrupting the body's nervous equilibrium by its morbid sensitivity. The most extreme version of this case was made by the fanatical Dr. Peter Charles Remondino, but most doctors shared his general viewpoint.(R. Darby, in Understanding Circumcision, 2001, ISBN 0306467011, 9780306467011)
How amazing -- the demonization of the foreskin is exactly the POV this article maintains, as I've argued for months, with an apparent lock against any kind of expression that the foreskin is a part of the penis, but rather the consistent posture that we must say nothing about the foreskin except that it is "removed from the penis." Not amputated, not severed, not mutilated, and not even "cut off" as is stated in the most mundane, mainstream sources. But no, the insistence is on "removed," as one would say for a tumor, cyst, mole or parasite. That is the required context for any discussion of the foreskin in this article, due in large part to your influence on this article, Avi, and your resistence to the other terms used in reliable sources. The link with this latest, bizarre suggestion of Remondino as an "eminently reliable" source is apparent, and troubling.
My argument is not ad hominem: if you prefer, you may take my statement as another reminder for you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially the difference between reliability of sources and notability of sources. I am not "anguished" as you state in your edit summary, indeed you should perhaps be anguished by this latest failure. I doubt you will be, however -- your supporters remain unwavering. Congratulations. Blackworm (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess you are correct, my understanding of your familiarity with wikipedia must have been overinflated if you can confuse Wikipedia:User groups with interest groups. Or, it may be another indication that you prefer to respond without fully understanding to what you are responding. Oh well, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, is once again the relevant quote. Thankfully, there are other people who may share your point of view on the matter but who do not share your tendency to assume first, ask questions later, at least when they are dealing with me . -- Avi (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were referring to WikiProjects, which I consider the analogue of special interest groups in Wikipedia. Hope that clears that up. And thank you for not assuming anything, and asking me whether I properly understood or not. Oh wait, you didn't. Blackworm (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I would have said "wikiprojects" not "user groups". But your last sentence brought a smile to my face; nice to see your sense of humor every now and then . -- Avi (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have known what you meant by "user groups" either, without the wikilink. Not sure if I've seen the term used that way, but if I had, it wouldn't have been memorable; it's a pretty bland phrase, and more reminiscent of user groups on a UNIX system, where I'm more familiar with them being used in a less hierarchical fashion than here: more similar to Wikiprojects perhaps. "User groups" sounds as if it means categories of users, again more like wikiprojects. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Joy of Uncircumcising - Foreskin Restoration

Perhaps we should comment on this in the article? Seems Jake gets around. Maybe something like "Rio Cruz a PhD commenting in BMJ states a notable increase in sensitivity in 2 to 3 weeks after foreskin restoration." Garycompugeek (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, this article isn't about foreskin restoration, so it would be more appropriate to propose this addition at Talk:Foreskin restoration. Second, Cruz explicitly states that he is describing his own personal experience ("In my own case..."), and he does not extrapolate from this to other men, so we can't do so either. This is therefore a single anecdote or, to put it another way, a self-assessed case report consisting of a sample of one, and reported in a Rapid Response that lacks peer review. However "surprised and delighted" Cruz may have been, it's hard to see why discussion of Cruz' penis belongs in Wikipedia. Jakew (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly both but more meaning here. Uncircumcising is reverse circumcision and therefore related to this article. All we would be doing is quoting a letter to the editor from a peer reviewed medical news journal. The reader might find it interesting that this respected Dr. found a noticeable increase in sensitivity in 2 to 3 weeks after foreskin restoration. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think foreskin restoration is sufficiently related to circumcision that it should be mentioned in the "see also" section, which it already is. I'm not sure any more is needed.(20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)) How much space do books about circumcision usually devote to foreskin restoration? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Coppertwig. The link in the "see also" section is more than sufficient. The amount of space given in books is quite inconsistent. It seems to depend on the nature of the book: very anti-circumcision books such as those based on NOCIRC's conferences tend to promote foreskin restoration quite heavily, while Schoen's "On circumcision" mentions it not at all. Neither of these are particularly reliable sources, however. Gollaher includes about 10 pages (3% of the total) on foreskin restoration in his "Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery", but one must bear in mind that the scope of this article is much broader than just history. Jakew (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm not sure. I think we need to collect a number of books that are reliable sources, see how much space each devotes to the topic, and then decide. Thanks for providing some information. I might try to find some more later if I have time. I think you've mentioned two books you consider reliable sources; probably we should look at more books than that. Based on what you say, averaging from the two sources, we could devote about 1.5% of the article to foreskin restoration: perhaps that's about a sentence.
I was going to say that we ought to select sources impartially (i.e. not on the basis of whether they talk about foreskin restoration) and then afterwards see what they say; and I was then going to do a Google Books search for "circumcision foreskin restoration" or something, which isn't impartial like that: the reason being that I think Google Books will let me see the parts of the books that discuss that topic if I include it in the search. So, invalid in a way. Whatever. I may still do that, but don't have time right now. (Or see what's in the public library.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I've mentioned only one reliable source — Gollaher. However, as I said, the scope of that book is narrower than that of this article. The scope of Gollaher's book is the history of circumcision, and treatment of history constitutes only a fraction (a fifth, at a rough guess) of this article. Thus, rather than 3%, the source might suggest 3/5=0.6%. I think the Google Books search you mention would make it impossible to find books that do not mention foreskin restoration, so it would introduce considerable bias. Jakew (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreskin restoration seems only applicable if there is something to restore, i.e., if it has been amputated by male circumcision. Obviously the two subjects are directly related, with one only being viewed as necessary in cases where the other has been imposed (or in a minority of cases, chosen). I'm not sure about including one anecdotal view, PhD or not; but merely a "see also" without supporting text, as is the case now, seems of extremely low given weight, in an unbalanced and non-WP:NPOV way. And Jakew, if foreskin restoration is discussed in a majority of books that discuss male circumcision (as you seem to imply), then shouldn't we discuss it? Compare for example, your often heard arguments correlating the number of times HIV is mentioned alongside male circumcision -- is there a significant difference? Remember, also, that you are now seen apparently performing the calculus of weight in Wikipedia in opposition to material that carries two words and one link in the entire article, with more weight being argued as necessary by multiple editors. Does this situation not appear slightly odd, to you? Blackworm (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that foreskin restoration is discussed in the majority of books that discuss circumcision, Blackworm. I'm sorry if you got that impression. In fact, Google Books lists about 11,000 books that discuss circumcision, and 137 of these also include the phrase "foreskin restoration". So that suggests that about 1.2% of books discussing circumcision also discuss foreskin restoration. That's somewhat less than a majority. Jakew (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Jake. The result for books containing the words "circumcision" and "HIV" is 800 -- or about 5-6 times that for foreskin "restoration." We devote a considerable portion of the article to HIV, thanks to your work on the subject, and by contrast we devote one link with no discussion to foreskin "restoration." This seems out of balance, despite your attempt to argue to contrary -- unless you are willing to cut mention of HIV to the corresponding twelve words (6 * 2). While numerous books on HIV and thousands of other books will no doubt mention circumcision in passing, I doubt any recent book about male circumcision today would not discuss foreskin "restoration" unless it was the most unbalanced, propagandized pro-circumcision tract. Blackworm (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) While books can be useful as a guide to appropriate weight (and are what Coppertwig originally asked about), they aren't the only guide. We must also examine the peer-reviewed literature (indeed, this may be somewhat more reliable for current scholarship). I'm including below a table showing figures extracted from three sources (for some reason, Google Books returned 11,000 books for circumcision this morning, but is now returning 8,780. I have no idea why).

