Talk:Circumcision/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Origins

I note that Studiodan has removed two of seven proposed origins of circumcision, stating that these are "based on speculation without evidence or citation". While it's true that we don't have citations for these two, the trouble is that we don't have citations for the other five, either. This inconsistency cannot be justified, so it seems that there are two possibilities: either we need to find citations for all of the proposed origins, or we need to restore the two that have been deleted. In either case, it seems that citations are required, and I would request some assistance in sourcing the various claims. Jakew (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, there are no citations for the other five (however, citations can be found). I don't think this is justification for returning the speculation to the article without good reason (citation) given, and would rather suggest removing the remaining 5. However, I think we could easily find citations for many of these, and I would encourage that method, only leaving claims with citations and removing those without.--Studiodan (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to start tabula rasa, rather than try and backfill citations into some text of unknown provenance; and preferably from a source with expertise in the area (ie history). Here's my offering for starters:

Conflicting theories have been advanced to account for the rise of ritual operations on the male and female genitals, among which are the following: a propitiatory sacrifice or sign of submission to a deity (probably a milder form of a ritual which began as human sacrifice); an offering to the god or goddess of fertility to ensure children; a mark of tribal identification; a rite of passage from childhood to adult responsibility; an attempt to emphasise feminine or masculine characteristics in girls and boys by removing the parts of the genitals (clitoris and foreskin) believed to resemble the genitals of the opposite sex; and a means of humiliating and marking defeated enemies and slaves. The only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it. In the days before aseptic surgery, any cutting of flesh was the least hygienic thing anybody could do, carrying a high risk of bleeding, infection and death. None of the ancient cultures which traditionally practised circumcision have claimed that the ritual was introduced as a hygiene measure: African tribes, Arabs, Jews, Muslims and Aboriginals explain it differently, but divine command, tribal identification, social role, respect for ancestors and promotion of chastity figure prominently.3 It was only in the late 19th century, when mass circumcision was being introduced for "health" reasons, that doctors sought legitimacy for the new procedure by claiming continuity with the distant past and reinterpreting its origins in terms of their own hygiene agenda.

From Robert Darby (2003). "Medical history and medical practice: persistent myths about the foreskin". Medical Journal of Australia. 178(4): 178–9. — Johncoz (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums it up nicely, though possibly a bit long. Anyone else have any thoughts?--Studiodan (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of course would be to summarise this quotation into something of the same length as we already have. I'll wait for some further responses and then attempt the edit. Johncoz (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this can be summarised, but I would prefer to get agreement here rather than editing the article directly. How about the following:

• It has been variously proposed that circumcision began as a religious sacrifice, an offering to ensure fertility, a tribal mark, a rite of passage, an attempt to emphasise masculinity, a means of humiliating enemies and slaves, or as a hygienic measure.

Jakew (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's short and sweet, but too selective in omitting the point that there is no historical concept of circumcision for hygiene before the 19th century, or that the case for circumcision was used to reduce sexual pleasure. The second point has significant historical value.--Studiodan (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, we need to be careful to conform to WP:NPOV. In this case we're using Darby as a summary of the theories, but we should be careful to avoid adopting his point of view about them. If we include Darby's commentary on one of the theories then we're getting dangerously close to a non-neutral position. The safest bet is to simply list the various theories without commentary.

Regarding the second point, I couldn't find any reference to reducing sexual pleasure in the paragraph from Darby that Johncoz quoted. Hence I didn't include it. Jakew (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"...either we need to find citations for all of the proposed origins, or we need to restore the two that have been deleted..." - is Jakew making exceptions to [WP:V]] here? I'm confused. I think all the claims should be sourced, and included. If Jakew has WP:NPOV problems with some of the claims, move them to a second sentence and attribute the views to the authors in reliable source (those that Jakew objects to more than the other authors of reliable sources for some unclear reasons). If the reader decides that those sources are invalid or non-neutral, they can dismiss the claims. That would give Jakew the huge respect of allowing him to unilaterally choose which sources are so gathered together and "questioned" via the attribution of the claims, it would pretty much satisfy WP:OR if no one objects to the other claims having no such directed attribution, and would take care of any WP:NPOV issues by letting the reader decide what claims are worthy and which are fringe. Blackworm (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Johncoz has proposed a source-based rewrite of the sentence, which seems reasonable, and I have proposed such a sentence (in my comment dated 11:16, 23 January 2010). Do you have any thoughts about my proposed sentence? Jakew (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can it be sourced? Is it missing some points of view? Also, it is long enough, or does it gloss over these origins? It seems to be rather a tiny stub summary for such an important aspect, especially considering the copious attention we devote to say, medical issues and HIV. Blackworm (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a summary of the paragraph from Darby that Johncoz quoted in his post dated 02:19, 23 January 2010, yes, it's trivial to source. It's a fairly complete summary of Darby's summary, but there are probably other theories of circumcision's origin that Darby did not include. I guess it could be expanded a little, but bear in mind that it's only intended as an introduction to the section. Jakew (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does Darby refer it to its origins as a "hygienic measure?" He seems to be claiming the opposite: "None of the ancient cultures which traditionally practised circumcision have claimed that the ritual was introduced as a hygiene measure: [...]" Blackworm (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient cultures are not always self-documenting. Sometimes those outside of ancient cultures propose origins of practices within it. Jakew (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Do you have evidence? In any case, no one is claiming Darby's opinion should be stated as fact. You want to lump hygiene with the origins the source does say are true, implying that those claims are sourced as being true. If you want to include hygienic reasons as origins, find a source that says it's true. I am for including "hygienic measures" at the end, preferably sourced, with the remainder of the origins sourced to Darby, followed by the Darby's criticism as soon as possible after we include other sources with other possible origins. Blackworm (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Blackworm, Darby does not claim that the other proposed origins are true (in fact, he describes the various theories as "conflicting", which would seem to suggest otherwise). Regardless, whether Darby thinks that theories are true or not is not the issue. The issue is whether theories have been proposed, as should be obvious from the sentence itself: "It has been variously proposed that circumcision began as...". Whether or not Darby or anyone else thinks it is true does not affect whether a theory has been proposed. Jakew (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is the issue, since our job is to summarize the origins as presented in reliable sources. If a reliable source says, "There is a consensus that the earth is round, but some Flat Earth theorists say it's flat," we don't summarize that with "It has been variously proposed that the earth is round and flat." That, is unless we are advocates and promoters ourselves. Find a reliable source proposing hygiene as an origin. Darby seems to propose the other things as origins, but seems quite critical of the hygiene claim. Find a source for the hygiene claim. Don't include it as an origin that has been proposed until we have the sources making such propositions. Perhaps the first five words in your sentence are the problematic ones. Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it refers to the origins of modern medical circumcision, which I think is distinct enough from just "origins," especially given Darby's further view. So I'd suggest replacing "hygienic measures" and instead beginning a new sentence, "In the case of modern medical circumcision, Darby states that doctors "sought legitimacy for the new procedure by claiming continuity with the distant past and reinterpreting its origins in terms of their own hygiene agenda." That seems like his commentary, since he is pointing out that he is in conflict with the doctors' claims. Since the source emphasizes this point, and your version doesn't, it would have been quite a grave WP:NPOV violation not for us to do so. Blackworm (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, it is acceptable to use Darby as a summary of the theories that have been proposed, but we should be careful to remain neutral. Darby clearly states that hygiene was proposed as a reason for the origin of circumcision (he states it even more clearly in "The riddle of the sands: circumcision, history, and myth", stating "doctors sought legitimacy for the new procedure by attempting to explain its origin in terms of hygiene"), hence it belongs in the list. In addition to identifying this proposed origin, Darby also disputes it. That is a separate issue, and we could include some mention of Darby's disagreement as well, but allowing Darby's viewpoint to govern the list would be problematic from an NPOV perspective. It should be a neutral list of theories that have been suggested, not just those with which Darby agrees. Jakew (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is mentioned that some doctors have proposed a possible hygienic reason for ancient circumcision rituals, it needs to be made clear that there is absolutely zero historical evidence to back this up, which is anything but an "opinion" piece. For this reason, we need to be careful with the selection of language if we do not include the entire quote.--Studiodan (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to see this article turn into a work of "revisionist" history.--Studiodan (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not permit us to attack viewpoints in that way. We can't claim, that a viewpoint is false (which is essentially what you ask), although we can remark that it has been criticised. Jakew (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan: Indeed, the reliable source makes that point clear -- that's why it got through peer review. I doubt Jakew's summary would. His continued resistance admitting this obvious mistake is disheartening. Blackworm (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Include "hygienic measures" and other disputed claims at the end, and include the criticism immediately afterward. Please. Blackworm (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already included it last, and am not opposed to the inclusion of a short, neutral sentence mentioning that Darby has criticised the theory. Jakew (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already proposed such an edit. Please respond to it. Am I to infer that you believe my suggested edit is too long or non-neutral? I'd rather you make such views clear in the absence of your clear approval for my edits, since you often revert proposed changes without commenting on them specifically in your comments; which can annoy some editors. Blackworm (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, would you mind quoting the timestamp of the relevant post or otherwise help me to find your specific proposal? Jakew (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggested edit was 20:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC). I amend it as follows: We cite Darby for origins besides hygiene, and we leave you to find a source that states their belief in hygiene as an origin. That Darby claims that doctors have made these claims is interesting, but the nature of Darby's treatment in the source clearly demands a distinction be made by us, even it is only to present Darby's claim regarding the doctors' claims. Remember, when the journal read Darby's paper, they peer reviewed Darby's claims not the ones Darby claims doctors' make and Darby contests. Otherwise, if you feel Darby's criticism of these claims is to be avoided, then find a reliable source that makes the claims Darby says doctors make and let the reader decide. Wikipedia policy seems lost on you, Jake. Blackworm (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What you're suggesting, in effect, is that we present one thing while claiming that it is something else. We imply that the inclusion criteria for the list is that it includes origins of circumcision that have been proposed. But what you're suggesting is that the actual inclusion criteria should be proposed origins that meet with the approval of sources that we cite. That doesn't make any sense. If this is a list of proposed origins, then we should include all proposed origins that Darby identifies, whether or not Darby personally agrees with them. If it is a list of proposed origins with which Darby agrees, then (I have NPOV concerns about that, but at the very least) it needs to be reworded so that is made explicit. Do you agree that Darby states that 19th century doctors proposed hygiene as an origin of circumcision? Jakew (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the problem is clearly with your implication (not mine) that the criteria for inclusion for the list of things we present as origins are things "that have been proposed." The reader will clearly infer (since we are going to source that statement, correct?) that it is stated in some reliable peer-reviewed source somewhere that circumcision began for hygienic reasons. But it isn't. The criteria is not one with which Darby agrees, it's one which is proposed as credible, or true, or backed by evidence, in a reliable source. If there's a medical journal somewhere where doctors propose that circumcision began for health reasons, by all means include it. Sourcing allows the reader to determine what claims come from what reliable source. Your version obscures the source by giving undue weight to a proposal, or suggestion, that does not appear in any reliable source yet brought. The paragraph should begin, "Various origins for male circumcision are proposed in the academic literature; among them, ...." If we begin the paragraph that way, it's a much stronger statement, a much more accurate list, and, not coincidentally, your unnamed, unsourced "doctors" who propose hygiene do not have a voice. That is WP:V and WP:UNDUE at work. The only reason I believe you're still discussing this is because you lack a source that could be used in that more descriptive, less obfuscated, more informative context. Prove me wrong; bring a source, we'll put it in, and everyone will be happy. Blackworm (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you wrote that post before noticing that I had, in fact, cited several examples of such sources (in my earlier post, dated 23:30, 24 January 2010). Please feel free to revise your post so that it makes sense in this context. Jakew (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]This paragraph is about origins in pre-modern cultures. If we want to econcomically use Darby as source we would have

