Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Definition of circumcision

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

Wikipedia currently states that;

male circumcision = circumcision
female circumcision (see link) = mutilation

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

You're a bit too late to comment on the latest requested move, but yes, this argument has been made and repeatedly found to have no consensus for or against. Thus the dispute continues. It's unfortunate that in the meanwhile the article does not appropriately reflect the fact that it is disputed with a tag, but such is the interpretation of policy by those on one side of the dispute, who keep removing any tags they say "deface" the article. The editors on the other side of the dispute have apparently accepted that the disruption caused by editwarring over the tag (despite its clearly being appropriate, according to policy) possibly outweighs the benefit of the tag; and have chosen to be the side that does not editwar their preferred version despite a lack of consensus for either position (to their credit), nor even editwar the tag clearly shown to have community approval in these circumstances (to their outstanding credit). Blackworm (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone65, please review the discussion in the section immediately above this. In that discussion, as in previous page move discussions, the consensus was that "circumcision" alone signifies "male circumcision", as in common and academic usage "circumcision" alone is overwhelmingly used to mean "circumcision of the penis". Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the second time you repeat this, despite my pointing out that no consensus (for or against) was reached in that discussion. This is clear to anyone simply scrolling up to the top of the highlighted text on this page. Your invalid argument is common to several editors supporting your position, but I again claim it is incivil behaviour as it misrepresents community consensus in support of a disputed position. Blackworm (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, 11 editors with a combined total of over 358,000 live edits supported the view that "circumcision" commonly means "circumcision of the penis", while 5 editors with a combined total of over 63,000 live edits opposed that view, and 3 editors were neutral or unclear. So yeah, there was a consensus for that view, as "is clear to anyone simply scrolling up to the top of the highlighted text on this page". Therefore, if it is indeed "incivil" to "misrepresent community consensus in support of a disputed position", then you should stop doing so. And, as I've mentioned before, the correct word is "uncivil", not "incivil". It's "incivility" but "uncivil"; that English is inconsistent is an unfortunate but well-recognized truth. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As I point out elsewhere, you were not the closing admin, and the closing admin didn't appear to find a consensus in that discussion. Your original research regarding numbers of edits, even if accurate, is irrelevant. Your !vote count, I dismiss as inherently biased, but even if it were completely accurate and neutral -- would again to irrelevant to the question, which is whether a consensus was found that this article is titled appropriately for the topic it discusses. WP:UCN does not override WP:NPOV, anyway, so even if editors agree it's "common" (I'm sure some on the other side do, too) doesn't mean they support the continued organization here (nor the desired changes that you, Jakew, and Avraham have currently editwarred into Circumcision and law). Blackworm (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
And I've pointed out that the closing admin in no way disagreed with what I said, which was an accurate summary of the clear consensus. As for that other article, someone has finally undone the changes non-consensual changes you've edit-warred for many months to keep in it. Jayjg (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The closing admin never commented on what you said after the RM, so his agreement or disagreement with your claim is unknown. I never claimed the closing admin disagreed with you, in fact I suggested asking them directly whether they agree with you. Can you address that suggestion, please? My view is that the uncontested fact that male circumcision is commonly referred to as circumcision does not make it appropriate (nor does a consensus exist) to make the edits you support, either here or in circumcision and law. No wider consensus against that position has been shown to exist. Finally, your assessment of consensus is clearly not neutral nor uninvolved owing to your high level of involvement in the dispute and prior disputes.
As for your claim regarding the other article, I claim it to be patently false,[3] as evidenced by that page's edit history. Blackworm (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I am impressed by the suggestion that the word "circumcision" as used in this article conflicts with NPOV, since the established lead clearly aligns with standard English usage by specifying that the article is talking about male circumcision, with a link to the procedures sometimes performed on females, with profoundly different consequences for the females. So, if I am not too late, would Jayjg please make that 12 editors who support the established view. Wikipedia should not be used to promote some view about male/female circumcision. By the way, WP:OR applies to proposals for articles, not a tally of views expressed on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the dispute. Hopefully someday there will be a consensus found in it. Blackworm (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, please note, since you seem unfamiliar with the topic, that some of the procedures performed on females and called "circumcision," or less often, "female genital cutting" are analogous or even less invasive than a typical male circumcision, for example the removal of a tiny portion of the clitoral hood. See the female circumcision article for details. Blackworm (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Also Johnuniq did you come here to oppose me by sheer coincidence or as a result of my disputing your arguments here? Why must editors follow editors with whom they've had disagreement to other disputes they happen to be involved in, and accusing them without evidence of using Wikipedia to promote their views? Isn't that frowned upon? Blackworm (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely you frequent more pages than this and WP:WQA (I haven't looked)? This article has been on my watchlist for several months following a report I saw on some noticeboard, but I have been ignoring it since everything seemed under control. When I saw "Definition of circumcision" on my watchlist I decided to have a closer look. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
So it wasn't when you saw my user name next to it. Okay, fair enough. I still don't appreciate the accusations of using Wikipedia to promote views about male and female circumcision, but then accusations have flown time and time again from both sides regarding that, so it seems you are fitting into the dispute quite well! :) Blackworm (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I am on blackworms side. The article is named circumcision but then in the opening says male circumcision. That is a load of garbage in my opinion, and the lead is pretty stupid. Thats why i changed it here; [4]. But User:Jayjg reverted me. His intentions are pretty clear. I'm not the type of editor who is hard-headed and jumps in to rewrite stuff mercilessly, but the current lead is way off. Someone65 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've redacted the personal part of your comment; don't make it again. Jayjg (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You're not on my "side." You're an editor who apparently shares my view regarding the better outcome of this dispute. I am glad to see other editors feel the same way about the content (as if it wasn't already clear, despite attempts to paint the opposite picture). However, I will speak for myself and let others speak for themselves. Blackworm (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

prevent AIDS

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

Contraindications

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

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

New Statistics for United States

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

I was about to comment on this, which I've already reverted once and will soon revert again.
Please note that news sources are not usually considered to be good sources for academic subjects. See, for example, WP:RS#News organizations, which states: "For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." Also, see WP:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Popular_press.
I obviously have no objection to including this information once it can be verified through a published paper, but it is not appropriate to cite such a poor source in support of a rather exceptional claim. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
An "extraordinary claim?" Such a characterization might be true if it were, for example, "disappointing" news. POV Detective (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You left out the part about how circumcision supposedly results in a significantly reduced risk of HIV/AIDS. I expect that's "disappointing" news to the anti-circumcision activists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the degree to which something is "extraordinary" (or "exceptional", to use the word I actually used) is largely unrelated to whether it is considered good or bad. If I were to discover that that an unknown relative had left me a very large inheritance, for example, it would be extraordinary but not disappointing. In the case of this article, the very fact that it is reporting such a dramatic change in a short time interval is extraordinary. That doesn't mean that it should be excluded, of course, but it does mean that we should be careful to find a solid, reliable source. Jakew (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Given such rigorous academic standards, it's inconsistent that other Users support I Maccabes as "evidence" for the broad claims about the cause of the Maccabean rebellion in the article Circumcision and Law. POV Detective (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are better sources. The CDC presented the statistic at AIDS 2010 in Vienna, Austria last month. I have photos of the presentation slides showing that the US circ rate in 2006 was 56.4%, and 32.5% in 2009, El Bcheraouis in front of the dias, and CDC clearly shown on the slides. MDconsult interviewed the lead CDC presenter El Bcheraoui, where he expanded on the topic. See: http://www.mdconsult.com/das/news/body/214800087-2/mnfp/1038842761/220621/1.html?nid=220621&date=week&general=true&mine=true and http://pag.aids2010.org/Abstracts.aspx?SID=438&AID=4529 Since the CDC felt comfortable announcing these statistics at an International medical conference I say this is verified. Frank Koehler (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Frank, the first of these two links is another news source and hence suffers from the same reliability problems as the original acep.org page. And I'm not sure why you mention the second because it doesn't seem to say anything about the circumcision rate. Jakew (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Some Users apparently question the authority of the American College of Emergency Physicians. POV Detective (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, some users have said news sources (e.g. Elsevier Global Medical News, the service quoted on the ACEP site) aren't good sources for this. Misrepresenting the cite as "On August 5, 2010, the American College of Emergency Physicians reported..." is pretty dodgy, too. Elsevier Global Medical News reported it: ACEP simply posted the EGMN news release. TFOWR 15:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably more comfortable than having a news source passed off as the American College of Emergency Physicians. You didn't even have the decency to correct your error before blindly reverting. Incidentally, you're now at three reverts - consider this your WP:3RR warning. TFOWR 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