TermMethodN (%)approx HIV:FR
Foreskin restorationGoogle Books137 (1.6% of 8,780)-
HIVGoogle Books838 (9.5% of 8,780)6:1
Foreskin restorationGoogle Scholar103 (0.12% of 84,400)-
HIVGoogle Scholar13,100 (15.5% of 84,400)130:1
Foreskin restorationPubMed2 (0.046% of 4,321)-
HIVPubMed581 (13.4% of 4,321)290:1

Looking at the results, it seems that books are actually the most favourable towards foreskin restoration (for unknown reasons). Judging from other searches, it appears that for every thousand or so articles discussing circumcision, only about one will even mention foreskin restoration. The current weight therefore seems entirely appropriate. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What scholarly sources besides books are needed for discussing a self-performed procedure with apparently little or no medical ramification, no professional knowledge required, and little or no research performed or apparently viewed as required? Jake, we have to look beyond the practices of the medical professionals whose trade it is to perform the circumcisions, especially when looking at something not only directly related to, but performed as a consequence of, and often as an emphatic and angry rejection of that professional practice. I believe that situation calls for countering that inherent bias by recognizing the weight of the general, not necessarily "journal-style" peer-reviewed sources -- i.e., books about circumcision. Put differently, perhaps it's what circumcised men, rather than circumcisers with Ph.Ds, have to say about it. I realize their opinion carries less weight with you, but I believe you may be in the minority.
If you insist on continuing with a line of argument based on the numbers (which you presented in a level of quantitative detail I'm really hoping to steer discussion away from), I'll ask you specifically how you arrive at the conclusion that the "current weight therefore seems entirely appropriate." Please give me your exact weightings for each of the three types of sources in this case, and the case of HIV. Also, please tell me exactly what percentage of this article's content should derive from the medical professional trade sources. Blackworm (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It isn't appropriate to use Wikipedia to counter inherent biases, Blackworm. The appropriate amount of weight is, roughly speaking, the amount that is given in reliable sources. Some books qualify as reliable sources, others do not, but most peer-reviewed articles are reliable. Thus, it is important to consider the amount of weight given to foreskin restoration in peer-reviewed articles. Please note that I'm not saying that the books result can be completely ignored, just that it should not be the only (or even the main) guide to appropriate weight.
Regarding my conclusion, I think it is clear that relatively few sources mention foreskin restoration, and this is especially true when considering searches that may be expected to return a higher percentage of reliable sources. I haven't looked at the content of each source, but it is reasonable to assume that of the sources that do mention foreskin restoration, few will dedicate 100% of their text to discussing it, and some may only mention it briefly in passing. So the actual weight given to foreskin restoration by the sum total of sources will be less than the above figures. I don't know how much less, but I think it is important to note that these figures are upper bounds. (The same will, of course, be true of HIV.)
Currently, 380 words are dedicated to HIV out of 16417 in total (the latter will actually be a slight overestimate, as I copied & pasted the entire web page including headers, nav menus, etc into a text editor), or approximately 2.3%. That's between 15 and 25% of the HIV figures in the above table. We also dedicate 2 words to foreskin restoration, or 0.01%, which is 0.6% of the Google Books figure (which I would expect to contain the fewest reliable sources), 8.3% of the Google Scholar figure, and 22% of the PubMed figure. The Google Books figure might suggest that the amount of weight could be increased, but the latter two are about the same (relatively speaking) as HIV. Moreover, two words is a tiny amount of text, and even a short sentence would probably contain at least ten, which would (judging by the HIV comparison in Scholar and PubMed) be excessive.
I'm not going to answer your question asking what "percentage of this article's content should derive from the medical professional trade sources" (by which I presume you mean medical journals), because I think it is almost an impossible question to answer, and because it doesn't seem important to this discussion. What is important is that we use highly reliable sources to judge the appropriate amount of weight. Which sources we cite once we've determined the appropriate weight is less critical to this discussion. Jakew (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
So you figure between 15% and 25% of the HIV figures, then note 0.6%, 8,3%, and 22% (the latter being PubMed, which would naturally be biased against a non-medical procedure), and then maintain that the current weight is appropriate? That doesn't even follow, Jake. And I dispute your allegations of the unreliability of these books. Indeed the recent books on the topic of circumcision (rather than books mentioning circumcision) probably all mention it. I think your position is untenable. Blackworm (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I fear you may have misunderstood, Blackworm.
The proportion of space dedicated to HIV in this article is 2.3%. Expressed as a fraction of the figures in the literature (see the searches in the above table), that is 15-25%. Applying the same calculations to foreskin restoration, I note figures of 0.6%, 8.3%, and 22%. Unlike you I don't reject the last, as WP needs to reflect the weight in reliable sources whether or not we regard the literature as being biased. Anyway, if we consider the last two figures, they're very close to the 15-25% range, and it would be difficult to improve on this (bear in mind that with such a small number of words, the slightest change can drastically alter the figures). That leaves us with the 0.6% figure to consider, and as I mentioned, many books will not qualify as reliable sources, so I would suggest that this result is less reliable than the others (we'd also have to consider the fact that, if we addressed the 0.6% issue, we'd introduce incompatibilities with the other searches). Please note that I'm not saying that all books are unreliable, only that a certain fraction (unknown, but likely higher than that of peer-reviewed journals) will be. Jakew (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You are arguing that PubMed is relevant as a gauge for determining the relevance of foreskin restoration, a non-medical phenomenon. That's simply ridiculous. Forgive me if this is a North American expression, but your numbers are whack, Jake. By your own numbers we should be discussing this more. You've proven that one doesn't need any argument to oppose anything -- just a POV and a lot of smoke. Blackworm (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
per Blackworm: perhaps Google Scholar and PubMed aren't all that relevant here. Would you look in PubMed to find out how to weight topics within the history or religion of circumcision? One web search not listed above (I think) is an ordinary Google web search. I got: 'circumcision': 5,300,000. 'circumcision "foreskin restoration"': 134,000. 'circumcision HIV': 188,000. Fairly similar numbers for HIV as for foreskin restoration. I'm not claiming a Google web search is necessarily all that relevant either, but perhaps we can give it some consideration. At least: how about ignoring Google web, Google Scholar and PubMed, and just basing the weighting for this topic on books? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the argument against Google Scholar, exactly? Jakew (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Um ... Google Scholar is mainly peer-reviewed articles. As Blackworm pointed out above, foreskin restoration may not be a subject of research, but more of a sociological phenomenon. Peer-reviewed articles tend to be about research and stuff like that. A book about circumcision may present a well-rounded view of the subject. Articles tend to focus on one aspect of research. I don't think you'd find as many articles via Google Scholar that present the sort of overall view of the circumcision topic that this article tries to. OK, if such articles are found via Google Scholar (of similar or greater length to this one, and covering a variety of aspects e.g. history, medical, religious etc.) then they can be considered. (e.g. maybe [29] , the only general article on circumcision I found in 7 pages of Google Scholar hits) Otherwise I think it's better to base it on books. (Huh. There.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
But surely sociological phenomena are the subject of research (by sociologists)? I can understand (while not entirely agreeing with) the argument against PubMed, but I'm very uncomfortable with an argument that seems (as I understand it) to be "oh, this is a special phenomenon that exists outside of ordinary scholarly research, so we need to make a special exception for it". Wikipedia is supposed to reflect scholarly work (which is a bias, but one that we've chosen to have), so saying that X hasn't received scholarly attention seems to me to be an argument that we shouldn't either. In this case, judging by Google Scholar, a very small proportion of scholarly work on circumcision has considered foreskin restoration. Judging by Google Books, the proportion is somewhat higher, but as I pointed out above, a smaller proportion of those will be reliable sources (the proportion for plain Google will be even smaller, of course). Jakew (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Remember, Jakew's position is that foreskin restoration, a topic that has its own Wikipedia article, a topic that only exists because of male circumcision, should not be mentioned at all in this article ("frankly any mention of foreskin restoration is undue weight"[30]), despite having almost as many Google mentions as circumcision and HIV, which Jakew has worked hard to treat at great length. It's plainly ridiculous, and clear evidence of Jakew's unbalanced vision of due weight that has formed the basis for this article (with the power and force of administrators User:Jayjg and User:Avraham consistently and unanimously insisting on the implementation of Jakew's vision). Blackworm (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Jakew's point is basically good, and Jakew's opinion that foreskin restoration "should not be mentioned at all" seems to be based on that analysis of the Google hits etc., not on any preconceived "bias". Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on things people think up and post on the web. It's not supposed to be based on non-peer-reviewed research, self-published individual opinions of people not generally recognized as experts, and things like that. " Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. ... Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." (WP:RS). So it's supposed to be based (at least primarily) on academic stuff and "reputable mainstream" stuff. Also, we're not really supposed to base decisions on numbers of Google hits without examining the hits to see what they're about. (I think I read that in a policy or guideline recently but can't find it now.) Jakew makes a good point that some of the Google Books hits will be books of the type that wouldn't be good "reliable sources" for this article: non-academic-type books, self-help books, etc.
I'm not sure whether I quite agree that the topic shouldn't be mentioned at all, but I think Jakew's method of reasoning is sound. Let's look at good-quality reliable sources, not just numbers of Google hits.
I did a search in Google Books for "Circumcision" and looked at the first few hits, searching for the type of book we would consider reliable sources for this article.
  • First hit: Gollaher (pp. 176 to 185 section on foreskin restoration) [31] Circumcision: a history of the world's most controversial surgery By David Gollaher Edition: illustrated Published by Basic Books, 2001 ISBN 0465026532, 9780465026531 272 pages (Seems to be an academic publisher based on the Wikipedia article, therefore a reliable source I guess)
  • Second hit: Morris. No mention of foreskin restoration or decircumcision found via Google Books searches. [32] In Favour of Circumcision By Brian J. Morris Edition: illustrated Published by UNSW Press, 1999 ISBN 086840537X, 9780868405377 104 pages (A university press, therefore counts as a reliable source I think)
  • Selected other hits: (leaving out those with titles that don't sound academic; this could introduce bias) ...
  • mentions "foreskin restoration" at least in the title of a citation [33] Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice By George C. Denniston, Frederick Mansfield Hodges, Marilyn Fayre Milos Edition: illustrated Published by Springer, 1999 ISBN 0306461315, 9780306461316 547 pages (I think Springer is an academic publisher; maybe it means Springer Science+Business Media.)
  • apparently does not mention foreskin restoration: [34] Circumcision: A Medical Dictionary, Bibliography, and Annotated Research Guide to Internet References By Philip M. Parker, James N. Parker, Inc NetLibrary Published by NetLibrary, Incorporated, 2003 ISBN 0585494258, 9780585494258 (Sounds academic from the title, but don't know anything about the publisher)
OK, suppose Gollaher, Morris and Denniston are all the reliable sources found. Gollaher has 10 pages out of 272, (3.7%); Morris seems to have no mention; Denniston may have only a brief mention. Averaging gives about 1.2%. So if this article has about 300 lines of text, then maybe it's appropriate to have about 3 or 4 lines about foreskin restoration. Or less, if we put some weight on peer-reviewed literature rather than just on books, and possibly little or none if we take the median rather than the arithmetic mean, or otherwise avoid putting too much weight on the fact that just one of the books gives the topic an extensive section; I make this last point to show that Jakew's reasoning doesn't seem unreasonable to me, though I wouldn't follow that approach. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If I could point this out- the problem with using just academic resources as a way of figuring out if something should be included, is somewhat problematic, and here's why; in terms of anthropology or Sociology, the anthropologist or sociologist typically goes out and does research in areas that interest them, the problem with this method is that many areas of study can be ignored all together. For example, it took Anthropology a long time before they started doing in depth studies of their native culture, or subcultures (such as Prostitution, or looking at Baseball). I don't doubt that their is a great deal more adamdemic papers on HIV and Circumcision, because that's something a great many doctors and researches would be looking at right now, comparatively, their maybe very little or none 'research' into FR, because it's not really a topic of medical science, and it may not have caught the eye of anthropologists, etc, yet.
That being said, we're discussing if it should be mentioned in the article, and I think it should be, and I think it's rather strange to suggest that mentioning it at all would give the article undue weight. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 18:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Without anesthetic