• It has been variously proposed that circumcision began as a religious sacrifice, an offering to ensure fertility, a tribal mark, a rite of passage, an attempt to emphasise masculinity, or as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves.

I see no reason to include hygiene at all, since no historical/ethnographic source I am aware of suggests this as a motivation by pre-modern people. Johncoz (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I will insert the above wording, which I think has general agreement. The issue of "hygiene" can be dealt with separately if anyone wants to pursue it. Johncoz (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and Studiodan. Giving weight to a view that is not held in any source brought, while claiming that a source which claims the view is bogus actually demands the inclusion of that view along with the others, is a major misinterpretation of WP:NPOV. Anyone can see that. Darby states, "The only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it." Despite this Jakew wants hygiene discussed as an origin, without bringing any sources commenting differently on that claim. It's wrong, and it's wasting our time. Jakew, please stop. Go back to developing your circumcision promotion website. I'll even give you a plug for it: circs.org -- home of links to reliable sources casting cirucmcision in a positive light, edited by and with commentary by Jakew. Blackworm (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, practically every comment of yours is directed at individuals. From now on, ensure that your comments here discuss article content, and only article content, per WP:TALK and WP:NPA. If I see another comment of yours on this Talk: page referring to other editors, I will ensure that your actions receive appropriate administrative attention. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I deny your claims, and invite every appropriate, uninvolved administrative eye on this matter and the matter of you, Avraham, and Jakew bypassing discussion and consensus on the other issue, which is a content and behaviour issue, as a matter of urgency. If you want to post to WP:ANI, I will support that effort and comment there. I also note that you yourself have not explicitly commented on the relevant content issues as I have, choosing instead to restrict your comments to those about my behaviour. Blackworm (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review my previous post very carefully. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) I have added hygiene to the list, since Darby clearly indicates that this has been proposed as a theory, even though he clearly disputes it at the same time. I am not opposed to the addition of a short sentence describing Darby's criticism. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

added subclause. On reflection, this seems okay since Darby was in fact writing precisely to refute the hygiene conjecture. Johncoz (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've modified it slightly, as I wanted to simplify the first sentence. I've therefore added a separate parenthetical remark, and have also included Darby's characterisation of theories as "conflicting". A benefit of this structure is that criticism from other authors can be incorporated easily. Jakew (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why we are listing hygiene here. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all. We should leave the points of hygiene to where they actually apply (historically), instead of pointless confusion. It seems we are trying too hard to insert a weak speculative just to show an argument against the speculative afterward, the whole time not making any clear sense of what is being claimed. Maybe if it was more clear, but it seems so much easier to just leave the confusion out.--Studiodan (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's quite simple. We're listing hygiene because we're presenting a list of reasons that have been proposed for the origin of circumcision, and hygiene has been proposed as a reason for the origin of circumcision. Jakew (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I get that point, but I'm not so sure it's worded as well as it could be to make that clear. Sometimes less is more.--Studiodan (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced "the last" with "hygienic measure" because I thought it was a bit confusing. I think this is overall pretty good for now. Let me know what you think.--Studiodan (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the start of the sentence, and the sourcing. Each origin needs to be sourced to the reliable sources that propose it as an origin, not those that dispute it as an origin. Giving the same weight to origins that are merely mentioned as incorrect in reliable sources seems a glaring and obvious case of WP:UNDUE. Blackworm (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how WP:UNDUE applies, Blackworm. It's a boolean quantity: it is either included in the list or it isn't. Either it has been proposed as a theory, or it hasn't. Darby acknowledges that it has been proposed, therefore it belongs in the list.

Since Darby is already acting as a source, there is no need to provide another source. Nevertheless, if you wish to delete Darby and cite primary sources for the various claims instead, here are some sources discussing hygiene (some, admittedly, are better sources than others):

• "It probably originated as a hygienic measure in communities living in hot, dusty and dry environments." -- Royal Australasian College of Physicians RACP, 2004 policy statement
• "In hot countries, the penis is peculiarly liable to disease from the retention of smegma. Therefore 'to cut around' and 'to purify' may have had reference to hygienic considerations originally, and then have become a religious observance." -- Pirie, G. The story of circumcision. Can Med Assoc J. 1927 December; 17(12): 1540–1542
• "They are so regardful of neatness that they wear only linen, and that always newly washed: and it is from the idea of cleanliness, which they regard much beyond comeliness, that they use circumcision." -- Herodotus (translation by Beloe, W), p199 (An alternative translation of this passage is remarked upon by Gordetsky and O'Brien, Urology and the Scientific Method in Ancient Egypt, Urology 2009; 73: 476-479, who state: 'Herodotus believed circumcision was done for hygiene: 'They practice circumcision for cleanliness' sake, preferring to be clean rather than comely.'" Similarly, Remondino (History of circumcision from the earliest times to the present, p37) wrote: "The Egyptians connected circumcision with hygiene and cleanliness; this was the view of Herodotus, who looked upon the rite as a strictly hygienic measure.")
• "First of all, that it is a preventive of a painful disease, and of an affliction difficult to be cured, which they call a carbuncle ['anthrax,' coal]; because, I imagine, when it becomes inflamed it burns; from which fact it has derived that appellation. And this disease is very apt to be engendered among those who have not undergone the rite of circumcision." -- Philo (web source, translator unknown)
• "Circumcision has a long history in ancient societies of the Middle East, and is likely to have arisen as an early public health measure for preventing recurrent balanitis, caused by sand accumulating under the foreskin." -- Hutson, JM. Circumcision: a surgeon’s perspective. J Med Ethics 2004;30:238-240

Finally, an interesting comment in the form of a response to Darby: "As to whether considerations of hygiene or the discomfort produced by foreign material causing irritation beneath the foreskin played any part in the requirement for circumcision in a variety of religions remains uncertain—and may never be known for sure. There is a lot of conjecture, but not much evidence." Jakew (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a recent study finding circumcision has a "evolutionary purpose" ... "to reduce pregnancies from extramarital sex"[[1]]

The Darby sentence is not representative and poorly writen. Please read the source and comment [[2]]Zinbarg (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just changed it.