If you feel you've been subjected to a personal attack, WP:WQA is that way. You might prefer WP:ANI if you like. Now, about that edit of yours. Are you going to revert it or correct it? TFOWR 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
trusts the authority of the American College of Emergency Physicians and Elsevier Global Medical News, which has been cited in Footnote 9 in another Wikipedia article. POV Detective (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"TFOWR trusts" the ACEP, too. What I'm saying is: ACEP hasn't reported what you claim they have reported. The report was from a news source, and as you can see above, several editors have expressed concerns about news sources. So, to summarise: your edit states that the ACEP reported something. That is not, in fact, the case. Your edit cites a news source, which - fair enough - you seem quite happy with. But several other editors aren't. Do you see the problem? TFOWR 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There was no such consensus in the discussion. (btw, what happened to that Symbol +++ you claimed to have adopted the other day?) POV Detective (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, apart from you, everyone else seems to think that (a) a news source is unsatisfactory, and (b) your edit misrepresents reality: you're claiming erroneously that ACEP reported something. Which I note you still haven't reverted or corrected. TFOWR 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right, that'll be why - because you've just been reverted. I wondered why you'd popped back. TFOWR 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Starting over. OK, instead of wasting all our time edit warring, why don't you (POV Detective) try and find a decent source? You've been told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources: instead of ignoring that why not just try and locate a good reference to use? TFOWR 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. POV Detective, please review the objections of multiple editors here regarding this source and its claims (Elsevier Global Medical News). A 50% drop in 3 years is unprecedented, particularly as no mainstream sources seem to have noticed this. Per WP:REDFLAG, this will require much better sourcing. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what the company itself says about them:

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

And yet, various editors feel the need to push these numbers as unqualified fact into the lede of every circumcision-related article, despite the fact that everyone, including the company that produced them, is strongly qualifying them. I wonder why that is? Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Shaza-um! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the study being a biased sample, as you suggest; and hence, unreliable; here are a couple more interesting quotes:
"Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining."
"Opponents of circumcision hailed the trend as a victory of common sense over what they call culturally accepted genital mutilation. For federal health officials, who have been debating whether to recommend circumcision to stem the spread of AIDS, the news suggests an uphill battle that could be more difficult than expected."
I'd like to know how increasing one's risk for AIDS qualifies as "common sense".
Also, I bet the anti-circumcision lobby doesn't like this factoid, which has to do with the main reason they conducted the study:
"The study found a very low rate of complications associated with newborn circumcisions; most were considered mild and no babies died."
←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
Interesting. The fragment "had not yet been published and was still being analyzed" seems to imply that there are plans to finish analysis and publish these data, so with luck we should have a reliable source before too long. Jakew (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the second sentence in the article, "A little-noted presentation by a federal health researcher last month at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna..." is rather telling. If I was unsure of my stats, I'd keep it low-key too. And it's worth pointing out, again, that they don't see this "precipitous" drop in circumcision as a good thing by any means. Apparent the anti-circumcision lobby does. What that lobby's motives could be, for wanting more men to get AIDS, is anybody's guess, although I wouldn't rule out that maybe they're just morons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've learned that it's often best to avoid making statements about whether circumcision is good or bad (or, as a closely related matter, whether high circumcision rates are desirable or not), since such arguments tend to be unresolvable and also tend to result in upsetting editors with opposing points of view. I'm sure many of us have opinions about the anti-circumcision lobby, too (I certainly do!), but I wonder if you'd mind not mentioning them here, just to keep the peace? It would be much appreciated. Jakew (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be shameful if a minority continued to oppose factual information in the Wikipedia article on circumcision. Despite the effort of some to hide the facts, the American public has made its choice, and the circumcison rate has declined significantly in the last five years. To conceal the abandonment of circumcision by the American people won't stop the decline . . .

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

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

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

Please see pointers to relevant parts of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS at the beginning of this section, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
New York Times not a reliable source? No, wrong. The statement is of concern to WP:MEDRS due to it providing health information which could be misused with ill-effects? No, wrong. Please see WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Asserting that I'm wrong is not, by itself, particularly convincing. As I quoted at the beginning of this section, WP:RS has this to say about news sources in an academic context: ""For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." As for WP:MEDRS#Popular press, it begins "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles", and continues with further guidance. Jakew (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The article in The New York Times makes it quite clear that the numbers are from a study that didn't actually measure rates of circumcision, and that didn't count huge numbers of circumcisions. The company behind the study says that the numbers haven't been published, and are still being analyzed. It's hard to imagine a less likely candidate factoid for the article lead. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