I suggest the following changes in the "Pain and pain relief during circumcision" section. (Material to be deleted struck out; material to be added in italics.)

Stang, 1998, found 45% of physicians responding to a survey who circumcise used anaesthesia – most commonly a dorsal penile nerve block – for infant circumcisions. The obstetricians in the sample used anaesthesia less often (25%) than the family practitioners (56%) or pediatricians (71%).[3] Howard et al. (1998) surveyed US medical doctor residency programs and directors, and found that 26% of the programs that taught the circumcision procedure "failed to provide instruction in anesthesia/analgesia for the procedure." and recommended that "residency training in neonatal circumcision should include instruction in pain relief techniques."[4] A 2006 follow-up study revealed that the percentage of programs that taught circumcision and also taught administration of topical or local anesthetic had increased to 97%.[5] However, the authors of the follow-up study also noted that only 84% of these programs used anesthetic "frequently or always" when the procedure was conducted.[5]
J.M. Glass, 1999, stated that Jewish ritual circumcision is so quick that "most mohelim do not routinely use any anaesthesia as they feel there is probably no need in the neonate. However, there is no Talmudic objection and should the parents wish for local anaesthetic cream to be applied there is no reason why this cannot be done." Glass also stated that for older children and adults, a penile block is used.[6] Other researchers claim that because traditional Jewish bris is rapid and does not rely on clamps or ligature for hemostasis, it is less painful than other circumcision techniques, and that the pain of an analgesic injection would actually cause more distress than the procedure itself.[7]

Rationale: I did Google Scholar searches for "circumcision pain", "circumcision painless" and "circumcision hurt" and kindof looked over the first few pages of hits for each search. I found many articles mentioning anesthetics, some discussing the pain of circumcision, and two describing surveys of doctors which each found a certain percentage of doctors that did circumcision without anesthetic and each recommended more education of doctors about use of pain relief during circumcision. I didn't find any articles presenting the POV that circumcision without anesthetic is painless or that no anesthetic is needed. I therefore conclude that the paragraph with the quote of Glass gives too much weight to that POV.

I was confused: I thought Glass was a letter to the editor. I propose deleting the Shechet quote, because it is only a letter to the editor, it presents a very similar POV to the Glass quote, and because quoting both gives in total too much weight to the POV.

Including Glass' mention of penile blocks better represents Glass' POV about pain relief and helps adjust the weight balance.

Previously I've argued engines such as Google Scholar, being more medically oriented, may not adequately represent the anti-circumcision POV; here it's the other way around so the argument doesn't apply.