Jake, thank you for responding with the requested sources. Note this comment where I discuss my objections in greater detail, and my reasoning behind the resistance to source Darby for hygienic measures as an origin. Those objections seem about to be overcome since it can be sourced to the sources you bring. Blackworm (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jakew: Re: "Please feel free to revise your post so that it makes sense in this context." in your post of 11:50, 26 January 2010: My post made perfect sense in its actual context, and so I see no need to revise it. I have added to it above, and will add more here. Now then, given that I specifically explained my objection to Darby as a source, pointed specifically to the problem with the beginning of the statement, and suggested a solution, please explain this edit, in that context. Do you have an objection to my suggested edit to the start of the paragraph? If so, on what grounds? Also, must we source Darby for the reliably sourced proposal of hygiene as an origin, considering he apparently claims that it is not a true origin?

Also and finally, you never satisfactorily answered why you kept removing the the hotly contested phrase "is extremely painful" from the opponents' lead sentence, discussion knowing full well it would preclude a consensus edit which you said corrected an "inappropriate" edit, but one that you later characterized as a good edit done for bad reasons? I am very interested in your policy interpretation for that action. Respond on my talk page if you wish. Blackworm (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as stated I don't think your post made much sense, so since you're unwilling to revise it I think it's best if I largely ignore it.

Regarding your proposed change to the beginning of the sentence ("Various origins for male circumcision are proposed in the academic literature; among them, ...."), I would object to it if you intend to continue to use Darby as a source for this sentence. The reason is that Darby does not identify the types of sources in which the proposals he lists have been made. Nor is he proposing them himself (and indeed he distances himself from them somewhat by describing them as "conflicting", suggesting that he believes that some may be incorrect); he merely comments that these proposals have been made.

If, on the other hand, you intend to replace Darby with sources that actually propose the various theories, then as long as "academic literature" is a fair description of these sources I see no problem.

Regarding sourcing of hygiene, if we use Darby as a source for other reasons then yes, we must also use Darby as a source for hygiene, at least as the sentence is currently worded. The question is this: is Darby adequate as a secondary source for the purpose of listing proposals that have been made? If he is, then we must use him consistently as a secondary source, and we shouldn't use his own opinion (for which he's a primary source) to justify using him selectively (it is perfectly acceptable to quote his opinion separately, as we do). If he isn't, we should cite primary sources for all claims. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My post makes perfect sense in the context it was made, and you didn't "state" that it didn't make much sense, you asked me to rewrite it in the context of your response that you acknowledged I had not read. That makes no sense, unless you're simply dodging its contents, as it appears you are doing.

Your sentence that begins "If he is, then we must use him consistently as a secondary source" is a non-sequitur. Please explain your rationale (or cite policy or guideline) for your argument that once a source is cited as a secondary source, it cannot be cited as a primary source (or presumably a tertiary source). If that were the case, half the sources in this article, and notably the WHO and other major organizations, would find half their material removed.

You make excellent points regarding the language of the origins statement. I agree that it would be best to source the claims directly to those making them, or even better to secondary sources that collect the information and themselves cite proponents.

I ask again that you please respond to the questions raised, especially regarding the contested phrase "is extremely painful" that you kept removing, creating a situation that would preclude the restoring of the inappropriate deletion of Schoen's cited view on the neonatal period being the "best" time to circumcise, forcing me to re-add the phrase to implement the consensus. Why do you believe that Zinbarg's edit was a good edit done for bad reasons, and why did you repeatedly and insistedly build on Zinbarg's edit in a way that both precluded the consensus, and also removed cited material the way Zinbarg's edit did? Blackworm (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, I haven't stated that "once a source is cited as a secondary source, it cannot be cited as a primary source". What I have said is that it is important to distinguish between the two usages. As a hypothetical example, suppose that the WHO provided circumcision rates for (among other countries) the hypothetical land of Quux. But suppose that, in the same document, the WHO also expressed concern that this rate was too low. Now, if we're including a table of circumcision rates, can we justify excluding the WHO's figure for Quux? Of course not! There are two separate issues: what is the circumcision rate, and whether (in the opinion of WHO) this is sufficient, and it makes no sense to use the latter as a filter on the former.

Similarly, Darby identifies theories that have been proposed elsewhere, and in this respect he's acting as a secondary source. He also tells us that he disagrees with one particular theory, but that doesn't change the fact that it has been proposed. Darby's opinion of the validity of a theory is a separate issue from whether that theory has been proposed, so again it doesn't make any sense to use his opinion to selectively exclude theories from existence. Jakew (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think I see the problem. But first, regarding the use of Darby, I misunderstood you; I thought you were saying that if we used Darby as a secondary source for the first sentence, we must dismiss his second sentence. I only see his second sentence as him being used as a primary source. He does say the other claims are "conflicting," which indeed casts doubt on whether he himself is that proposing that the other origins have sound bases. Ideally, and in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, the paragraph would begin, "Various origins for male circumcision are proposed in the academic literature; among them, ...." and each of the others for the first sentence could be sourced to those who put forth those origins. I now agree with what I think you may be saying regarding my suggested start of the first sentence (although again I'm dismayed that you did not address this suggestion directly); that Darby isn't a strong enough source to make that statement, and therefore we shouldn't cite Darby as a source for it. If so, I agree. In light that those sources have not been brought, and despite my belief that bringing them would only lead to a better article, I don't, therefore see anything wrong with it temporarily being worded the way it is now. But it has to change, because we may be lending undue weight to theories with no reliable sources proposing them without serious criticism (citing those who oppose them while appearing to lend weight to their proponents using those cites -- oddly and unsatisfactorily). I note however that omitting certain theories, when those theories have no proponents brought in reliable sources, is not excluding the theories from existence; that seems to me a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE, and quite possibly also WP:NOT. That doesn't apply here, with the introduction the way you've written it, now that you've brought sources; but it also doesn't mean we have any need to cite Darby and have two cites appear next to hygienic reasons. Again, the problem is that here, selectively, the issue is being blurred in a non-WP:NPOV way by an ill-defined and unhelpful introduction. Perhaps we could focus on the problem in a different way; what if the paragraph began, "The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states that circumcision probably originated for hygienic reasons. That way we neutrally introduce the topic, and leave Darby out of being cited in the first sentence. Either of those solutions appears better than the current text. Blackworm (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins New Cite

My line about adultery was mistakenly removed.

News articles about the study:[[3]][[4]][[5]] The actual study: [[6]]

Here's a significant change, and the sentece added:

• Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision results in lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practicing circumcision leading to its spread. Circumcision may have started independently in different cultures, but Wilson argues that circumcision persisted because it serves “evolutionary purpose” similar to sperm competition by reducing the incidence of adultery and mischievous sex.Zinbarg (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to get the link to reference correctly, could someone finish that for me?Zinbarg (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Penile sensivity graph

1. The fact Jake has a published a letter on this does not disqualify him from editing on this issue. We all have POVs, published or not.
2. Inclusion of the graph displaying this data is not undue weight as I read the guideline. Indeed the data itself seems rather uncontroversial, ie areas in common show no significant difference, and unique areas (foreskin for intact, scar area and shaft proximal to glans for cut) are relatively sensitive. Interpretation of the data is a different matter, but the graph does not do that.
3. If another study were done testing the same areas with a similar method but produced different results, that would be a different matter. As it stands, the graph is an economical, non-argumentative presentation of the best current data available. Johncoz (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE because it gives undue weight to a single study. On what grounds is it "the best current data available"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The graph concerns the data, which I regard as not particularly controversial (except maybe for hyper-obsessed wikilawyers), not the study's conclusions from that data, which have been contested (see Circumcision controversies for exchange of letters). If there is another study of pressure thresholds at all these locations, then of course that data should be considered (but is there?). I actually find it quite interesting that the circ scar area is apparently as pressure sensitive as the so-called ridged ban. All in all, a good addition to the article, rather than the usual squabbling over semantics Johncoz (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The material would actually be of concern to anyone who cares about policy, I didn't see a response to my question in there, and you still haven't addressed the issue that it gives undue weight to a single study. Also, please make sure your response deals only with article content, rather than making uncivil insinuations (e.g. "hyper-obsessed wikilawyers"). Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the only study that I know of that has measured the pressure-sensitivity of all these penile areas, so undue weight does not seem relevant to me, and I don't see how an objection can be extracted from the text of the policy. If there were another study which contradicted these results (ie someone tried and failed to replicate) it would be a different matter: we would have to report both and probably not bother with a graph at all. I honestly cannot see what is being given undue weight here. Johncoz (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

and just to be crystal clear -- this graph supports neither a pro nor an anti circ position. It's just data, and interesting data at that. NPOV not an issue. And it's from a definitionally reliable secondary source. Johncoz (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Johncoz, it's a primary source, not a secondary source, but nobody would disagree that it is a reliable source.