ANI Notice

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

Title

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

We've had several discussions about this previously, SlimVirgin, including several requested moves (most recent). The recommendation at WP:MOSDAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries is to include a disambiguation hatnote at the primary topic, linking to the secondary topic; that's what we have here. Jakew (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that it's called Circumcision, not Male circumcision, and there's a long list of male and female circumcision articles that could be included on a dab page, which would help people to navigate around the topic. I can't see any benefit in giving the male circumcision article the Circumcision title. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of references in the world use the term "circumcision" to mean removal of the foreskin from the glans. That is not what occurs with clitoridectomies or infibulations or any procedure on women, as they do not have a penis. Per wikipedia manual of style, this article is properly titled "Circumcison" with a disambiguation to Female Genital Cutting at the top. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the common usage of terms and remain agnostic to political debate, be it national or gender related. -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) "Circumcision" is the common name for penile circumcision, so it's reasonable to expect that it's the term that readers will use when searching, and that editors will use when wiki-linking. Consequently using the same term benefits both.As for the sub-articles, I don't think there's any actual ambiguity: I can't imagine a situation in which I'd type "circumcision" and expect to find, for example, prevalence of circumcision: the sub-articles are about specific aspects of circumcision, but they aren't about the subject of circumcision as a whole. It seems to me that, if I were looking for information about circumcision, it would be an inconvenience to be presented with a dab page from which I'd have to click another link to find the page I wanted in the first place. Jakew (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, the others responding here also argue that there is a consensus that no dispute even exists on this issue,[5] despite the many, many times this has been brought up and no consensus arising out of the discussion. Not only is it a bitter, long lasting dispute, but one editors on one side have apparently unilaterally decided is over. Blackworm (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Female circumcision is becoming more and more of an issue, so there's no reason to assign the title "Circumcision" to just one version of it. No one has explained how it benefits Wikipedia to do that. I've prepared an example of what a dab page might look like at User:SlimVirgin/Circumcision, which I see as more equitable and informative, and it can be expanded as new topics are created. I also think the fact that it keeps being raised shows there's no clear consensus for the current titles. I'm not in any sense involved in these articles, but this title does strike me as one-sided and odd-looking, and to be honest almost offensive. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should try and get the manual of style changed, but the current nomenclature is what is supposed to occur per the MoS. -- Avi (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I like User:SlimVirgin/Circumcision and agree that that (or something like it with just a very few sentences of explanation) would be a better, more informative and more equitable use of the available article names. AFAIK, there's nothing in MoS to prevent a more current and even-handed naming of articles. --Nigelj (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know which part of the MoS people are referring to, but WP:NAME says we should make clear what the subject matter is, then use the names the sources use, subject to NPOV. The current situation arguably fails on all these counts. The title doesn't make clear what the subject matter is. It isn't neutral. And if you look up circumcision on Google scholar, [6] many if not most of the articles say up front whether they're discussing male or female circumcision—and the percentage of articles doing so is likely to increase, as discussions about female circumcision become more common. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:UCN states that "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources." The term commonly used for circumcision is "circumcision". Jakew (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
What is your objection to making the title clearer? If you could outline an argument, it would be helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought I had already explained, in my above post dated "22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)". Jakew (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
@SV: I have been watching this page for an extended period after an alert on some noticeboard, although I have not followed the details. I find Jakew's "22:26, 20 August 2010" message convincing, but I think a further factor is that there is a POV that females have been getting undue attention, and that male circumcision is just as bad as the female variety; accordingly, there is a push to blur the distinction between the common forms of genital cutting that occur to males and females. I was astonished to hear a couple of U.S. males I met promote this POV in detail (they even discounted problems with the more extreme forms of female genital mutilation), so I personally know this POV exists, although I have not followed activities here and do not know if anyone is pushing a similar line on Wikipedia. My point is that there may be a political motivation for wanting "equal time" for male and female circumcision on Wikipedia, whereas I think Jakew's common name argument should be applied (and this article kept much as it is). Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The "push" is quite clearly in the opposite direction, separating the concept of circumcision[7] into male "circumcision" and female "mutilation" for the purposes of advocacy. My claim is sourced:
  • "When the practice first came to be known beyond the societies in which it was traditionally carried out, it was generally referred to as “female circumcision”. This term, however, draws a direct parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices. [...] The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act." [8]
Personally, I cannot see what "confusion" between these two practices arises, especially since there are forms of female circumcision that are analogous to common forms of male circumcision;(Gruenbaum, 2001, p.2)[9] but then UNICEF/WHO are apparently free to advocate whatever they please. Also these words, from an acknowledged expert on female circumcision often cited in the female circumcision article: "Well, I disagree with you that [the analogy to male circumcision implied by the term 'female circumcision' is -BW] not the case. I think there are similarities and then there are differences. I think the people who say that there are no similarities are people who don’t want to address male circumcision basically."[10] Do you agree these reliable sources in fact suggest that the "political motivation" is in fact in the opposite direction from that which you state?
To contrast this, I would be very interested in seeing sources for your claims, which I wholeheartedly dispute, especially "there is a push to blur the distinction between the common forms of genital cutting [...]." Blackworm (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Fifty years ago only a limited group of specialists in western societies had any idea that "female circumcision" existed. At some point, knowledge that the practice existed spread, but there was a long period when very few people knew what it entailed. It is only fairly recently that western societies have been sufficiently candid to explicitly describe what "circumcision" for females involves. Western societies have moved in a continuum from where almost no one knew that the practice existed, through a situation where people knew that it existed but social niceties prevented much explanation of what it meant, to the last few years where more open discussion has occurred. Because of these social changes, it is possible to find sources with a wide variety of claims on this issue. Further, there is still a lot of taboo about openly describing the long-term horrors of commonly performed female genital cutting, and international bodies often bend over backwards to be "culturally sensitive" to those societies where such practices are still common. What you are describing as a "push" is just the change in western society as more people discover that "female circumcision" actually means. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced tripe. Please source or strike out your entire statement. Blackworm (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I think John is making a good point. BW, in the source you cited above, Gruenbaum, she does say some forms of female circumcision are in theory equivalent to male circumcision, but she also says she has never actually heard of those things alone being done (or she says words to this effect; I'm writing this based on my memory from a few hours ago, and my memory is increasingly non-existent these days). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
He is not making any point that is sourced. It is sheer invention and appeals to emotion ("horrors"), which are routinely laughed at and dismissed when brought in male circumcision. Further, no one is arguing that the forms must be analogous for our usage of the terms here to properly reflect the terms used in the sources. You also ignore the point where she excludes the even less invasive forms ("washing" or "pricking" of the genitals), which are still referred to female circumcision or female genital mutilation. Let me repeat: acts that do not remove any tissue or involve any cutting are still called "female circumcision" and "female genital mutilation." That is sourced in that work. Blackworm (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I think John's argument is a good one for not having one article called Circumcision that devotes itself summary-style to male and female, because it would imply equivalence, and while there is sometimes equivalence, often there is not. But I don't see it as a strong-enough argument for not calling this page "male circumcision," because it is a fact that "female circumcision" is used, rightly or wrongly, to describe the other kind. So it seems to me that a compromise would be to have a detailed dab page at Circumcision, and have this one called Male circumcision. That would sort out this dispute, which seems to have been going on for years, without implying anything about equivalence. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Such an article you describe could be called "human genital cutting." I fully support your compromise, though I believe it doesn't have a chance at all to gain consensus. The editors on one side have no reason to compromise -- despite no consensus existing, the articles almost fully reflect their preferred view, and they use that fact to falsely claim a consensus and further edit all articles furthering that view, while removing all traces of objection by flatly dismissing objections, speedily archiving discussion and editing archive bot settings to do so, and removing all tags added to all articles. I would be overjoyed to merely have the article and similar articles use "male circumcision" with "circumcision" a redirect to "male circumcision," maintaining "female circumcision" as the only disambiguating hatnote (not diluted and obscured by further subdivisions of male circumcision). Blackworm (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You would prefer Circumcision to be a redirect to Male circumcision? I was thinking that Circumcision would be a dab page, along the lines of this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Uh, yes, you were clear about that. No, I wouldn't prefer it, but as I thought I made clear, it seems a compromise much closer to the other side's view, and infinitely preferable to the current arrangement. I would abide by it as well as your suggestion. Blackworm (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is a compromise. Isn't it exactly the same thing as you (SV) suggested in your original post (dated 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC))? Jakew (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a compromise between the current situation and having one article at Human genital cutting or Circumcision, and a summary-style coverage of the male and female versions. Without some kind of compromise, the dispute isn't going to be resolved, and it's been going on for a long time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. I've explained my opposition above, so I won't repeat myself. Jakew (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Striking up extreme positions isn't helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I think he means a disputed tag. Of course, that reasonable request was preceded with a bunch of unsupported nonsense. Perhaps to make the request for a tag seem extreme? Who knows. Blackworm (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I think people would type "circumcision" to find any of these articles, and then search from there. Circumcision has had over 170,000 hits this month, but we don't know how many were looking for "male circumcision" or something else. Female genital cutting has had over 103,000, many or most of which probably started at Circumcision. If the female one had a very low number of hits, I'd agree with not moving this title, but given the high number of hits, I think we do need to differentiate, so that we're not implying that there's no such thing as female circumcision, or that it somehow doesn't count. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