Since all three of the articles I've seen about surveys of doctors recommend, in their conclusions sections, education of doctors about use of pain relief for circumcision, I suggest that we include a statement to that effect (as I've indicated above). (I'm able to see two of the three references which are available online, and also this one that I found in my search: [35] PEDIATRICS Vol. 92 No. 4 October 1993, pp. 541-543 Attitudes and Practices Regarding Analgesia for Newborn Circumcision Nancy Wellington MD1 and Michael J. Rieder MD, PhD1 which says "Educational efforts and research into less invasive techniques of analgesia for newborn circumcision are urgently required;" from context it's apparent that it means education of doctors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

These proposals look quite reasonable to me. Regarding training of doctors, I'd also note that the AMA's 1st recommendation was "The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision." Jakew (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-routine circumcision

I'm somewhat surprised that this article seems to focus only on routine neonatal circumcision. What about non-routine circumcision? I understand it to be the case that circumcision is performed in some cases to relieve conditions of the foreskin, such as phimosis. Unfortunately my knowledge ends about there! Does anyone know more about this? Could information be added to the article? Or is it staring me in the face? garik (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase you're looking for is "therapeutic circumcision", and yes, we probably ought to say something about it. As well as phimosis, recurrent balanoposthitis is another common reason for therapeutic circumcision. There is brief mention of these in Circumcision#Hygiene, and infectious and chronic conditions, but perhaps too brief. The main difficulty with discussing therapeutic circumcisions in the article is that relatively few sources actually discuss that issue. To summarise those that do, they basically say that a) circumcision is sometimes used to treat these conditions, and b) some people think that it is used too often in treating these conditions. Jakew (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought I must have missed something. Thanks! Though I also can't help feeling this should be mentioned briefly in the lead. I think that as it stands, a reader of the lead as it stands might suppose that all circumcision was performed for cultural reasons, or routinely as a prophylactic. In much of Europe, on the other hand, I'd imagine that a very large proportion of (quite possibly most) circumcised men were circumcised for neither of these reasons, but as treatment for a specific condition. So the lead seems odd. Or maybe it's not odd so much for not mentioning this, but for not really mentioning much at all why circumcision is performed. Perhaps a sentence could be included saying something like: "This may be done for cultural or medical reasons. In the latter case, it may be intended either to treat a specific medical condition or as a prophylactic. In all three cases, there is controversy surrounding its use." How does that sound? garik (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me we should be careful with the phrase "non-routine circumcision," which would seem to include adult cosmetic male circumcision, and also labiaplasty. These seem to be the non-controversial exceptions to controversial circumcision, which should be noted. Blackworm (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about sourcing, particularly regarding the proposed statements of what is and what isn't controversial. This is already a problem in the lead (the assertion of controversy is unsourced) and I don't want to make the problem worse by making more specific claims. Can reliable sources be found? Jakew (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
So I agree with Blackworm that "non-routine circumcision" is probably an unhelpful term, though I'm surprised he considers adult cosemtic circumcision and labioplasty to be non-controversial; I was under the impression (though I have no sources to cite) that all cosmetic surgery was controversial except when performed to treat medical conditions, or to repair the effects of disease, accidents and so on. Though I suppose there are numerous grey areas. In any case, my suggestion of saying that all three cases were controversial was based on sources already in the article (which suggest that all neonatal circumcision is controversial when not performed to treat existing medical conditions) and Jakew's statement that, according to sources, some poeple think therapeutic circumcision is performed too often. But I suppose adult non-therapeutic circumcision isn't covered by all that; as I said, I'd be surprised if this wasn't controversial (as I understand it, all "unnecessary" surgery is controversial), but I don't know what sources are out there (which is why I haven't gone ahead and been bold here!). In any case, is there broad agreement that the lead should say something briefly about why foreskins are removed? garik (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes we try to be balanced and give brief pros and cons. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that quite answers my question. Surely it's true about editing Wikipedia in general that we should try to be balanced. But are people in agreement that the lead should contain something like the following?:
"Circumcision is carried out for a variety of reasons; its purpose can be medical (either therapeutic or prophylactic), cultural, or cosmetic. In all cases, there is controversy surrounding the practice."
The second sentence would replace the "There is controversy surrounding circumcision" sentence currently in the lead. Including the claim that circumcision is controversial in all cases would mean including sources for therapeutic circumcision being controversial — I don't have such a source, but I believe Jakew suggested there were some — and for cosmetic circumcision being controversial; if there's no source that says that (which would surprise me), then we'd have to say something like: "except in the case of cosmetic cicrumcision..." In any case, the relative controversialness isn't my main point. My main point is that the article currently reads almost as if all circumcision were carried out routinely on neonates. garik (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
See this discussion above: Talk:Circumcision#Structure_of_article
I did propose a change in structure to accommodate the fact that routine infant circumcision (non-therapeutic circumcision) was only common in the USA. You are right - in Europe, South America, Asia etc, it really is only done for therapeutic reasons. See this map for a rough guideline: Incidence and Distribution of Circumcision by circumstitions.com It seems to me if we are not to fall foul of this guideline:Wikipedia:WORLDVIEW, we should make the difference clear to the lay reader who may not realise this. Here is the structure I proposed previously: Version proposed on 19 April Tremello22 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual effects of circumcision

This section is horrible. It doesn't flow at all and is chronologically all over the place. I have reordered it chronologically but suggest the entire section should be rewritten. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it could use some improvement, though I think this will be difficult due to the nature of the available sources (there are relatively few secondary sources, and the primary sources are generally inconsistent). I'm not sure that it makes sense for that section to be in chronological order — sorting by POV is perhaps a better organising principle — though I suppose it doesn't do any harm. I think it might be difficult to reach consensus on a complete rewrite; it might be easier to suggest and agree upon incremental improvements instead. Jakew (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with 'Ethical issues' section

Opponents of circumcision question the ethical validity of removing healthy, functioning genital tissue from a minor, arguing that infant circumcision infringes upon individual autonomy and represents a human rights violation.[8][9][10] Proponents of circumcision argue that circumcision prevents infections and slows down the spread of AIDS.[11]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference darby2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Gollaher1994 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Stang, Howard J. (1998). "Circumcision Practice Patterns in the United States" (PDF). Pediatrics. 101 (6): e5–. doi:10.1542/peds.101.6.e5. ISSN 1098-4275. Retrieved 2006-06-29. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  4. ^ Howard, C.R. (1998). "Neonatal Circumcision and Pain Relief: Current Training Practices". Pediatrics. 101 (3): 423–428. doi:10.1542/peds.101.3.423. Retrieved 2008-06-19. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ a b Yawman, D. (2006). "Pain relief for neonatal circumcision: a follow-up of residency training practices". Ambulatory Pediatrics. 6 (4): 210–214. doi:10.1016/j.ambp.2006.04.008. PMID 16843252. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference GlassJM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Shechet, Jacob (2000). "Circumcision—The Debates Goes On (letter)" (PDF). Pediatrics. 105 (3): 682–683. doi:10.1542/peds.105.3.681. PMID 10733391. Retrieved 2007-04-06. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Somerville, Margaret (2000). "Altering Baby Boys' Bodies: The Ethics of Infant Male Circumcision". The ethical canary: science, society, and the human spirit. New York, NY: Viking Penguin Canada. pp. 202–219. ISBN 0670893021. LCCN 2001369341. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Van Howe, R.S. (1999). "Involuntary circumcision: the legal issues" (PDF). BJU International. 83 (Supp1): 63–73. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1063.x. PMID 10349416. Retrieved 2007-02-12. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. ^ Tanne, Janice Hopkins (2005). "US group lobbies UN to outlaw male circumcision". British Medical Journal (331(7514)): 422. PMC1188135. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ Auvert, B. (2005). "Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial" (PDF). PLoS Medicine. 2 (11): 1112–1122. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298. PMID 16231970. There were 20 HIV infections (incidence rate = 0.85 per 100 person-years) in the intervention group and 49 (2.1 per 100 person-years) in the control group, corresponding to an RR of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24%-0.68%; p < 0.001). This RR corresponds to a protection of 60% (95% CI: 32%-76%). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Problems:

1)The subtitle 'ethical issues' is ambiguous because it doesn't make it clear that we are talking about infant/childhood circumcision.