The main problem, though, is undue weight. Why, of all the fifty or so studies that have assessed sexual effects of circumcision, should we choose to illustrate this particular study? The impression that is given as a result is that the results of this particular study are far more important than the results of any of the others; that only Sorrells' results are worthy of illustration. As you acknowledge, this is basically the only study that has chosen this particular methodology — no doubt they believe that theirs is the "right" approach, but should Wikipedia endorse that viewpoint by displaying their data so prominently? By doing so, Wikipedia implies that measuring the ability to sense lightest touch at various points on the penis is much more relevant to the sexual effects of circumcision than, say, performing a prospective study of men's reported sexual pleasure before and after circumcision. Hence undue weight. Jakew (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The graph reminds people that those circumcised lose parts of their genitals that those not circumcised still have. It's written by people who have written other material critical of circumcision. Both these things are unacceptable to the owners of this article, and thus it will be removed. No sense fighting it, but you might want to try for a while. Blackworm (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stated my position, but a consensus seems unlikely. And it may be that this graph will sit more happily somewhere like the penis page, since I believe it is genuinely of interest, and were it not for the intense polarisation of the circ-related pages its inclusion would not be problematic Johncoz (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have serious concerns about including an illustration of Sorrells' results anywhere unless other studies are also illustrated, since doing so would automatically give Sorrells a great deal of weight. I'd also have some specific concerns about including this particular illustration, since it has some inherent problems (omission of error bars, giving the misleading impression that these are absolute values rather than distributions within a sample; "More sensitive", etc., which is again misleading, and should be "more sensitive to lightest touch"; and a lengthy citation which would be better suited to a caption). I would urge anyone thinking of including it anywhere to first seek agreement on the talk page. Jakew (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Selective use of studies for illustration is exceedingly common; see penis size, for example, where plots from the Lifestyles study but no other are used. I agree on error bars, given the number of histogram couplets that are not statistically significant. Johncoz (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that something improper is done in another article doesn't mean it's ok for this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Error bars can be easily added. There is no reason to add additional wording for light touch, since it's mentioned in the heading of the graph, and next to the arrows on the left. A 3rd mention that this is for fine touch is quite redundant, and I fail to see what the point would be.--Studiodan (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the error bars.

--Studiodan (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The graph should be included. It is not "undue" because it's critical information taking up little space. There is no limit to the amount of critical information in a topic. I invite Jakew to present other critical graphs to discussion to see if they warrent inclusion. Jakew's insistance on "balance" is not Wiki, or enclopedic, or accurate.Zinbarg (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPOV is not only policy but the core principle on which Wikipedia is based. Jakew (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's based on The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, of which NPOV is one. Zinbarg, Jake's insistence on balance is Wikipedian; his interpretation of NPOV as to what constitutes appropriate balance may be contested as not Wikipedian, by means of seeking outside comment, not biting new contributors, not letting outside interests drive your editorial decisions, and seeking consensus.

Jayjg, are you arguing that selecting a source that has a usable graph over ones that do not is an example of selective use of sources that is "something improper?" How would you respond to an argument that the WHO's male circumcision prevalence graph, for example (as is the case, though the map itself is an original construction that differs slightly from the actual map in the source) is also such an example? Also, since you believe something improper is being done at penis size, would you object if I brought your opposition to their graph there as a proxy, and gave you frequent status updates on the outcome of those edits? Would we consider a consensus there in any way binding on this article? I understand if you prefer to raise your objections yourself, in which case I'd stay out of it over there.

Jakew, your arguments against the graph seem specious. That a map may fail to visually depict information is not a reason for its removal -- you have defended the WHO map that has a 20%-80% map legend category, for example, which I consider itself a very imprecise (and non-NPOV) message. That map also contradicts certain other sources with reference to nationwide prevalence. How is this situation different? Also, if one were to include the error measures on the graph, in text, next to the bars, and also make sure that the words "fine touch" (as used in the source), are prevalent in the graph (to make the context of "more sensitive" clear, if we must) would that merit your approval? Blackworm (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm arguing what I'm arguing; that bringing a graph from a single, otherwise unexceptional study, is WP:UNDUE. It's not a study by the world's major international health organization, it's just one study among dozens on the subject. Also, please avoid asking loaded questions, they are unhelpful for dialog. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The WHO map is not "a study by the world's major international health organization," as you imply; it is a document they created that visually depicts a set of studies they've chosen to cite, and ignores (and in fact contradicts) others. They did not conduct any study. Our version of that map claims in the caption to be "published" by WHO, but is actually an original work that differs slightly from the published WHO map (which again, is not a study). The Wikipedia/"WHO" map also confusingly cites DHS and "other sources". Are these sources not "unexceptional?" Are they exceptional by way of being chosen to be republished in a different form by the WHO? What is your definition of "unexceptional?" If this graph's study is unexceptional, then it would seem it's representative. Or are you criticizing the quality of the study itself? Has any evidence in support of that criticism been presented? Do the other studies differ dramatically in their findings?

My questions are not "loaded," and I'd appreciate if you'd please avoid such characterizations in the future -- or at least show how they are loaded by pointing to the premise they implied that is in dispute (cf. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as an example of a loaded question - the disputed premise being that he beat his wife at one time). Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the WHO map, if you think it's a different situation than the WP:UNDUE graph from a single study, then I don't understand why you brought it up. As for your questions, of course they're loaded. Don't ask hypothetical questions relating to other articles; instead, please focus on actual content related to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The WHO map is in this article. Your re-assertion that my questions are loaded is not helpful to my understanding of how they may be loaded; I specifically indicate above what might help remedy that situation. I brought it up to understand how the two positions can be consistent; I believe that despite their different sources, they both seem to boil down to some editor's judgment of the quality of those sources, which seems specifically prohibited especially without any sourced evidence or indeed any evidence. As the WHO have been described as circumcision advocates in at least one context[7], this also seems perhaps related to your WP:UNDUE concerns, and so I'd like to understand your position if you both support the WHO map's inclusion and oppose this graph. Blackworm (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, my mention of penis size was directly in response to your statement above: "The fact that something improper is done in another article doesn't mean it's ok for this one." It is not a hypothetical question as the content you suggest is improper in that article is now the current version of that article. Please do not inhibit my desire to rectify potentially improper edits in other articles by preventing me from asking questions related to the rationale for your opposition to those current versions. Blackworm (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to seek Jayjg's advice about other articles, please would you do so on his talk page? This is not an appropriate place to do so, and it creates too much noise for those of us trying to keep up with discussions about this article. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears you're not following the discussion. Editors are trying to show you how proper articles are written by pointing to what's done in less contentious and probably quite often read articles, and you're both instead handwaving and failing to respond to the other arguments against your position. Not impressive or convincing, sorry. Blackworm (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, review WP:CIVIL very, very carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your incivil personal attacks and tangential diversions and address the arguments made, concede, or stop responding. Blackworm (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, making these kinds of turnspeak false accusations are also violations of WP:CIVIL. The only reason I haven't done something about your violations yet is because it would take more effort than I'm willing to invest at the moment. If you continue, though, my view on that will rapidly change. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your violations merit an examination, and so I welcome that decision should you decide to invest the effort. Blackworm (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The study is notable because it measured the sensitivity of the part of the penis that is cut off by circumcision. DanBlackham (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that the study is not notable, Dan. It is notable. But it isn't any more notable than any of the other studies. And since there are major NPOV implications associated with giving any study special treatment in this controversial area, it's best not to do so. Jakew (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it seems it's your arbitrary decision of which sources get special treatment in controversial areas (WHO, circumcision advocates, cited on large original map with non-NPOV 20-80% prevalence category) and which not to give prominence to (circumcision opponents, fine touch sensitivity graph). Blackworm (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone raises undue weight concerns about the prevalence map, we can discuss those concerns and take appropriate actions. Jakew (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm raising those concerns. The issue is what is "appropriate," thus your responses continue to be arbitrary. My insistence on consistency in the application of policy seems to clash with your administration of these articles. Blackworm (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You know the process, Blackworm. Create a new section, outline your concerns, explaining why it violates WP:UNDUE. Jakew (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Which other studies measured the sensitivity of the part of the penis cut off by circumcision? DanBlackham (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Blatant POV source?

Jakew, you brought reliable sources that discuss and continually refer to Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) to the circumcision article[8] that suggest hygienic measures as a "proposed origin" for male circumcision, but also recently reverted edits that included the phrase "Male Genital Mutilation" as other terms for male circumcision as "blatant POV." Do you perhaps see these two edits as contradictory? Would you object to my citing the source you brought in support of the restoration of the material you deleted in the second edit (with such a strongly worded edit summary)? Blackworm (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As discussed many times previously, Blackworm, the term "male genital mutilation" is used so rarely in reliable sources that including the term would constitute undue weight. Jakew (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said you dismissed the statement as "blatant POV," which seems a statement regarding the view itself, not the undue weight of citing any source brought (indeed none was, but attempts to bring such sources meet with your reverts anyhow). If it's "blatant POV" to call circumcision male genital mutilation, why would you cite those sources that do so when it suits a view held by practitioners of circumcision (and put more cites next to that view, adding "credibility" to the origin you seem to defend so vigourously)? Is it because in this case, in Coppertwig's words, you "wanted" a source that proposed hygiene as an origin, and this one fit? Even if you'd reject it as a source that male circumcision is sometimes referred to as male genital mutilation? Doesn't that seem inappropriate to you?