On what basis do you assume that many or most of the FGC hits started at this page? It seems unlikely to me: I think that people will search for "circumcision" if they want penile circumcision and "female genital cutting", "female genital mutilation", or "female circumcision" if they're looking for information about FGC. Making the assumption that the language people use in searches is similar to the language people use in pages (which seems reasonable), we can use Google to find some evidence. When searching for "circumcision" excluding the exact phrases "male circumcision" or "female circumcision", all of the page hits on the first three pages relate to penile circumcision. On another point, the number of hits on FGC doesn't seem to be relevant. From that we can only determine the level of interest in FGC; we can't know how people refer to it, so it doesn't provide evidence of ambiguity. Also, we're not "implying that there's no such thing as female circumcision": bear in mind that the very first sentence of this article (the hatnote) points people to the corresponding article. Jakew (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that there's a long-running dispute about the naming of the page, which keeps popping up in various places, so it would be good to resolve it. There was a request for fresh eyes on AN/I, and fresh suggestions would be appreciated. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
That 'circumcision' comes to male circumcision instead of a disambiguation page is symptomatic of a wider cultural bias, in that words like "actor" are unisex or presumed male, and only the female ("actress") needs a unique prefix or suffix. This plus the obvious fear of equivocation (we can't compare what we do to the practices of those barbarous Africans and Muslims) seems to be the cause of the intransigence. Luckily, a disambiguation page doesn't imply such an equivocation. I fully support SlimVirgin's proposal. Quigley (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I'd prefer to see Circumcision as either a disambiguation page or a general page, myself. It stands to reason, since it can mean either penile or clitoral circumcision. Merriam-Webster, for instance, defines circumcise as "1: to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the prepuce of (a female). 2: to cut off all or part of the external genitalia and especially the clitoris and labia minora." I see no defensible argument to use the general term "circumcision" to refer specifically to male circumcision. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Jake has brought many examples to the contrary. The majority of reputable sources define the word to relate to the penis only, which is why the title of this article is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Totally untrue. Each of the three major general English dictionaries cited by this encyclopedia's guidelines as being one's first point of reference for guidance in English usage state that it includes both male and female forms. The only sources that "define" the word to relate to the penis only are ancient religious texts that call for "it" to only be done to males, and medical sources which do so in the context of medicalized procedures in countries where performing the analogous procedures on females is illegal. Wikipedia indeed may not change the meanings of words, as you are supporting. The political stand is being taken with our misuse of the word. Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
As myself and others have explained previously, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so an article about X does not need to discuss every conceivable sense of the word X. As a general rule, articles are not about words, they're about subjects for while the title is the commonly used name. Circumcision is the commonly used name for the removal of the foreskin of the penis. Hence the article title. Jakew (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
@Blackworm. Your claim about dictionaries couldn't possibly be true. I'm looking at the Oxford English Dictionary right now and none of the definitions listed for "circumcise" include any procedures performed on females. I agree with you that it is becoming more and more common in the English language to refer to "female circumcision" but this is a recent phenomenon and not reflected in tertiary sources the way you claim ... not yet anyway. Britannica also has entries on "circumcision" (male) and "female genital cutting" (female) with the use of "female circumcision" stated but claimed to be less common. I do not think there is a use argument to changing the content of this page. I do think there is a use argument for a portal page or disambiguation page.
@Jake. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but you're misapplying that guideline here. Please see WP:UCN. If certain tertiary sources (like dictionaries) help us determine common usage then using them for that is completely within Wikipedia policy. WP:DICTIONARY has nothing to do with using dictionaries to establish common use. That guideline is about not writing articles about terms, but about things. If you're going to around citing guidelines as part of your argument you may consider getting to know them a bit better first (e.g. this guideline and WP:POINT as mentioned below).Griswaldo (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't actually cite WP:DICTIONARY (which, for the sake of accuracy, is policy not guideline), so its contents are irrelevant. The important point is that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and so the expectation that applies to dictionaries — that they will document all applicable senses in which the word can be interpreted — does not apply to us. Secondly, dictionaries do not ordinarily provide information about frequency of usage: they tell us which uses are valid, but not (except in rare cases) which are common. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You informally referenced it by using the catch phrase we know it by. Don't deny this. What the policy tells us is to focus on notable content and not terms and their definitions. Female genital cutting is clearly notable content. Deciding on what to call it has nothing to do with WP:DICTIONARY and everything to do with WP:UCN. No one is suggesting that we add content or create page titles because they reflect the content in a dictionary. Someone suggested that the dictionary be used as a guide to English usage. If indeed there is no way to use the dictionary to establish common usage, then I agree that it is is irrelevant. But once again that has nothing to do with not being a dictionary. In other words, despite what you wrote, you are nevertheless completely confusing the use of this policy as you did below. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The question, however, is what the content of an article with the title X should be. That is, given that an article entitled "circumcision" will exist, should its content discuss every sense in which the word "circumcision" can be used? Or should its content be about one topic? If the former, Wikipedia would be like a dictionary, because its entries would be about words. But that's not how an encyclopaedia is structured. In an encyclopaedia, an article is about a subject, not about every conceivable interpretation of the title. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No there are two related questions. 1) What should be included in this entry and 2) should we have a disambiguation page or portal of some sort that covers entries related to circumcision (and what should be included in it). My answer to #1 is that an entry named "circumcision" should only cover "male circumcision" only. Common use seems to support this since when "circumcision" is used alone it refers to male circumcision a vast majority of times (also, despite what others have said, OED and Britannica both support the male only use as well). However, common use also seems to support the notion that female genital cutting or at least versions of that practice are with increasing intensity being referred to as "female circumcision". What is missed here is that it is a much less common practice -- one should expect that it is not used as many times as the male term. Anyway, this means that in relation to #2, I think, as do all the people who use the term "female circumcision" that is makes sense to have a portal page that includes both practices.
Back to #1 -- It is ironic that you are approaching the entry from the perspective of a dictionary in order to argue against Wikipedia being treated like one. The very point is that we do not write entries based on terms. We write them based on things, on content, and then we decide what the most appropriate terms are to refer to that content. Those who are arguing to include "female circumcision" do so because they believe the content is related. This should be obvious to anyone. The very entry on female circumcision, female genital cutting currently doesn't even have the word in the title for Christs sake! This isn't a word game it is a content game. We have to look from the bottom up and we need base our arguments from the bottom up as well. My argument to include both in the portal, while not here, is also based on this. The fact that some are using the term "circumcision" for both male and female practices reflects the fact that others also believe that the practices are related. That is what makes common use like this important.Griswaldo (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec to Jake) But as others have previously explained, the word "circumcision" is routinely used for male and female, just as "actor" is. We don't use the title "actor" to describe only the male variety, though some people do still use it that way, with a hatnote telling readers to go elsewhere for the female version. The Foundation is keen to bring in more women to Wikipedia; they have made it a priority. I see issues like this as inimical to that, because this is an inherently sexist way to approach the situation. The usual thing would be to have an article on circumcusion in general that explained, summary-style, the male and female issues, and the general cultural, medical, and religious issues, and which referred readers throughout to specific articles about those aspects. I do take John's point too, though, so a compromise has to be found. But there's no point in just repeating that people with concerns are silly or wrong to have those concerns. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It's true that the term "circumcision" is occasionally applied to FGC, though usually in the form "female circumcision" rather than as an unadorned word. However, as I've shown in this and previous discussions through Google hits, the overwhelming majority of uses of the term "circumcision" refer to penile circumcision. Consequently, this is clearly the primary topic, and so the advice in the MOS is to include the hatnote. I don't think it would even be realistic to have an article about both circumcision and FGC, because hardly any sources (other than a few dictionaries) actually discuss both: it would be like trying to write an article about a class of chemical elements and a style of rock music. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No one has argued that circumcision is used for female alone; that's a red herring. The argument is that "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" are used. There's little point in checking Google, because it includes lots of unreliable sources, and is tainted by WP. If you look at Google Scholar, you will see the differentiation. And anyway you keep not taking the point about "actor". No matter how many Google hits we could find that said "actor" was a man, we would never reserve that title for male actors alone. Could you address that point, please? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Certainly the terms "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" are used, but "male circumcision" is used much less often. Google Scholar returns 71,100 results for "circumcision" (excluding MC and FC), compared to only 8,930 for "male circumcision". Looking at the first page of results for the first search, again, all of these refer to penile circumcision.
I haven't addressed the "actor" point because I haven't yet formed a complete opinion about the correct treatment in such a case. Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If 'male circumcision' is not used often enough to disambiguate, the new article for male circumcision can be "Circumcision (male)". We often use parentheses to disambiguate cases where two subjects use the same, unqualified, names, such as in run (baseball) and run (cricket). Quigley (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
They way you've searched Google scholar isn't valid, Jake, because you've included articles with titles that make it clear it's male circumcision, e.g. penis. So in those cases there is no need for them to add "male circumcision." That is, there would be no point in calling an article "Complications of male circumcision and pain in the penis." But you'll find if you search differently that, where there is no ready-made differentiation in the title, authors do say whether they mean male or female circumcision. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Title, continued