2)The Proponents viewpoint references Auvert et al's South African randomised control trial. Why? I don't know. This reference isn't adequate because it was men that were circumcised, not children; therefore, they gave their consent. Tremello22 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your right they are apples and oranges and do not connect in a parallel fashion. How bout adding "of neonatal circumcision" to the section title and a source that actually makes sense? Garycompugeek (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you're both assuming that the scope of this section is narrower than it actually is. The "ethical issues" section is not limited to neonatal circumcision, nor that of infants and children, but is instead about ethical issues associated with circumcision in general. This should be obvious from two sentences in the "consent" subsection that are clearly about older patients: "...must ensure that men and young boys..." "...competent children may decide for themselves..." Jakew (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the section is talking about neonatal circumcision. The only sentence I could find in the entire section that is not about neonatal is "UNAIDS states that "[m]ale circumcision is a voluntary surgical procedure and health care providers must ensure that men and young boys are given all the necessary information to enable them to make free and informed choices either for or against getting circumcised." the one you quoted. Do you believe that because of this one source we should not change anything? Wouldn't it be better to remove or relocate it and rename the sections to clear ambiguity? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Gary, in my post immediately above I quoted part of another sentence: "...competent children may decide for themselves...". Surely you would agree that even the most remarkable neonate is unlikely to do that, and therefore that this sentence is therefore clearly about older children? Jakew (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok Jake that's two sources and two sentences, and by the way I was unable to verify that sources link, it appears to be dead and should be removed, which brings us back down to one source, but not withstanding all of this do you not agree the majority talks about neonatal? You are harping about a sentence or two. Tremello and I are talking about the entire section. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well spotted, Gary. It looks like the BMA relocated their policy statement: I've located the new URL and have fixed it in the article.
I would think it fairly obvious from these sentences that the section in which they are to be found is not exclusively about neonatal circumcision. If I count correctly, the section includes 15 sentences in total. Four of these (the last paragraph of the "consent" subsection and the "acknowledgment of pain" subsection) seem to be clearly and unambiguously about neonatal circumcision. Six (the first two paragraphs of "consent") seem not be exclusively about neonatal circumcision, but also discuss circumcision of adults or older children. The remainder of the section does not specify whether it is limited to neonatal circumcision or not. Jakew (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
So your saying this section is very ambiguous and deals circumcision at any age. That is the problem. Let's clarify it. We say the main article is 'Bioethics of neonatal circumcision' then go on to ambiguity. How bout either separate distinctive sections that segregate neonatal circumcision from everything else, or cull the non neonatal ambiguous parts. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I see the source of confusion. In January, the main article was renamed from "bioethics of neonatal circumcision" to "ethics of circumcision" (see discussion), but it appears that we never updated the link from this article. That was probably an oversight on my part, I fear. Fixed.
I'm not saying that the section is "very ambiguous"; I'm saying that it's about the ethics of circumcision. I'm afraid I don't see why that is a problem. There's no reason why we must divide coverage of the ethics of circumcision into a) those performed neonatally vs those which are not, b) those performed for religious reasons vs those which are not, c) those performed on Tuesdays vs those which are not, etc. I think that if every source (or even most sources) made a sharp distinction between ethics of neonatal circumcision and ethics of non-neonatal circumcision, then there would be a good case for us to do the same. However, I don't think that's the case. Jakew (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Your right Jake, we do not have to segregate based on neonatal, however that is where most of the ethics criticism comes from. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Just addressing point 2. Maybe you have not 'got' what I am getting at. The reference is not related to what is actually said. It says - Proponents of circumcision argue that circumcision prevents infections and slows down the spread of AIDS. The reference does not say that. Tremello22 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure Tremello I get that. Jake and I were discussing point one. Jake, how bout a legitimate source for that statement. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
How about reusing ref 10 (Schoen)? Jakew (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that — here's a much better choice: Mandatory neonatal male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa: medical and ethical analysis. (PMID 18049444) Jakew (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You haven't actually That is problematic. Ideally you would want one that references neonatal circumcision in the USA or another developed country. Why? Because maybe in a country with dramatically lower HIV rates the ethical view would be different. Tremello22 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. Can you try again? Jakew (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure. 1) This is the ethical issues section. Although it it is true that proponents argue it slows down the spread of AIDS - this isn't used as an argument for it's ethical validity in the reference.
2) The ethical view would vary depend on the AIDS rate because if the rate was very low then the argument for circumcising to prevent AIDS wouldn't be as strong. Tremello22 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Re (1), it makes a similar argument, and it would not be difficult to alter the sentence in the article so that it reflected the arguments made by Clark et al in their paper.
Re (2) I don't dispute that the background level of HIV might affect an author's view of the ethics, but I don't see why this is an argument against including this paper. You seem to be arguing that we should favour articles that discuss circumcision in a developed country because then people might adopt a more "anti-circumcision" (for the want of a better term) position. But what you haven't explained is why a more "anti-circumcision" paper is preferable in the first place. Jakew (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
3) It is not clear why you have singled out AIDS prevention. Logically it would make sense if we were to just include one argument from the proponents side we would include the number one reason people circumcise in the USA. Why the USA ? Because that is the number one place medical circumcisions are performed. So how have you concluded AIDS prevention is the number one reason people perform circumcision in the USA? Something else to think about. The circumcision type most often performed is Muslim. So it would make even more sense to include "for religious reasons" or something similar as the single reason for the proponents side. Tremello22 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. The first is: what reasons are commonly given by those who actively promote circumcision? The second is: for what reasons do circumcisions commonly occur? The former is an argument for circumcision, whereas the latter is just a description of why circumcision happens. What we're actually looking for is an argument for circumcision (since we've discussed anti-circumcision arguments in the previous sentence). But not just any argument: since this is the 'ethical issues' section, we want an ethical argument, that is, one made in the context of a discussion of the ethics. Jakew (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Re (1) - I'd like to see what your alteration looks like then.
But not just any argument: since this is the 'ethical issues' section, we want an ethical argument, that is, one made in the context of a discussion of the ethics. The context is dependent on the place - i.e. a developing country like Africa where the AIDS rate is high or the USA where the AIDS rate is lower and the transmission isn't largely sexual and therefore not as affected by circumcision. If your reference is referring to Africa, you must say so when referencing it. Tremello22 (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No response? Part of the problem is that you (or whoever wrote it) have framed it as an opponents vs. advocates situation. I don't think this is the right way to set things out. By assigning equal weight (opponents say this.. advocates say that) it makes it seem like wikipedia is asserting that each side's argument is equal. Now it may be or it may not be. There is no reason we have to find out the answer to this question anyway if we set things out differently. The easiest solution is to frame it in a non-adversarial way. Tremello22 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Used Rennie reference in relation to HIV:[36]. It is basically a summary of the HIV section here: Ethics_of_circumcision#Circumcision_to_reduce_the_risk_of_HIV_infection. Tremello22 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to including Rennie, but "controversial" is a somewhat negative statement. The first two sentences are already discussing anti-circumcision viewpoints, so it is necessary to balance them. I've therefore added an initial draft sentence citing Clark. Jakew (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I would argue the first 2 sentences are not simply "anti-circumcision viewpoints". Most people have ethical problems with removing healthy, functioning genital tissue from someone without their consent. Hence trying to counter this is futile.
Re, "controversial" it may or may not be a negative word but that is the word Rennie uses. We can use "dispute" if you like. It is a minor issue to me. The problem with your edit is again you are using a specific measure (for Africans) to counter a universal statement, therefore "However" is inappropriate.
I have already explained that there is also controversy around using circumcision to prevent HIV in Africa. That is the reason I used Rennie to summarise both viewpoints on this specific issue. I am basically paraphrasing Rennie in order to summarise this section: Ethics_of_circumcision#Circumcision_to_reduce_the_risk_of_HIV_infection.
Re: this version: Rennie notes that using circumcision as a way of preventing HIV in high prevalence, low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is controversial, but argue that "it would be unethical to not seriously consider one of the most promising [...] new approaches to HIV-prevention in the 25-year history of the epidemic". This is not good enough because on the HIV issue specifically it gives too much weight to the advocates point of view. Also, it is very odd that you would quote someone on this issue (giving him extra weight) when you know others disagree with him. Tremello22 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Tremello, it is difficult to see how else the viewpoints in these sentences could be described. You haven't supplied a source in support of your assertion that "most people" would agree with this viewpoint, but whether or not you can supply such a source, it is incorrect to argue that it cannot be countered. For example, Benatar and Benatar have addressed the view in the first sentence, arguing (among other points) that "not every surgical procedure, even one that removes healthy tissue, can be assumed to be injurious. That a surgical procedure is harmful is something that must be demonstrated rather than merely asserted." (Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48). They are certainly viewpoints, and the viewpoints described are those that are opposed to neonatal circumcision. That's fine, but they cannot be the only viewpoints that are represented.
Re the word "controversial", it's true that Rennie et al. use this word, but that isn't really the point. Regardless of whether one uses the word "controversial", "disputed", or something similar, the problem still remains. We cannot clearly and unambiguously describe a selection of arguments that circumcision is unethical and then gloss over arguments that circumcision is an ethical imperative with vague references to a controversy. That kind of uneven treatment of sources is incompatible with WP:NPOV.
After your initial edit deleted the only positive statement about circumcision, it became necessary to restore NPOV. Since you reverted my addition of Clark et al. (for reasons which are unclear), I decided instead to expand coverage of Rennie in order to achieve balance (it is fairly minimal, though, in contrast to the three anti-circumcision arguments already present in the section). Personally I think that the Clark addition is much stronger — which do you have the smallest objection to? Jakew (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by NPOV. Some things aren't 50/50. On certain issues within the debate one side has more of a case than another. So it seems to me you are trying to artificially create a 50/50 situation - either by restricting additional arguments from the opposition side or giving more weight to the fewer arguments on the advocates side. There is not only opposition to removing a healthy body part in all cases of circumcision - but specifically on the HIV issue, there is opposition there to. See the replies to Rennie article, particularly one by Van Howe: Muddled thinking and unsubstantiated assumptions, Van Howe(reply to Rennie) Tremello22 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In cases where it's obvious that there is a majority viewpoint and a minority viewpoint, the article needs to reflect this imbalance. However, if viewpoints are similarly balanced, or if it is not possible to determine whether there is a difference, we need to give similar weight. In this case, it's not all that clear that there is a dominant view, and what little evidence there is suggests that the viewpoint that circumcision is unethical may actually be a minority position (consider, for example, Fox and Thomson's reference to "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway..."). So there seems to be no justification for giving this viewpoint most of the weight.
Regarding HIV, I know that some people disagree with Rennie's position re HIV. Similarly, as I've quoted above, Benatar and Benatar have questioned the argument against "removing healthy, functioning genital tissue from a minor". Realistically, I think that we'll probably find that for almost any ethical argument, it will be possible to find disagreement. Jakew (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