(Coppertwig's full statement in defense of another similar dubious editorial choice of yours illustrates what I believe is a bizarre, inappropriate rationale for an edit which I believe you may be repeating here: Coppertwig wrote,[9] "Since Jake wanted a quote about risks or harms, and since that part of the paragraph was about risks or harms, Jake selected a quote about risks or harms by leaving out the part about benefits (i.e., replacing the phrase "and benefits" with ellipses[10] when quoting the original source which states "...harms and benefits [of circumcision] have not been unequivocally proven."[11] -Blackworm), which was irrelevant in that context.") Blackworm (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I think you need to check your facts, Blackworm. I'm afraid I can't make sense of your comments about wanting sources mentioning hygiene, or for that matter your implication that the edit added sources that use the term "male genital mutilation". The edit you mention restored the Darby citation for hygiene, but Darby does not use the term "male genital mutilation". The edit also moved (and condensed) the material re Wilson (who does use that phrase), but this had nothing to do with hygiene, as should be obvious from the words "or to reduce adultery" immediately before the citation.

In any case, it is indeed a blatant NPOV violation to list "male genital mutilation" (and "male genital cutting") as synonyms for circumcision. Listing extremely rare (and inherently non-neutral) terminology would give undue attention to that language, thus giving the misleading impression that it was more prominent than it is. Our sources, however, are not subject to Wikipedia policies (as long as they meet the reliability requirements), and are free to express points of view, even extreme ones. It wouldn't make much sense to exclude a source solely because it used non-neutral terminology — the language used by a source is very rarely an issue, what's more important is the fact or opinion for which we're citing the source in the first place. I hope this clarifies things for you. Jakew (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, you didn't introduce the cite. You did move it though, which implies agreement that it is a reliable source. It is a reliable source, and not "blatant POV" to be banned from this article because it uses the word mutilation. Correct? In any case, there is potentially another big, big problem. You changed the article text from saying that it persisted from an evolutionary standpoint due to it having reduced adultery (de facto), to it having begun that way as a means to reduce adultery. I'm not sure that's a proper reflection of the source. First, it seems that MGM and circumcision are not used synonymously by this source. That poses a problem for us. It describes circumcision as a form of MGM:[12]

Male genital mutilation (MGM) is any permanent modification of the external genitalia that involves the ablation of tissue and is normative for all males within a society (Murdock, 1967). MGM is present in a substantial minority of pre-industrial human societies and predates recorded history (Dunsmuir & Gordon, 1999). The form of the prescribed mutilation varies among societies. The least extreme is superincision: a longitudinal bisection of the dorsal foreskin. Superincision occurs in Southeast Asia and the insular Pacific (e.g., Shapiro, 1930). The most widespread is circumcision: the ablation of the entire foreskin.

Thus unless they're specifically discussing circumcision and adultery, and as a proposed origin, not something that made it persist, your edit is not accurate. The word "adultery" doesn't appear in the source at all. They discuss polygyny, though:

Although MGM is indeed predicted to reduce the frequency of EPCs ["extra-pair copulations" -BW] by reducing their payoff and desirability, it is also predicted to arise disproportionately in societies with an inherently high underlying expectation of EPCs due to frequent polygyny and distantly residing co-wives.

Thus the talk of "adultery" seems like free added POV, which you apparently didn't add, but copied without reading the source, and well, I can't any talk about reducing adultery being proposed as an origin for male circumcision; the reliable source discusses Male Genital Mutilation, one form of which is male circumcision. Where did you read that reducing adultery was proposed in the article? Do you have a quote?

Finally, this quote may be of interest: Several doctors have suggested that circumcision arose to improve hygiene by removing skin in which dirt or sand could accumulate (e.g., Hutson, 2004; Winberg et al., 1989). Darby (2005) offered the most recent challenge to this ‘hygiene hypothesis,’ but his conclusion that “health had nothing to do with it” had been noted at least 70 years earlier by anthropologists such as Bryk (1934), who observed that imagined health complications of sand or dirt under the foreskin could hardly match the often fatal risks of hemorrhage and sepsis that arise when boys are universally mutilated under nonsterile conditions by individuals with little or no training, using crude tools or even fingernails. Blackworm (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: the text was not an accurate representation of the source. I've temporarily removed it from the article. Jakew (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's clear you did so not because you believe the source was unreliable or "blatant POV," or unworthy of being cited as a reliable source in this article, but because it did not serve the specific article text you "wanted" to put in the article. Your use of the word "temporarily" is a dead giveaway to a totally inappropriate attitude about what this article should reflect. You just violated basic WP:V policy, and you're expressing hubris about it ("temporarily"). It's like saying, "but wait, it'll be back! It's use as an origin to fight against adultery will be back!" Why would it need to, Jake? One could interpret you as saying it not being clear whether we should put the source back, or how it may be used. I apologize for the striked out misunderstanding and diversion from the topic. Blackworm (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I knew that agreeing with you would provoke such a reaction I might do so less often.

If he proposes an origin, then I see no reason why it should not be included in the list. To be perfectly blunt, I really haven't the patience to read Wilson's article, but if others want to include it (as is apparently the case, since it was added in the first place) then I will not stand in their way. This is what I mean by "temporary" removal of the citation: rather than saying that it can never be cited in the article, I'm just recognising that the way in which it is cited at present is inappropriate. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, re: "the language used by a source is very rarely an issue" -- that's hardly the case anywhere near circumcision-related articles (including female circumcision), where the language used by the sources is routinely redacted and replaced with the terminology favoured by those promoting male circumcision, those opposing female circumcision, or both.

The phrase "male genital mutilation" is not "inherently non neutral." It's a male, it's his genitals, and to many, it's mutilation. On the contrary, it's "non-neutral," "blatant POV" to remove all terms casting circumcision in a negative light while demanding the consistent use of terms casting it positively -- the actual words used in the sources we cite be damned. Blackworm (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

By the same argument, "complete bastard" is not an inherently non-neutral way of describing Jakew (feel free to substitute any editor; I'm just using myself as an example to avoid accidentally offending anyone). To many, after all, Jakew is a complete bastard (in case of confusion, I'm using the term in the British slang sense: an unpleasant, odious, or despicable person). I would suggest, though, that that is their point of view, which is no more valid than the point of view that Jakew is not a complete bastard, and that that description is rather offensive. The term is therefore inherently non-neutral, since using it implies a judgement about Jakew's bastardishness. The neutral approach, therefore, is to avoid using or seeming to endorse non-neutral language, and instead use neutral terms such as "person", "editor", etc., which carry no such implications. Jakew (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, if a reliable journal were to non-jokingly describe you as a "complete bastard," then (a) it would be freezing in Hell, and (b) I would have absolutely no defense against an editor wishing to cite the point of view of the author of that article, and attribute that point of view to the author, in the [[Jake Waskett]] article. You're making the most basic, clear, obvious policy violation by refusing to admit that attribution takes care of the problem. Blackworm (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would quite correctly identify it as a point of view that should be attributed. You wouldn't, I presume, want to edit the prose of the article such that Wikipedia appeared to describe me as a "complete bastard". That's because the term is inherently non-neutral and should not be used by Wikipedia. Similarly, the term "male genital mutilation" is inherently non-neutral, and it should not be used. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree on your assertion for both terms. The relevant views expressed in reliable sources and commented on in reliable sources may be reproduced here, no matter who they may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. To respond to your questions, no, I personally wouldn't cite someone describing you that way, but not because it's against WP:NPOV or WP:V, but only because I might have the appearance of having a conflict of interest in the matter (thus your choice of analogy suffers from these irrelevant overtones). Blackworm (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And note, I'm talking about us attributing the view that circumcision is a form of male genital mutilation to the proper reliable sources. You appear to simply don't want that information presented, and to have no valid reason for that desire. You appear to be on a mission to prevent the word "mutilation" from appearing in this article no matter how the view is attributed, it seems, due to this inappropriate opinion of yours ("inherently non-neutral") blurring the correct interpretation of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NPOV work together, as do all the policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address anything. Are you suggesting that they are in conflict here? I'm suggesting that you're misinterpreting both. Blackworm (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no conflict, at least as far as I can tell.

Applying the general principle of WP:NPOV, we avoid using non-neutral terminology ourselves.

This leaves the question of whether to comment on the fact that some sources use the term.

Applying WP:NOR and WP:V to this question, we need to ask whether any sources comment on the terminology, or whether we are proposing to cite sources as examples for a novel discussion.

Applying WP:UNDUE to the question, we also need to consider the relative frequency of usage, to determine whether it is significant enough to warrant discussion at all. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that you only answer questions posed to Jayjg and vice-versa? It's happened many times in the last two days and in several different threads. It's unnerving, since neither of you actually answer the questions posed to you, it gives the other latitude to ignore the questions in your replies, while the conversation appears to flow without a violation of policy. Please be aware of the appearance of tagteaming.