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

I think it would be extremely difficult to find adequate numbers of sources discussing a gender-neutral concept of circumcision (and synthesis of sources discussing penile circumcision or female genital cutting would of course be inconsistent with policy, so it would be essential to find sources explicitly discussing this "general" concept). Most sources discuss either circumcision or female genital cutting; the present arrangement of articles do likewise. Jakew (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Your first sentence, Exploding Boy, is your opinion, not a fact. Wikipedia requires us to follow common usage the predominance of usage in reputable sources, not our own personal feelings, which is why I beleieve changing the title to this article would actually be a violation of wikiepedia's core policies. Wikipedia is not the place to further genital or gender rights; that is for the wider world. Wikipedia's place is to reflect what is out there, and when it comes to article titles, we use the most common usage and disambiguate if necessary, which is exactly what is being done here; our own opinions notwithstanding. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Jake and Avi. Circumcision is still mainly known as the procedure performed on males. This might change in the future but I can't find a single reference work that doesn't support our current usage, for instance. I like the idea of a disambiguation page as long as Circumcision always directs to this content.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a genital portal page would be a good idea for collating all the related articles. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree to a portal page in principle (assuming that the name and content can be agreed upon), though I do have some reservations about grouping together such different subjects. Jakew (talk)
"Such different subjects?" You must be uncomfortable already with Category:Circumcision then. Genital modification through cutting is genital cutting, whether its safe or unsafe, painful or painless, part of an ancient religious rite or part of a medical procedure, oppressive or not, etc. I don't see how these are "such different subjects".Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You can find similarities between most pairs of things, though the existence of that similarity does not mean that the things are not different. To some people, certain similarities are important, to others, the same similarity can be a trivial detail. Circumcision and female genital cutting both involve cutting of the genitals. Circumcision and eating steak are both procedures that make use of knives. Circumcision and fellatio are both actions performed on the penis. Circumcision and praying are (sometimes) both religious practices. Circumcision and custard both start with the letter 'c'. I think I've made my point, so I won't go on. Jakew (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This type of low-level hostility is exactly why I usually avoid the circumcision-related articles, but the previous comment is fairly incredible. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) That's no point at all Jake. Things are classified with like things based on degrees of similarity and we could play your game with anything. A Beagle and a Tiger both have four legs and paws, so therefore you can't just claim that a Tiger and a Leopard are any more closely related than a Tiger and a Beagle. Clearly. Calling them both cats is absurd! Now I'm not saying that we should be inventing categories, but I don't think its particularly hard to find evidence of the use of female circumcision. The fact is that proponents of male and female circumcision prefer those terms, and opponents prefer other terms. One practice may be safer than the other, may be more traditional than the other, etc. but they're both forms of genital body mutilation that involve cutting part of the genitalia away and the English language is reflecting this similarity. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't say "cutting," we aren't allowed to define male circumcision with the word "cutting" or "cut" -- and attempts to do so get reverted on sight. We must say, "removed." "Cutting" implies the foreskin is a part of the penis (another faux pas on your part). That position is not reflected here because of apparent WP:NPOV concerns. Most of the editors here prefer to compare circumcision to cutting one's nails, or the removal of a wart. Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You might want to review WP:POINT, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Jake, WP:POINT refers to disruptive edits to actual article content and not snarky comments on talk pages. Perhaps you should focus on continuing discussion with those who are not leaving snarky comments on the talk page instead of telling people to read inapplicable guidelines. Do you see how your previous argument about categorization doesn't make a whole lot of sense?Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere does WP:POINT state that it doesn't apply to talk pages. It does state "In Wikipedia, disruptively applying reasoning with which you disagree is not an acceptable way of discrediting it", which is why I (correctly) referred to it. I stand by my point about categorisation, obviously, but there doesn't seem much point in conducting a lengthy debate about it at this time. Jakew (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That's right it says "applying" and not something like arguing because its about applying reasoning to the main space. Is there a single example of POINTY disruption on a talk page listed on the guideline?Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The title of the first section of the guideline sums it up - "(s)tate your point—do not prove it experimentally." If Blackworm went around removing all the mention of "cutting" in the article and then left the comment above, or something similar, as his rationale, he would then be in violation of WP:POINT. Discussing something on a talk page, however snarky, is not "proving it experimentally". I would highly suggest you asking someone you trust about the guideline because you continue to misunderstand it. In other words, don't take my word for it if you don't want to. Ask anyone else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
One can apply reasoning (and, for that matter, prove a point) in formulating talk page comments just as easily as one can apply it in making edits to articles. That's why it applies. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:POINT does not apply to talk pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a great deal of respect for you, SV, but I think you're wrong on this point. Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Avi and Griswaldo asked on AN/I for fresh eyes, and that presumably means fresh approaches too, otherwise what's the point. But when people arrive, they're greeted with posts about circumcision and custard both beginning with c, so they wander off again, and the dispute rumbles on. It would be nice if it could be resolved in a way that every side could accept, if only grudgingly. That requires entrenched positions to shift a little. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Agree once again that it should be a portal. However, could we work the information in the hatnote of this entry into the lead so that it is clearer for our readers. It seems to me that female genital cutting is not mentioned in the entry, even in "See also", in order to remove any notion that the procedures are in any way comparable or similar. Doing so is not NPOV if you ask me. Linking to it only in the hatnote says ... "For a different subject altogether that you may have confused with this one ..." as opposed to ... "for another topic also referred to as circumcision ...". Any ideas on this?Griswaldo (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOSDAB does specifically recommend the hatnote. Is there any particular reason why you think it is unclear? Jakew (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no point in posting abbreviations to guidelines of general advice. We don't put a hatnote over Actor referring people to Actress, for all the reasons we've explained, though if we did have two titles, one male and one female, MOSDAB would recommend the hatnote. (But is there a hatnote to this page on the female page?) Continuing to post as though no one has explained the difference just means we go round in circles. Please can we try to address each other's points and make progress? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I read through the guideline posted only to realize that the relevant guideline was actually Wikipedia:Hatnote. My suggestion on this entry is to make the disambiguation a bit more clear. I think hatnotes are not as obvious as some people seem to. I think starting the entry off as follows, for instance, would be an improvement -- "Male circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. Procedures that involve the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia are also referred to as female "circumcision" but as such they are not equivalent to the more common male practice described here." This may not be the best way to write it, and I know people are going to say ... but the hatnote is already there. The hatnote gives no credence to fact that many people see these as related practices, and quite frankly its not as easy to see.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Your use of scare quotes around "female 'circumcision'" is unnecessary and inaccurate, and only supports the moving of this page to "Male circumcision" (or "Circumcision (male)"). "Circumcise" means both removing the prepuce (male or female) and cutting off all or part of the external genitalia and especially the clitoris and labia minora. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The part of WP:MOSDAB that I meant was WP:MOSDAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries. I'm not comfortable with your proposal for several reasons. Firstly I think that the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article as a whole, and it seems inappropriate to me to discuss a subject that is beyond the scope of the article. Secondly (although I personally agree with it), the assertion that "[FGC is] not equivalent" is inconsistent with WP:NPOV, since there is a POV that at least some forms of FGC are equivalent to circumcision. And also, as you predicted, "but the hatnote is already there"... :-) But I'm intrigued by your comment that it's not as easy to see. Do you think there might be some mileage in modifying the hatnote template so that they are more prominent? Jakew (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the "not equivalent" is a violation of NPOV at all since they could not possibly be equivalent given the difference in male and female reproductive organs. Also, the current use of the hatnote already makes the two seem even less "equivalent" so if you are actually concerned about NPOV you'd work on fixing that as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't say anything about equivalence, so I don't see an NPOV problem to fix. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Then you'd agree to a hatnote that read -- "This entry is about the circumcision of males. For the circumcision of females see Female genital cutting"? Do I have your support if I am to seek consensus for such a hatnote? You are correct that it does not outright use the phrase "not equivalent", but the very function of the current hatnote is to differentiate between the two subjects. Circumcision, we are told, is only about male circumcision, for a procedure on females that uses the same language, you actually want something completely different Female genital cutting. Do you not understand how this works? How people comprehend the hatnote? I think you do, because it's as you admittedly would like them too (given that you do not believe they are equivalent).Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I follow. Even those who believe that circumcision and FGC are equivalent (though that's perhaps not the best choice of word) would be unlikely to argue that they're indistinguishable from each other. They are distinct topics, and so it's reasonable to expect treatment of the two in different articles. I don't think one can read an assertion of non-equivalence into that. As for the title of the FGC article, bear in mind that an article has to be called something, and can only have one name (let's ignore redirects for the time being). If it were "female circumcision" then would it imply that FGC is non-existent? Or that the procedure is not FGC? Of course not. Similarly, the present title doesn't imply that FC is non-existent. The present arrangement makes it clear that there is something, which some people call "female circumcision", and others call other names, which may be found at female genital cutting. Whether that something is equivalent to circumcision is an entirely different issue from what it is called. Jakew (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Griswaldo: That's more or less what the hatnote does say, though, unless I'm missing something very technical.
The article is calamitously misnamed, but such is the wisdom of the community. Given that, Jakew's points seem perfectly sound. The hat is appropriate and information about female circumcision is nothing to do with the article. Weird? You don't need to tell me, but it is logical. --FormerIP (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well Jake is mincing words vis-a-vis "equivalent" which means "the same". He is claiming that even those who think the two practices are the same don't think they are the same. When I use "equivalent" he infers a value judgement and when he says the would not argue that these practices are "indistinguishable" he infers no value judgement. That's ludicrous. I do not agree that my rephrased hatnote above conveys the same meaning as the current hatnote, and I note that Jake did not answer that the question of whether or not he'd support the change. Anyway my point originally was to add text to the intro to clarify what the hatnote says because I do not think it is clear enough on its own.Griswaldo (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Griswaldo, and anyone interested in the history of this dispute, consider reading Talk:Circumcision_and_law/Archive_1#Neutrality, and Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#RfC:_Is_circumcision_synonymous_with_male_circumcision.3F, two of the long discussions on this topic. Griswaldo, please note in the latter discussion, my post of 19:15, 19 November 2007, where I provide links to each of the three major dictionaries I mention, including the Oxford, which you stated did not mention circumcision as applying to females. I hope you will strike out or refactor your comments above asserting the contrary, in consequence. Blackworm (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Blackworm I will not strike my comment because my comment is accurate. The "Oxford" dictionary you link in that prior discussion is not the Oxford English Dictionary, the most recent version of which I consulted before making that post. The Oxford dictionary you link appears to be the Oxford "World Dictionary", whatever that is. I would like to link the OED but my access is through an academic library so it would do you no good. As I stated in that comment neither the OED nor Britannica have this usage. It is possible that they will adopt it sometime in the near future, but I don't know. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, the link I posted is published by Oxford University Press, stated as the publisher of the OED in the article you link. Its sources are,[11], the Oxford Dictionary of English (Revised Second Edition), Oxford Thesaurus of English (Third Edition). Sorry about the confusion, I have struck out part of my comment above. I do not have access to a recent copy of Brittanica, but the 1911 version said, "Most probably, however, circumcision (which in many tribes is performed on both sexes) was connected with marriage, and was a preparation for connubium."[12] There may be attempts to change the meaning of the word to only refer to cutting of male genitals, and these might succeed, but as you say, I don't know, and that transition seems far from complete. Blackworm (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