3) Another problem: Some argue that the medical problems that have their risk reduced by circumcision are already rare, can be avoided, and, if they occur, can usually be treated in less invasive ways than circumcision. This is asserted as fact. Many disagree that circumcision reduces the risk of certain diseases. Studies back this up. There is also criticism of studies that do show a circumcision has a prophylactic effect. Tremello22 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

4) Another problem: "it is far from obvious that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure," and that "it is far from clear that non-circumcision leaves open a future person’s options in every regard." is this giving too much weight? others argure that it is obvious circumcision reduces sexual pleasure Tremello22 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

They're views that form part of an ethical argument. Similarly, there are other statements in the same section that others would disagree with. For example, "Denniston states that circumcision is harmful..." is obviously a controversial statement: many authors have argued that it is beneficial. Also, "...medical problems that have their risk reduced by circumcision are already rare..." is similarly controversial. It's important to explain these views as neutrally as we can, but we also have to remember that the section is fundamentally about ethical viewpoints, not whether circumcision reduces or increases sexual pleasure, whether circumcision is harmful or beneficial, whether problems are common or rare, etc. Jakew (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Small point: while this edit correctly fixes an inconsistency in the grammar, there are in fact multiple authors to Rennie's paper, so I would suggest instead changing the sentence to read "Rennie et al. note..." Jakew (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tremello, you said "3) Another problem: Some argue ... This is asserted as fact." I'm sorry: I don't understand. What do you see as the problem? Do you think it's not a fact that some people make those arguments? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 22, the following link was added to the "Circumcision promotion" subsection of "External links":

This disrupted the numerical balance between pro and con sources. Therefore, I have removed the link. Thanks, AlphaEta 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, AlphaEta. Jakew (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In regards to balance, I don't think we need to be that strict over having the same amount: opposition and promotion. A lot of informative sites could be added - especially to the opposition - such as sexasnatureintendedit.com and circumstitions.com It just so happens that there are more opposition sites than there are promotion sites. Circumstitions.com in particular, seems to be more active and updated more often than other sites; it should definitely be added.
Another thing,
Advocacy:
* Benefits of circumcision: medical, health and sexual by Professor Brian Morris
* Circumcision: a lifetime of medical benefits by Edgar Schoen, BSc., M.D.
* Bris Milah: Beautiful or Barbaric by Rabbi Shraga Simmons
Opposition:
* The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages by Geoffrey T. Falk
* Doctors Opposing Circumcision presided by George C. Denniston, MD, MPH
* National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers by Marilyn Milos, RN
As can be seen from above, there is a difference in the way the 2 sides have been presented. The opposition links are indicated by the name of the organisation/website, but the promotion links have descriptions along the lines of "circumcision is really great". I vote that it should just be the name of the website to make it more neutral. Tremello22 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The number has been an issue for years; we have settled on this balance, and I for one would strongly counsel against upsetting the balance which has acheived consensus.

Regarding your second point, the proper title should be the NAME of the webpage. If we are linking to an article, it is the name of the article. If we are linking to the index page of a website, we use the name of the website, because saying "Index" or "Home Page"is uninformative. The three opposition sites are links to the home pages of those sites; so the name of the entire site is the appropriate moniker. I agree that the first two of the three promotional sites are home pages as well, and if the name listed is not the name of the website, should have their names changed, but the third is an article, not the home page of a site, and should remain as it is. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the links you see the following:

  • The proper name of circs.org is "The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages"
  • The proper name of doctorsopposingcircumcision.org is "Doctors Opposing Circumcision"
  • The proper name of nocirc.org is "National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers"
  • The proper name of medicirc.org is "Circumcision: a lifetime of medical benefits"
  • The proper name of circinfo.net is "Male Circumcision Guide for Doctors, Parents, Adults, & Teens"
  • The proper name of "http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/Bris_Milah_Beautiful_or_Barbaric$.asp" (an article not a website) is "Bris Milah Beautiful or Barbaric"