The fact that some people refer to it as mutilation is well documented in reliable sources (see this for example). Your interpretation of WP:V demonstrates no problem with using the word "mutilation" in this article, and your interpretation of WP:NPOV boils down to editorial judgments on significance. And of course it's significant enough. It's not the term "mutilation" that we must decide or not to include, it's the notion that some people consider it mutilation. That's what's being excluded; not the term. You need to consider the proportion who would describe it as such, as well as the level of contrast with other greatly discussed views, and also the fact that this is a controversial topic and less than two sentences are devoted to the controversy.

As for "examples" for a novel discussion, why does not not apply to your desire to cite Darby's "examples" of theories of origins for male circumcision that "have been proposed?" Blackworm (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to raise a complaint at WP:WQA, if you seriously think there's a violation of WP:TAGTEAM. In the meantime, while I do not mean to cause you any distress, I'm afraid that I intend to reply to any comments that interest me.

The source you cite (and I presume you mean the lengthy footnote) discusses terminology for female genital cutting, not circumcision. It's possible that other sources discuss use of the term "male genital mutilation" for circumcision, but this isn't it. WP:V does not govern the language used in the text of articles, so I'm unsure why you bring it up. WP:NPOV does require neutral language and appropriate weight, and — as stated previously — inclusion of "male genital mutilation" as a synonym would give it far more weight than it deserves (compare 406 hits for "male genital mutilation", four of the ten on the first page being matches for "fe-male", with the 87900 for "circumcision").

I'm afraid I do not understand your point about Darby. The two situations seem completely opposite to me. Darby provides examples of proposed origins, which establishes that the range of proposed origins is a subject that has been discussed in reliable sources. In contrast, if we were to dissect the language used by reliable sources, making not what they discuss but the words the authors use for that purpose the object of our discussion, then we're using those sources as primary sources, for the purpose of novel analysis. The former is encouraged; the latter is original research. Jakew (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Politics

After having informally watched the POLITICS of male circumcision unfold in more than 25 years, I observe, someone should research articles that debate the politics of routine and religious male circumcision.

The medical issues are often unfairly skewed by both sides to give a specious support, to an act, in any other context would be a violation of human rights, a mutilation without consent, and obviously a money maker for hospitals strapped for cash to shore up debts incurred from other areas of health care delivery.

(Paragraph with WP:BLP issues deleted by Jakew.)

I would advocate a section on circumcision politics and the ability of this procedure to have over the years so many wonderful health advanatges. Yet, we all know in the US the most circumcised of western cultures, STD is at an all time high.

I would plead to reason and not so much zeal on both sides of the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.102.116 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Circumstraint

Regarding this edit, many sources discuss the Circumstraint. I know that you know these sources are easily found in the most reliable publications,[13][14] so please rather than remove easily citable information without discussion in Talk, you at the very least could post a message here and point to the issue that it is easily citable with the most cursory search, as you are clearly aware. I would ask why you want to remove mention of the circumstraint, but I believe I would be accused of asking a question to which I already know the answer. Blackworm (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The existence of the Circumstraint is not the issue. The specific claim is that the "Circumstraint [is] commonly used". Neither of the two sources cited to date have supported this claim. The first was a questionable source (being an advertising page from the manufacturer) that said nothing of the kind (as noted in the edit summary of my first edit). The second reported that, in a study involving 48 participants, the Circumstraint was used. It says nothing about level of usage outside of the study, and I cannot think of any reason why 48 circumcisions would constitute common usage. Jakew (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

At least two out of three procedures in the Stanford training clips [[15]] used the circumstraint. You can't see if it's used in the third, but the baby legs are motionless. Training films. It's commonly used Jakew.

I can't find it right now, but I read a current study finding only 30% of selected large hospital circs used analgesia. They used the dorsal block in the Stanford films, but that leaves the ventral side almost unprotected. You can't do a circ without ring block pain control without a restraint.Zinbarg (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That may just mean that it's commonly used in Stanford training videos, Zinbarg. It doesn't prove that the Circumstraint is commonly used in circumcisions. Regardless, all this is original research; to meet the requirements of WP:V, what is needed is a source that specifically and explicitly makes the same claim. Jakew (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so; we need a reliable, indepedent source that makes that explicit claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The "claim" in question is a product of Wikipedia editors. We could go Jakew's way (at least the proposed way with "origins"), and start the sentence with, "a variety of devices have been used to perform male circumcision, among them..." Let's do that. Right, Jakew? Blackworm (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite see the merit, Blackworm. It seems to me that by doing that we would lose information: that being the existing (cited) information about the clamps being commonly used. Also, I think we would need a source saying that the Circumstraint is "used to perform" circumcision, since that seems inaccurate to me. Surgical instruments (including clamps) are used to perform circumcision. Circumstraints have more of a supporting role: they facilitate the process, sure, but they don't actually dictate the surgical technique. Jakew (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize not even a scalpel or any kind of cutting edge is mentioned? Really, Jake, consider taking a step back and looking at the paragraph. It looks like it's written by a circumcision promoter, except for a few phrases at the end, which are jarring considering the rest of the paragraph's incompleteness. You're actually arguing that it's better not to mention certain devices in a more general context at all, since doing so precludes more specific information specific to some devices. That's nonsensical; why would we necessarily even lose that information? Don't you have any imagination or effort at all you wish to spend on this problem? You can write, "A variety of devices have been used to perform male circumcision, among them [...]. Today in the Western world, clamps are among the instruments commonly used, among them the [...]." Your premise "surgical instruments [...] are used to perform" is irrelevant; lots of things are used that aren't mentioned, and in fact you're arguing that because it's used to perform it, it requires mention and the Circumstraint doesn't, even though the restraint chair is also used to perform it. That logic is wrong, Jake. I wouldn't be surprised if the restraint chair was mentioned in the medical textbooks' description of the procedure. Do you think I should go look, or will you confirm or deny that?

I don't see instruments as "dictating" the "surgical" technique (again Jake, no, it's not always surgical; please abide by WP:CONSENSUS). Again, you want to inexplicably insert the medical context up front, as the introduction, without even introducing that medical context or stating that we are in a Western medical context. That's not WP:NPOV, as I've told you over and over. If one cuts foreskin off a penis (or "ablates" since you deny without reliable sources that it's necessarily cutting), they've performed a circumcision, no matter what your opinion of the skill of the circumciser or their choice of instruments. Blackworm (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We're only interested in commonly used devices, per WP:UNDUE, and the sources don't indicate it's commonly used. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of WP:UNDUE. Quote the part of WP:UNDUE that underscores your point, please. What is the "point of view" we are unduly representing simply by mentioning this device, if we start the paragraph the way I propose above? Blackworm (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I imagine Jayjg means this part, Blackworm:

• Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it to be strictly your (flawed) analysis and judgement of the significance of an infant restraint chair to the group of devices used to perform circumcision that is at issue. Clearly if that were the driving emphasis in the paragraph, the cutting edge would be mentioned.For you, it seems, the "quantity of text" putting circumcision in any kind of negative light must be as near zero as possible, and you use undue quantity of text, undue prominence of placement (rendering all negativity to subarticles, for example), and undue depth of detail (zero to circumcision in the world, and 100% on Western medical circumcision of males only). Again, explain why we focus on clamps but not on the different devices used to sever the foreskin? The stark imbalance in that aspect's quantity of text etc. is striking, and underscores that this paragraph is teeming with WP:UNDUE weight as it stands. Blackworm (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide explicit evidence regarding the "significance" of this restraint device. Explicit evidence means a reliable source explicitly stating it is significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not, as that is an invented, arbitrary criterion. It doesn't apply to Jakew's laundry list of origins that "have been proposed," and thus it doesn't apply here, as I've said. Rather than repeating yourself, do you care the address the divide between Wikipedia policy and your arguments for suppressing this information? Blackworm (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy, regardless of whether or not you consider it to be "an invented, arbitrary criterion", and all editors must abide by it. The "divide" you speak of cannot really be addressed, as it is imaginary. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What's actually quite odd to me in this discussion is that during all this, the most common device, i.e., something that cuts the foreskin, like a knife or scalpel, isn't even mentioned. Should we address that first? Blackworm (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, Jake, if you can't see the merit in discussing the devices used for circumcision, even the ones used by studies in reliable sources, perhaps you've lost a bit of sight as to what makes an encyclopedia useful, in my humble opinion. Blackworm (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a source indicating that the Circumstraint is used reasonably frequently, I have no problem with writing an additional sentence (something like "To secure the infant during the procedure, devices such as the Circumstraint may be used.") But I think it is a mistake to try to discuss devices that are actually used in the circumcision procedure in the same sentence as those that merely play a supporting role. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Jake, I'm afraid you don't understand; they actually do sometimes use the Circumstraint and other infant restraint devices. You imply that the Circumstraint is not "actually used." That's equivocal. The restraint chair is actually used in the circumcision procedure, which requires preparation, and in the infant case, restraint of the subject. Your distinction "actually used" vs "supporting role" is arbitrary nonsense in the case of restraints versus clamps. To you, apparently, the thing that first isolates the healthy tissue to be removed, then reduces bleeding after a different, unmentioned device is used to cut off the foreskin is "actually used in the circumcision procedure;" while the thing that straps the baby down so he doesn't writhe away in pain is not "actually used" but has a supporting role is unworthy of mention. It's nonsense. The people that read Wikipedia are adults; they're allowed to know that the baby is strapped in a chair and that a cutting edge is used. The information is basic and therefore shouldn't be obfuscated. Blackworm (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, do you have any comment about the sentence I mentioned: "To secure the infant during the procedure, devices such as the Circumstraint may be used"? Jakew (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As your suggestion was conditional on "reasonably frequently," I addressed that condition, rather than your suggestion. Do you have any response? Blackworm (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The gist of your post (dated 04:34, 6 February 2010) seems to be that you take issue with my distinction between actual use and a supporting role. Arguing over this distinction seems a waste of time, since writing two sentences is harmless from either perspective, so it seems more productive to do so rather than have a pointless debate. If you addressed frequency of use at all, I'm afraid I can't find reference to it. Would you rephrase your comments about frequency so that I can address them? Jakew (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's write the two sentences then, if you agree. Blackworm (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I see a source asserting some reasonable frequency of use, certainly. Jakew (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Circumstraint is well established as the "standard" restraint tool for most infant circumcisions.