When you do find yourself with the time and patience to consider the arguments involved, you might want to read the previous requested moves and other related discussions for that request, and consider why consensus was not achieved in those discussions. A non-exhaustive list of such discussions is: Talk:Circumcision/Archive 66#Requested move Talk:Circumcision/Archive 57#Requested moves Talk:Circumcision/Archive 47#Name Talk:Circumcision/Archive 40#Requested move Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#Why only male circumcision? and Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#RfC: Is circumcision synonymous with male circumcision?. (You might also review Talk:Female genital cutting/Archive 4#Requested move.) There isn't a "male genital cutting" article because that neologism is basically unused in reliable sources and is only used by activists seeking to equate FGC and circumcision through terminology. There is, however, the admittedly dire genital modification and mutilation, which serves as an overview. Jakew (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Jackew, to clarify, my idea was not to move the male circumcision page to "male genital cutting," but to have a separate article which discussed various types of cutting of the male genitals as practiced in different parts of the world. "Genital modification and mutilation" isn't probably widely used in reliable sources either, but merely a name Wikipedians came up with encompass a wide range of topics. My idea was something similar, but dealing specifically with modification and mutilation of the male genitals. "Cutting" seems more NPOV to me though, as all cutting modifies the genitals, but "mutilation" embodies a position that the modification is a bad one. As for what I said about not reading every single comment - I was just trying to bring in a bit of light-hearted honesty. I think I actually did read most of the arguments, but they soon got quite repetitive and tiring, so I skipped over some which seemed to be repeating the same old point again, so it's possible I may have missed a new and unique point somewhere in there, but probably not ;-) Anyway, the point behind my light-hearted honesty was that the discussion of SlimVirgin's original idea seemed to me to have devolved into something of a chaotic mult-threaded argument, and I was trying to get it back on track. Perhaps something more structured like an RFC is needed?... -Helvetica (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate community process for a page move is a requested move, but since the most recent discussion re moving to "male circumcision" closed very recently — on the 28th of July, to be exact — I think it would be inappropriate to try again just yet. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said, the topic is not apparently currently open for discussion. Neither is opposition to changes to articles made citing these discussions closed as "no consensus" as a mandate to act.[14] With regard to Coppertwig's statement that the act of removing a POV tag "is not equivalent to stating that there is no dispute:" the dispute is not the issue, consensus is; and the tag is not be removed without a consensus to do so. Please see WP:NPOV Dispute, linked from WP:NPOV. A failure to obtain consensus for a change in one article is not indicative of consensus to enact change of a different article and close discussion on that change immediately, removing any indication of a dispute. That is what happened there, and it clearly violates Wikipedia policy, Coppertwig's weak defense of the actions of Avraham, Jakew, and Jayjg notwithstanding the most cursory examination of the facts. Blackworm (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I oppose having a disambiguation page, because I think the reader wants to see content, not unnecessary disambiguation pages. I'm willing to accept options 1 and 2 below. I'm undecided ("neutral" in scare quotes) about options 3 to 5.
  1. Leave things as they have been.
  2. Rename to "Male circumcision" and leave "Circumcision" as a redirect to it.
  3. Rename to "Male circumcision" and make "Circumcision" a redirect to Genital modification (which could be expanded and (ahem) modified). This would work better if "genital modification and mutilation" were renamed to "genital modification" instead of the latter being a redirect as it is now.
  4. Leave things as they have been, but add a wikilink to "Genital modification" in the first sentence of this article, e.g. "Male circumcision is a form of genital modification which involves ..." Similarly, better if the other article is named "genital modification".
  5. Rename to "Male circumcision" and (as I think Blackworm has suggested) have "Circumcision" a short summary article linking to "main article[s]" Male Circumcision and Female Genital Cutting. I retract my previous argument that this would be a topic of very low notability because there is, as far as I know, very little material on circumcision in general in the form of statements about circumcision as a single concept both male and female. I now think possibly the notability could be established by things like a book about circumcision that covers both male and female forms, even if the book says different things about them and covers them in separate sections of the book. By putting them in one book the source would be doing something similar to what we would be doing here, putting them in separate sections of one article. Remaining problems for this option would be that possibly it would be non-NPOV to use the terminology "female circumcision", and that it would be difficult to define the scope of the topic since in the case of females the term is often used to cover a broader range of procedures; it would then be tempting to also include more male procedures such as subincision and then to rename it to "genital modification" or something, which is why I thought of options 3 and 4.
☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of mouth?

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

Please see Brit milah#Metzitzah technique, where there is (fairly) extensive discussion. It's relatively uncommon (or so I gather) among Jewish ritual circumcisions, which themselves represent only a small fraction of all circumcisions, so I'm not sure that discussing it in this article would be appropriate in terms of weighting. Jakew (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yup, there it is, thanks! The article you pointed to does mention medical issues, and while I agree discussing it at lenght is not appropriate I believe there's room in the Medical aspects section of this article for a short sentence that would link to it. After all that was the information I came for and failed to find it. --Bahati (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
By the same argument, though, a person might conceivably seek any piece of information, so should we include everything in this one article? I think the answer to that should be obvious... Jakew (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Intaction, 5 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

\


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

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

Addition to the penile cancer section

I'm reverting the following addition to the penile cancer section of the article:

  • Several studies[1][2] have shown that penile cancer can occur in the scar tissue caused by circumcision.

I see several problems with this addition:

  1. Both of the studies cited are essentially case reports. Note that WP:MEDRS advises against the use of case reports. To quote: "In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, (e.g., conventional wisdom). [...] Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." This is the most serious problem, but there are others:
  2. While the studies do support the claim made, what is the significance? Yes, cancers can develop on the circumcision scar line; why is this noteworthy? Cancers can develop anywhere on the body, after all, so it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect the scar to be an exception.
  3. While a minor point, the citations are presented poorly. They should really appear at the end of the sentence, consistent with the rest of the article.

Jakew (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If the sources are indeed not up to WP:MEDRS standards then they do not belong, however problems 2 and 3 are besides the point here. Regarding #2, I'm not sure I follow the reasoning but I'm assuming there is some confusion because the language used in the text. I doubt researchers published case studies about how cancer can develop in scar tissue unless there is a meaningful statement to made there. What you reduced it to is not meaningful, but is that what the sources say? I'm having a hard time believing that. #3 is indeed a very minor point, one that is solved by correcting the mistake and not removal. Both are irrelevant of course, because if WP:MEDRS is satisfied and the information is relevant (as I assume it would be) then the information stays, if not it should go. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding point 3, I agree, it would be easy enough to correct, and if it were the only problem that would have been the best approach. Regarding point 2, neither of the sources (PMID 3944860 and PMID 14707873) seem to have a point to make about circumcision and penile cancer; it's just that some/all of the cases happen to have involved the circumcision scar. Have a look at the abstracts, and I think you'll see what I mean. Indeed, in one of the studies (PMID 14707873), the authors actually list the location of the lesions: "The tumors involved the prepuce (n = 1), prepuce and distal shaft (n = 1), circumcision scar line (n = 2), circumcision scar line and distal shaft (n = 1), shaft (n = 5), base of the penis (n = 3), and penis, not otherwise specified (n = 1)." Sure, this supports the statement "cancers can occur in the circumcision scar", but of course it also supports the statement "cancers can occur on the prepuce". Neither statement seems particularly meaningful, and that's why I think it's important to ask what the significance is. If we can establish and agree why the point (or something similar) actually matters we might be able to find better sources that make the significance more obvious. Jakew (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well if there is indeed no meaningful connection presented in the papers then there is no reason to believe there are other sources.Griswaldo (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Circlist members editing this article

Don’t you think it’s a bit inappropriate for a member (or previous member) of Circlist (a circumcision fetish website for people who get off on the ACT of circumcision) to be editing circumcision related articles on Wikipedia? The thought alone makes me sick to my stomach.--99.28.1.166 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.191.242 (talk)

welcome to the Club... THIS is the water hole!Thus Spake Good (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Prevalence