So outside of Circinfo, they are all correct already. I will fix circinfo. We cannot control HOW people or organizations name their websites, we can only abide by it. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There are differences between the pro-circ links and the anti-circ links.
The pro-circ links: 2 are websites from pro-circ campaigners. the names of the websites aren't acronyms. 1 is a single article on bris.
The anti-circ links: 1 is a website, presumably set up by an anti-circ campaigner (cirp.org). This is an acronym - so in this instance it makes sense to give it it's full title:The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages. The other 2 are organisations - so these aren't just individuals. It seems common sense to state the names of these organisations.
In regards how to describe medicirc.org and circinfo.net , if we were to follow the same reasoning as above, we would label them Brian Morris's website and Edgar Schoen's website.
To be as neutral as possible, a better suggestion is, just use the name of the website - circinfo.net and medicirc.org. I am in agreement that the Bris article should be left as it is, with the title of the article - to distinguish that it is only an article.
We have settled on this balance, and I for one would strongly counsel against upsetting the balance which has achieved consensus. Who is We? And show me where consensus was achieved. NPOV isn't about 50/50, it is about reflecting real-world opinion. The fact is, there are more anti-circumcision sites than there are pro-circumcision sites. If we are going on quality of site (which is what this should be about) then Schoen's site would be first up for removal. The most important thing is to make the article as informative as possible - that includes links to informative websites; WP:IGNORE all rules seems to apply here. Another site that hasn't been added is historyofcircumcision.net. That isn't a anti-circumcision site but a history of circumcision site - no doubt you would come up with spurious reasons for this site's removal too? Tremello22 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view, Tremello. Jakew (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have read that before Jake. Can you give me more detail on how this applies to this particular situation? Notice the word overwhelm and nor give undue weight to minority views. Pointing to a rule without giving due explanation comes across as rude. I don't think you have added anything to this discussion. How about you review what I wrote and address my points instead of pointing to a rule as if that is sufficient enough to dismiss everything I have said. Tremello22 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It states: "the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view". Ensuring that the number of "pro" and "anti" links are equal is the safest way to ensure that the links dedicated to one do not overwhelm those dedicated to the other. Jakew (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you envision by the word 'overwhelm'? I don't see the addition of 2 more links to informative websites will infringe upon this rule. To me it isn't a reflection of favouring one side, it is just a reflection that there are more informative opposition sites than there are circumcision advocacy sites. For instance, I think sexasnatureintendedit.com is particularly good at presenting the opposition's view on the sexual effects of circumcision. The good thing about Circumstitions.com is that it is updated fairly frequently with news ;another thing is that This site differs from others opposed to genital mutilation - its focus is on intactness, rather than on circumcision. Tremello22 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you proposing to replace existing links with these, or do you propose to add them to the existing links? If the latter, it would cause the number of anti-circumcision links to be almost twice the number of pro-circumcision links, which I think meets any reasonable definition of 'overwhelm'. If the former, which links do you propose to delete? Jakew (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No I am not suggesting we replace any links. I don't see it as a big problem - 5 to 3. But there are other perfectly good sites if you want to balance it out: http://www.circinfo.com/, http://www.circlist.com/, http://www.circs.org/. I'd favour circs.org (as it it is similar to cirp); and circlist, in that it concentrates more on the sexual side. Tremello22 (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There are differences between the pro-circ links and the anti-circ links.
The pro-circ links: 2 are websites from pro-circ campaigners. the names of the websites aren't acronyms. 1 is a single article on bris.
The anti-circ links: 1 is a website, presumably set up by an anti-circ campaigner (cirp.org). This is an acronym - so in this instance it makes sense to give it it's full title:The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages. The other 2 are organisations - so these aren't just individuals. It seems common sense to state the names of these organisations.
In regards how to describe medicirc.org and circinfo.net , if we were to follow the same reasoning as above, we would label them Brian Morris's website and Edgar Schoen's website.
To be as neutral as possible, a better suggestion is, just use the name of the website - circinfo.net and medicirc.org. I am in agreement that the Bris article should be left as it is, with the title of the article - to distinguish that it is only an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremello22 (talk • contribs)
Tremello, it doesn't really matter whether domain names are acronyms or not: that's a poor basis for deciding whether to use the title or not.
When people create websites, they choose titles. Falk chose to call his website "The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages". Schoen chose to call his website "Circumcision: a lifetime of medical benefits". It's not essential for us to use the titles directly. We could include them in quotation marks, or we could — if you insist — use just the domain names. But whatever we do, we need to ensure that we respect WP:NPOV, and that means being consistent in the way that sites are described. Using descriptive titles for the opposition links and plain domain names for the promotion links is highly inconsistent, introducing subtle bias. Jakew (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Jake, a distinction should be made between opposition groups as opposed to singular individuals and their websites. This is a way of highlighting that. Please assume good faith and realise I am being consistent. Notice I didn't add : 'The Intactivism pages' for circumstitions.com or 'The pleasures of uncircumcised sex' for sexasnatureintendedit.com . If you are specifically referring to Falk's circumcision and information resource pages - for the sake of argument I would change it to cirp.org in line with the other websites. But I still think that the full names of the opposition groups should be presented. Tremello22 (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If a site claims to represent an organisation, that is usually apparent from their chosen name, so including the full title of every site ensures that the reader can make that distinction. Alternatively, domain names include relatively little information about a site, but consistently supplying little information is probably better than doing so selectively. I'm not suggesting that you're acting in bad faith, or that the inconsistency is intentional, but it cannot be denied that in your preferred version 60% of the opposition links are given titles, compared with only 20% of the promotion links. There may be a consistent basis for that, but it certainly seems inconsistent, hence the NPOV problem. Jakew (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Boyle et al