"Restraint involved strapping each newborn to a standard circumstraint board" [16]

"The new Olympic Circumstraint is even more versatile and functional than the popular model purchased by over 11,000 hospitals throughout the world... Circumstraint has become the infant immobilization standard..." [17]

I don't see the need to remove something which is well known and established as one of the primary tools in infant circumcision for more than a decade. I think it would be wiser to argue about questionable article material instead of things like this (IMHO).--Studiodan (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't access the first link, but the sentence you quote above doesn't indicate that the Circumstraint is the standard restraint device. Rather, it indicates that infants were restrained using a standard (as opposed to modified, or otherwise non-standard) device. (Similarly, "Circumcisions were performed using a standard swiss army knife" would not imply that swiss army knives were the standard method, but would simply indicate that the knives were standard-issue.) The second link is an example of a questionable source, since it is promotional in nature. Jakew (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you are well aware that the Circumstraint is the standard restraint device used around the western world. Are you actually disputing that?--Studiodan (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's in bold in the original for a reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That burden has been met. These reliable sources show that the circumcision restraint board is a device that has been used to help cut off foreskins, and has been used in studies in reliable sources. I'm also afraid the article information is quite visible on the linked page, as are the other sources presented. Blackworm (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Olympic Medical's Circumstraint infant holder is widely used for infant circumcision."[18]

"Infants were then moved from their isolettes to a standard circumstraint board"[19]

"Restraint involved strapping each newborn to a standard circumstraint board"[20]

"Circumstraint has become the infant immobilization standard'..."[21]

Everyone here already knows it's the standard. What are we arguing about exactly? Come now... This is quite the waste of time.

--Studiodan (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The first of the sources you list is a patent application, written by the manufacturer with no editorial oversight. It is therefore insufficiently reliable. The second uses the term "standard circumstraint board", which as I explained above simply means unmodified in this context. The third and fourth I've already commented on in my post dated 21:02, 8 February 2010. So do you actually have any reliable sources that assert that the Circumstraint is regularly used? Jakew (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan, you need to provide reliable secondary sources that explicitly state that it is "the standard restraint device used around the western world". Both are required, reliable secondary sources, and explicitly stating it. So far you've provided none. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to provide anything which explicitly says this, because nowhere in the article did it say this... I'm saying it here, because I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. What I have provided is four sources which show that it's at least one standard. I've asked before, but I'll ask again... Are you (and/or Jake) actually implying that you are not aware that the Circumstraint is the standard restraining device used in infant circumcision? I'm curious what the actual reason is for wanting this omitted.--Studiodan (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite positive that not "everyone knows it" regarding this product. There are almost 7 billion people in the world, and I can confidently state that the overwhelming majority have never heard of it. The actual reasons for wanting to "omit" mention of this device are exactly as stated above, and relate entirely to policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cannot believe what I'm reading here. All infant medical circumcision uses a restraining device, of necessity, with the Circumstraint being the most popular since the 1960s. There is surely no argument over this obvious fact. The wording in question is devices "such as", surely not too bold a claim. Johncoz (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Have made the addition, with a link to a description of the device, so that the reader knows what is being talked about. Johncoz (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted, since the source you cited is promotional material from the manufacturer, and is thus a questionable source of insufficient reliability. Jakew (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the source. "After the infant was placed on the restraint board (Circumstraint, Olympic Medical, Seattle, Wash)"[[22]]--Studiodan (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a better source, but it doesn't support the claim attributed to it. It doesn't state that the Circumstraint is commonly used, or anything of the kind. It only mentions the Circumstraint once, indicating that it was used for the 119 circumcisions performed as part of the study. I guess it might support a claim such as: "In a study involving 119 circumcisions, the Circumstraint was used." Jakew (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, the "source" was merely illustrative of what a circumstraint board looks like. The text simply says that infants are restrained as part of the procedure, as indicated in the main source (Holman) and innumersble others, and Circumstraint is one of those devices (almost certainly the main one, but the peer-reviewed lit won't tell you that because it's just taken for granted). It is simply a preposterous misuse of Wiki policy to seek to delete all mention of restraint devices. Johncoz (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source that supports the claim attributed to it, and it won't be deleted. Jakew (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

REPEAT: Infant restraint is not an issue (already in Holman). All the text is saying is that the Circumstraint board is one of the devices used, and the sources back that up. Johncoz (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYN. What is needed is a single reliable source that explicitly states that the Circumstraint is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't patronise. No claim is made about "commonly used". The text says "such as", ie the Circumstraint board is an EXAMPLE. Johncoz (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some further examples of the Circumstraint being used. These are just a few from a quick Google search with 10,700 hits.

"Restraint, which involved strapping newborns to a circumstraint board for 20 min"

Adrenocortical and behavioral responses to limb restraint in human neonates.

Dev Psychobiol. 1985 Sep;18(5):435-46. PMID 4065431 [[23]]

"The infants were then strapped to a circumcision board (CIRCUMSTRAINT; Olympic Surgical Co., Seattle, WA) and prepared and draped in a sterile manner."

Topical Lidocaine-Prilocaine Versus Lidocaine for Neonatal Circumcision: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Obstetrics & Gynecology: May 1999 - Vol 93 - Issue 5, Part 1 - p 775-779 [[24]]

"The restraint device that was used remained the Circumstraint (Olympic Medical Corporation, Seattle, WA), a rigid molded-plastic platform that restrains the infants’ extremities in a position of extension."

"data from this study clearly demonstrate a 50% reduction of distress during the procedure from the use of a physiologically designed, cushioned soft circumcision chair over the rigid plastic restraint (Circumstraint)."

Beyond Dorsal Penile Nerve Block: A More Humane Circumcision

Pediatrics 1997;100;e3 DOI: 10.1542/peds.100.2.e3 [[25]][[26]]

"Circumcisions were performed...restraint of the infant by a circumcision board (Circumstraint, Olympic Surgical, Seattle)"

Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine–Prilocaine Cream for Pain during Circumcision

The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336:1197-1201, April 24, 1997, No. 17 [[27]]

"...restrained on a circumcision restraint device (Circumstraint, Olympic Medical, Seattle, WA)."

Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision

Journal of Perinatology, April/May 2002, Volume 22, Number 3, Pages 214-218 [[28]]

"After the infant was placed on the restraint board (Circumstraint, Olympic Medical, Seattle, Wash)"

Neonatal Circumcision: Randomized Trial of a Sucrose Pacifier for Pain Control

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 152 No. 3, March 1998 [[29]]

"The Olympic Circumstraint is manufactured by Olympic Medical of 4400 Seventh South, Seattle, Washington. This is one of a number of medical supply houses that produce equipment that will secure a male infant..."

Circumcision: The Pros And Cons

Originally published, Journeymen Magazine, Fall 1992 [[30]]

"'Circumstraint' board: used for infants."

BC Health Pays to Restore Man's Foreskin

The Tyee, Amanda Euringer, 25 Jul 2006 [[31]]

"a circumstraint, the immobilizing device used in hospital circumcisions"

Text of Talk to Rabbi Nathan Segal's Congregation

American Circumcision and Brit Milah in 2003, Mark D. Reiss, M.D. [[32]]

"how a typical medical circumcision is performed. First the child, after 9 months in the fetal position, is tied down spreadeagled and straight-backed in a circumstraint..."

Male Circumcision in the USA: A Human Rights Primer

Rich Winkel 12 May 2005 [[33]]

"A molded plastic board with Velcro straps called a Circumstraint board is used to restrain the baby."

Circumcision: Techniques, Results, Complications

Anonymous letter to Dan Savage, sex columnist, October 2004 [[34]]

"Such As" is clearly demonstrable, just pick a source.--Studiodan (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The same problem continues. None of these sources, as far as I can tell, satisfies the requirements of WP:RS and state that the Circumstraint is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Such As" not "Commonly Used". The following source shows that an infant must be restrained (listing a device "such as" is complimentary to that).

"Infant will be placed on restraint board or chair with extremities restrained using padded Velcro straps."

PROCEDURE FOR: Circumcision

NICU/NBN – Unit Practice Manual[[35]]

The University of Connecticut Health Center

I will add this citation.--Studiodan (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it shows that infants are restrained as standard practice in circumcisions performed by the University of Connecticut Health Center, which is not the same as showing that they are restrained in all circumcisions. And it does not refer to the Circumstraint at all, so since we cannot perform synthesis, it tells us nothing about whether the Circumstraint is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That citation does not mention the Circumstraint, it mentions restraint, which is why I put it right after "restraining device" (not Circumstraint). The point is that it shows that the infant must be restrained. After that, the Circumstraint is listed as a "device SUCH AS". It does not say "commonly used". I only mentioned "commonly used" on the talk page here (because it's common knowledge among those who talk here), it's not in the article.--Studiodan (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I have moved the citation to group with the others, since all that is being claimed in relation to Circumstraint is that is an example of a restraining device, the general existence and necessity of which is confirmed by Holman Johncoz (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is presented as an example of a device that is commonly used, and since none of the sources support this, they will all be removed in accordance with policy. Jakew (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is presented as an example of an infant restraining device, which it is. Therefore, no conflict with policy. Johncoz (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It says "...commonly used, together with a restraining device, such as a Circumstraint." It doesn't say "commonly used, such as a Circumstraint." It says "together with a restraining device" and then "such as". The current claim in the article is that a restraining device is commonly used... not that the Circumstraint is commonly used. The Circumstraint is an example, hence the "such as".--Studiodan (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, a second reversion by you would be verging on edit warring, given the good faith attempts by others to improve this section of the article. Any positive input about how to discuss infant restraint would, I'm sure, be appreciated. Johncoz (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand. When you say "a second reversion by you would be verging on edit warning" are you speaking of something I've done, or preemptively warning me? And are you speaking of reverts or edits or both? My apologizes for not understanding... I'm a little confused, Thanks.--Studiodan (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, comment was to Jake, not you Johncoz (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To assert that A is commonly used together with B is to assert that B is commonly used. The Circumstraint is then given as an example of a restraining device that is commonly used. Jakew (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What is commonly used, according to the sense of the sentence, is an infant restraining device (and quite frankly under NPOV this is a statement equivalent to the sun will rise tomorrow). Then COMMA "such as". Personally, I have no idea about the relative frequency of different makes and models of such devices, nor do I care. But we have lots and lots and lots of evidence that the Circumstraint is pretty common, not just in Connecticut, or some study, or wherever. So using it as an example seems not particularly extraordinary, and certainly violates no known policy that I can see.Johncoz (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence structure is such that it is implied that the Circumstraint is commonly used. Making such an assertion (even by implication) violates WP:V without a source that explicitly says so.

Given the apparent difficulty in finding a reliable source that asserts that the Circumstraint is commonly used, I would suggest that an alternative might be to find a source asserting that restraining devices are commonly used (this might be somewhat easier, I imagine). We could then write: "For infant circumcision, devices such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen clamp are commonly used,[Holman] in addition to a device to restrain the infant during the procedure.[New ref]" Jakew (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Holman explicitly deals with infant positioning and restraint, or does it not to your satisfaction? The Circumstraint board is merely an example of this. I suspect it's the most widely sold device, but there's no way of knowing for sure, and certainly no source to that effect, so I'm happy to leave it as an illustrated example of the sort of device in use (the others are pretty similar eg Sten chair, a moulded plastic board with strap limb restraints) Johncoz (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find any reference to restraint in Holman. Would you mind quoting the passage you mean? I can find a reference to positioning of the infant ("Measures for creating an aseptic field, anesthesia and positioning of the infant do not vary with the technique selected.") but it would seem difficult to use. I suppose we could add a sentence along the lines of "measures may be taken to position the infant", but that seems so vague that I'm unsure it would be worthwhile.

The most usable source that I can think of is Wiswell's Circumcision Circumspection (Wiswell TE. Circumcision circumspection. N Engl J Med. 1997 Apr 24;336(17):1244-5), in which he describes circumcision techniques in general use in the United States, stating "The infant is typically strapped to a restraining board..." That would seem to support the contention that a restraining device is commonly used, though of course it does not name the Circumstraint specifically and should not be used to suggest otherwise.

As for the Circumstraint itself, the current sentence structure implies that the Circumstraint is commonly used, and as noted that violates WP:V because none of the sources make that assertion. I did consider proposing that the Circumstraint might be mentioned in a separate sentence (eg., "An example of a restraining device is the Circumstraint."); however I decided against proposing that as it would shift the problem from a WP:V problem to a WP:UNDUE one. If we lack reliable sources asserting that the Circumstraint is widely used then the best approach is simply not to mention it. Jakew (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just gone back to Holman myself, and I agree. Happy to use Wiswell, thanx for the suggestion (do you want to add the citation?). Which leaves us with Circumstraint, and I would maintain that the current sentence carries no implication beyond illustrative, ie it is merely an example of such a restraint and it is restraint in general which is "commonly used". Johncoz (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't think that the problems with that sentence could be solved by merely adding the citation; I think a rewrite is needed that removes the existing sources and replaces them with one making the actual claim. Although the intent may be to illustrate an example, the implication is that the Circumstraint is commonly used (mostly this is implied by the sentence, but also of course it would make little sense to cite an example that is infrequently used, so the fact that it is used as an example at all has implications). That represents a WP:V problem, and one that must be addressed. Wikipedia is an NPOV encyclopaedia, not a marketing agency employed by the manufacturer, and we should not imply that the Circumstraint is the standard device, or otherwise give that product such preferential treatment, unless we have reliable sources that make an assertion about its frequency of use. Jakew (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Wiswell gives us restraint as a general proposition, so we are now dealing with the sentence fragment ", such as a Circumstraint." which seems to me to be no more than an illustration. That's what the sentence means, and to read into this "preferential treatment" for a manufacturer is quite frankly absurd. The reader has right to know what we are talking about, concretely, and we have a responsibility to tell them as best we can. It's hardly an endorsement (which is presumably why you fighting so hard to exclude it) Johncoz (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Will be AFK for a few hours, will return to this discussion later. Johncoz (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would we highlight the Circumstraint™ device, if it's not commonly used? We're not here to advertise for these products. And to answer previous question, no, I have no idea if it's commonly used. But if you're looking for personal experience, I can say that I have witnessed several circumcisions, and never seen it used. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the accumulated evidence from the literature (see above discussion) is that it is exceedingly common, though for obvious reasons you won't find a single secondary source to say so, since it is just part of the "background" equipment, as it were. Solution is to refer to it as an example of such a device (and of course not simply used for circs) while remaining neutral on how commonly used it may be. Johncoz (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The "accumulated evidence from the literature" is original research based on the use of a few Google links as primary sources. And by the way, an anonymous letter to a sex columnist, posted on an anti-circumcision website, is not a strong source no matter how you look at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, how many non-religious circumcisions of newborns have you witnessed in a hospital? No one has suggested that a Circumstraint is used for a brit milah. DanBlackham (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And why are we advertising Plastibell™ or Gomco™ without evidence of how commonly used they are? Because we are actually know that these devices together with the Circumstraint, form part of the standard equipment for most infant circumcisions. Johncoz (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the citation used explicitly states that those devices are commonly used. That would be completely different from the case above, where you advertise a product, and actually link to the vendor's marketing material. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How commonly? Mogen in hospitals? Let's apply some common sense here. Neonates need to be restrained during the procedure, the literature clearly shows the Circumstraint board is widely used, and we provide a link to show what this thing (and indeed all similar devices) look like. What's the problem? Johncoz (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Johncoz, Wikipedia's primary content policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, and all articles must adhere to them. That's the problem. Now, per those policies, please provide explicit evidence from reliable sources that the Circumstraint™ device is widely used. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I find it interesting that you would edit-war in the mention of the Circumstraint™ device, with the admonition please do not edit war. Was the irony there intentional or unintentional? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Found proof so we can say common [[36]] In the second sentence under Technique find "After the infant is restrained," and we only know of the circumstraint to restrain.Zinbarg (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The source never even mentions the Circumstraint™ device. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Circumcstraint (when capitalized) is a patented, trademarked commercial device. Mentioning it might turn the article into a advertisement. To complicate things, the circumstraint(not capitalized) has become the generic term for all infant limb restraint devices, even when used for other surgical or medical procedures. While most infants circumcised in a medical setting are restrained with some sort of device, we can't say this is always true. Some clinics might very well still use the aid of a nurse to restrain the infant. Prior to circa 1955 this is how all infants were restrained, and many are still restrained this way in traditional circumcisions in the US and around the world. Frank Koehler (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)