I haven't done a literature search etc., but I support this edit, which shortens the mention of Boyle et al. I think the Boyle et al study is a primary source and as such should not be given too much weight. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this edit, which restores valuable context, and has appropriate weight given that "it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks." (British Medical Association) Blackworm (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The edit I support was changed by User:Jakew, who states, "the addition does indeed give undue weight to a minority viewpoint, one that is already over-represented within the article. The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept..."[37] -- in contradiction to the British Medical Association, which states, "...it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."[38] Blackworm (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The same site says "The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly." -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Find a source supporting your view that the BMA is contradicting itself, which is apparently your basis for supporting this change. I don't see any contradiction, and I object to your reversion of the neutral inclusion of the BMA's quoted statement on psychological risks and the other changes you reverted without explanation, in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. Blackworm (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No one is claiming in the article that the BMA contradicts itself. I think that the sentence "The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly." better reflects the position of the BMA than the one you posted. -- Avi (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me but "contradiction in BMA" is your phrase, not mine. So now you're saying that your favoured quote, which says nothing about psychological effects, is more appropriate for the "psychological effects" section that a quote containing the phrase "psychological risks?" Interesting. I disagree. Please provide some evidence for your opinion. Blackworm (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I note that is in the same section which states "It is important that doctors consider the child’s social and cultural circumstances. Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual’s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex." Or, in synopsis, there may be psychological risks not allowing a circumcision in certain cases. Being as there is risk both ways according to the BMA, I still believe that the sentence that specifically states that there is no clear evidence one way or the other, as there are risks both ways, is the appropriate one for both articles. -- Avi (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting original analysis, but not one with which I concur. I have no objection to additionally summarizing the above, perhaps with: The BMA additionally states that children living in cultures where circumcision is required for all males may be harmed by exclusion from the strong social or cultural benefits of circumcision in such a culture.
You have not addressed my point that the quote you favour ("medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven") says nothing about psychological effects; it is talking about medical effects. Thus this seems to be a case of arguing that because Smith believes X, Smith can't believe Y -- even though Smith has explicitly stated his belief in X and Y. It is illogical. Blackworm (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Psychological effects are a subset of medical effects, Blackworm. And the same situation is found with the wider topic, too. Compare "has medical ... risks" and "[t]he medical harms ... have not been unequivocally proven". Whether there's a contradiction there depends upon whether one makes a distinction between "risk" and "harm", I suppose. Personally I don't perceive a contradiction, but it's clear that both statements are relevant. I presume that you must believe that the there is a contradiction, since you perceive a contradiction between my words about "harm" and those of the BMA about "risk". But do please correct me if I'm wrong.
The edit that you originally mentioned was dated 18:10, May 24, 2009. I tweaked it in my edit dated 20:13, May 24, 2009. The comment on my talk that you quoted was dated 17:15, May 23, 2009. It should be obvious that I could not have been commenting on an edit which had not (at that time of that comment) been made. Please note that quoting another editor out of context is given as an example of incivility. Jakew (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In that earlier discussion, the statement that you trimmed of context (citing WP:UNDUE) began, "Boyle et al. state that circumcision may result in psychological harm." As a justification for reducing the weight given that source, you commented, "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept." (Not a comment on any edit, by the way.) Thus, you yourself confounded "causes psychological harm" and "may result in psychological harm" in order to justify your idea of due weight. To say something may result in harm is the same as stating that a risk exists. is it not? Thus, if we accept that risk [of harm, presumably] and harm are indeed different things, then (a) Avi's assertion of a "contradiction" in the BMA's position is invalid, and (b) your statement that "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept" is at best an irrelvant argument given that Boyle refers to risk of harm ("may result in [...] harm"), and at worst was a red herring, and as a result, (c) the BMA's statement that it is "widely accepted" that circumcision carries psychological risk supports Boyle's view as being the majority view, and thus if anything we are giving undue weight to any contrasting views -- not Boyle. Furthermore, your "fringe" comment is clearly relevant to this discussion as it shows your confounding of the ideas of risk (i.e. the possibility of harm) and harm, undermining the arguments for your edits. The fact is, the BMA states, "...it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."[39] Do you oppose including that here and in the medical aspects article, as Avraham does? You seem to, yet for some reason don't explicitly say so. Blackworm (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There are some obvious problems here, Blackworm.
First, contrary to your assertion, the words "Boyle et al. state that circumcision may result in psychological harm" did not exist at the time of the comment which you quoted (which was dated 17:15, May 23, 2009), and Boyle et al. was not actually cited at that time. Those words were in fact added two hours later, at 19:33, May 23, 2009. The most recent version of the additions at the time of my comment was, I believe, 17:08, May 23, 2009. Your claim that 'you yourself confounded "causes psychological harm" and "may result in psychological harm"' is therefore unjustified.
Second, to say that a risk exists implies that the probability of harm is greater than zero, but such a statement does not specify the magnitude of the risk. That makes it a very inclusive statement. It includes the viewpoint that the risk is non-zero but vanishingly small and the viewpoint that it causes PTSD in >50% of cases. In fact, it is such an inclusive statement that the only viewpoint that would be excluded by such a statement is that the risk is exactly zero. None of the sources actually make such an argument. Your claim that the BMA statement "supports Boyle's view as being the majority view" is therefore unjustified.
Third, to say without qualification that "X causes harm" (or variations) generally implies that the probability is relatively high. It therefore carries a different meaning from "there is a risk associated with X" (or variations), which does not imply anything about the magnitude of the risk. I hope and trust that if you require any further clarification as to what I meant, you will feel free to ask me.
With these points in mind, let me address your arguments:
"(a) Avi's assertion of a "contradiction" in the BMA's position is invalid" -- I wouldn't say "invalid", but you seem to be largely agreeing with what I've already said: "Whether there's a contradiction there depends upon whether one makes a distinction between "risk" and "harm", I suppose. Personally I don't perceive a contradiction..."
"(b) your statement that "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept" is at best an irrelvant argument given that Boyle refers to risk of harm" -- I remind you again here that Boyle et al. wasn't actually cited at the time of my comment. I have to say that I find it rather extraordinary that you a) introduce a quote taken out of context from my talk page and then b) complain that it's irrelevant.
"(c) the BMA's statement that it is "widely accepted" that circumcision carries psychological risk supports Boyle's view as being the majority view" -- I've addressed this mistake above.
Finally, in answer to your question, I don't object to the inclusion of the BMA quote, but I agree that it ought to be balanced. Jakew (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Jakew, have you really thought this through? By your arguments above, your statement that "the idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept"[40] can only be referring to a 100% risk of harm -- something which the article specifically did not say (it referred to about a 50% and 70% finding of harm). Thus my point absolutely stands about your confounding risk of harm with harm -- and of the irrelevance of your statement. It was irrelevant to the discussion the way you used it, but entirely relevant to showing us how you come up your idea of due weight. Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm puzzled how you can read my above arguments and come to the conclusion that "causes psychological harm" can only refer to a 100% risk of harm. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion after having read my statement that '"X causes harm" (or variations) generally implies that the probability is relatively high'? Is there some quirk of English of which I'm unaware in which "relatively high" means "exactly 100%"? I look forward with interest to your explanation. Jakew (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's high enough for the BMA to state that it's "widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks." [41] If you're going to argue that the statement "X causes Y" is actually a value judgment on whether the risk of X causing Y is high, that's fine. I don't agree, preferring more concise wording. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that we currently give that majority view less weight than the minority view that it carries no psychological risk. Blackworm (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, if psychological effects were indeed a subset of medical effects, the BMA would not need to say "medical and psychological risks" as it would be redundant. We also wouldn't have a "psychological consequences" section wholly separate from a "medical effects" section. The fact is, psychology, a social science, is not a branch of medicine, even if the medical professionals are understandably also concerned about people's psychological welfare. Blackworm (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "medical and psychological risks" is a tautology. Jakew (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not, and therefore the current version is synthesis. I'm quite willing to go before ARBCOM and argue that. Are you?
  • "...a multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of patients with illnesses that have both medical and psychological components." Stanford School of Medicine
  • "These data suggest that assessment of both medical and psychological health may be essential for the proper care of patients with fatigue..." [42]
  • "... participants who felt their physicians listened more to their concerns were less likely to avoid treatment for both medical and psychological problems during ..." [43]
  • "Treatment of IBD in children should always include both medical and psychological approaches."[44]
  • "The pilot study suggested both medical and psychological benefits of distant healing."[45]
  • "We present a review of the international literature on the medical and psychological effects of torture."[46]
It is plainly clear from all available information that these are different things. I will be putting back the BMA quote without the part on "medical harms" as the latter is irrelevant to the former. If you still oppose it, follow dispute resolution. I'm tired of arguing the obvious with you. Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-)So, Jake, Blackworm, what would you suggest? Perhaps something like this:

The BMA accepts that circumcision has both medical and psychological risks. However, the BMA opines that it is important for doctors to consider the child’s social and cultural circumstances where exclusion may cause harm. The BMA concludes that "assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex."

— BMA, http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp

-- Avi (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I want the full quote from the BMA ("widely accepted", etc.), and I want the BMA's phrase "living in cultures where circumcision is required for all males" as that is what they're talking about -- that specific case. Also, the weight of this exceptional psychological risk from cultural exclusion should not dwarf the "widely accepted" psychological risk from the procedure. Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, nowhere do the BMA conclude that -- your version makes it looks like the "conclusion" about "risks and benefits" applies to the psychological risk from being circumcised in the general case (i.e., the first sentence), where the document clearly shows that the "conclusion" you mention refers to "Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males." Is the phrase "nice try" appropriate? At best, it's a horrible summary of a source, and at worst, well, it's pure spin doctoring. Blackworm (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision/Archive_55&oldid=1142756330"