Opening discussion as requested by User:Avraham. Claiming in the summary that Finland has circumcision rate of 7%, is at minimum dishonest, since when you look at the prevalence article, the figures change from almost zero to seven percent, depending on what source you use. Only sources that are publicly available and I can check for their validity, give much lower figures. Also from my personal experiences living in here, I highly doubt the sources that claims it to be 7%. --Sapeli (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Avraham politely decided to comment in his revert "We do not delete a newer source in favor of a statement based on older material which is unsourced. As you, Sapeli, are trying to remove properly cited data, the onus is on you to defend the removal of the source on the talk page"
As I already described here, there are multiple sources. If you would have bothered to look at the prevalence article, you would know that the 7.1% comes from a study made in 2000 by National institute for health and welfare of Finland, which uses data from 1996 - 1998. So it's actually older than some of the other sources. Not that newer research is even always better, if the old methodology is just bad. Also since you probably can't get your hands on the original publication, only publications that has references to it, you can't even check the source. --Sapeli (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop removing appropriately sourced material, Sapeli. If you wish to propose citing one of the other estimates as well, that's certainly something we can discuss. Jakew (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It's impossible to verify the source used here. I tried. Both of these publications are referring to another publication, that's not available, since the source is not properly cited in them. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Why in the first place one would even refer to these publications and not the original as the source? Only if you can provide verifiable source for the statement, should it stay in Wikipedia. --Sapeli (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is trivial to verify. Obtain the sources and confirm that they make the claim attributed to them. And they do. That is what is meant by "verifiability" at Wikipedia, as clearly stated by WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Jakew (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
i.e., "we don't give a flip whether it's true or not, as long as we can say it with a straight face." Thus Spake Good (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourced and relevant statement being removed

Can the editors removing this sentence explain why they are doing so?

Rennie et al. note that using circumcision as a way of preventing HIV in high prevalence, low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is controversial, but argue that "it would be unethical to not seriously consider one of the most promising [...] new approaches to HIV-prevention in the 25-year history of the epidemic".[3]

It's obviously relevant to both the article and the section in which it is found, "Ethical issues"? It explicitly discusses a relevant, significant, ethical issue. It phrases it in terms of ethics. I can't understand the objection, if any. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me too. Unfortunately the edit summaries fail to adequately explain. The original edit summary read "Removed sentence for irrelevance to section", which is clearly erroneous because, as you point out, it's entirely relevant. Later edit summaries implied that it was "unnecessarily included", which is a somewhat perplexing argument for removal. Jakew (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found that people who are "perplexed" by truth should search their conscience first for the answer. Thus Spake Good (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

British Royal Family

188.46.233.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asked why we do not make a statement about the circumcision status of male members of the British Royal Family. I've deleted the actual question per SarekOfVulcan's BLP concerns. However, I will try to answer in the abstract sense. First of all, we cannot, as a matter of policy (WP:BLP), discuss the genitals of identifiable individuals without extremely good sourcing, and Google searches are not sources. Second, it is questionable whether Wikipedia should discuss the genitals of these individuals even with extremely good sourcing; even public figures are entitled to some measure of privacy, after all. Finally, it is questionable whether this particular article needs to discuss the circumcision status of the Royals who, while admittedly notable (though not necessarily for their phalluses), represent only the smallest fraction of the human race — in the wider context of circumcision, they're not that important. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's well known that Princess Diana was an ardent opponent of circumcision. Form your own conclusions about her treatment of her beloved sons.... Thus Spake Good (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision as Punishment for Rapists

was it Bettelheim or Freud who demonstrated that circumcision was originally reserved as a severe punishment for first-time rapists? That might be worthy of inclusion in this article. Thus Spake Good (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge worthiness of inclusion from such a vague description. How was such a thing "demonstrated"? Was it the result of rigorous historical research, or was it just a hypothesis? In any case, the most pressing problem is verifiability: could you find a reliable source? Jakew (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That would indeed be a key starting point. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncircumcised?

The word 'uncircumcised' (as used in this article) is biased. Do we call people with all their limbs 'unamputated'? Of course not! Nor do we call the living 'undead'. An intact penis is not missing some necessary cutting. Circumcision is not something that's necessary or something to be considered normal or natural. It is normal and perfectly healthy to possess a foreskin - the vast majority of the world's men live their lives with one. The proper word to describe it is 'intact'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.177.58 (talk • contribs)

Similar proposals have failed to achieve consensus. Please see recent discussions at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 65#Absurdly over-wordy image captions, Talk:Circumcision/Archive 65#call for feedback on consensus on 'uncircumcised' and Talk:Circumcision/Archive 66#The problem with language deemed offensive such as "Uncircumcised". Jakew (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ummm... of course we know what "consensus" means on this page... "Don't Rock the Boat!" (or educate the people) Thus Spake Good (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:TALK. Do you have any changes you wish to make to the article based on reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
you guys have nickeled & dimed this article to death so it really has no use for the public.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thus Spake Good (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Do you have any changes you wish to make to the article based on reliable sources? Also, what were your previous account(s)? Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Netherlands section

I recently reverted an edit that drastically expanded discussion of the KNMG statement, thus creating undue weight issues. Please note that the present summary is a result of extensive discussion and eventual consensus at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 65#Recent changes; it would be advisable to seek consensus for any changes before making them. Jakew (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I must agree; it's rather absurd that the article would devote 15 lines to a statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association. Please keep in mind that the Netherlands is just one country in the world, with 0.241% of the world's population and 0.03% of its area, and this is just one of its medical associations. This is an overview article, and this insertion egregiously violates WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The subsection is devoted to the official medical position of the medical organizations in the Netherlands; the information is quoted and cited, and it takes up a reasonable amount of space. Furthermore, the statements are endorsed by every major medical association:
  • The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners
  • The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians
  • The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons
  • The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons
  • The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine
  • The Netherlands Urology Association
  • The Netherlands Surgeons' Association
The Jews make up around or less than 0.214% of the world population—less than what you say the Netherlands represent; given this, the Jewish culture should be featured far less in this article according to your nonsensical logic. I highly doubt you would want to continue down that road. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't responded to the point that—even if this statement represents several Dutch associations—it's still just one small country, and an absurd over-weighting of this material in this overview article. This article should be no more that 10,000 words, and ideally under 8,000. There's no way one can justify devoting almost 250 of those words to the statement of one small medical association. And if you think other unrelated material is also unduly weighted, please bring that up in its own Talk page section for discussion. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't responded to the point that—even if Jews couldn't go on living without their daily fill of infant penis-reduction surgery—it's still just one small group of people, and an absurd over-weighting of this material in this overview article. This article should be no more than 10 000 words, and ideally under 8000. There's no way one can justify devoting as much of these words as there currently are to the statements and beliefs of one incredibly tiny cult. More to the point, in most countries, male circumcision is viewed exactly as expressed by basically all of the medical organizations of the Netherlands; why should the perspective in cultures that promote circumcision have any more weight than the perspective in cultures that frown strongly upon it? ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be reasonable to expect Jayjg to respond to such a point, since the appropriate weighting of other material is off-topic for this talk page section, which is about the Netherlands section of the article; if you want to discuss the weight to be given to other parts of the article, create a new section on this talk page (as Jayjg has already advised). Jakew (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The point is not to elicit a response on that other subject; the point is to expose the unreasonable nature of Jayjg's (and JoshuaZ's) argument. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want an exhaustive list, it's also my argument. And it's not at all unreasonable. Jakew (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't just say that it is unreasonable and expect that to be acceptable; I have shown that it is unreasonable in multiple ways. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is, your arguments haven't been very persuasive. As JoshuaZ points out below, appropriate weighting must be guided in part by prominence in reliable sources. Sources discussing circumcision tend to place considerable weight on its role in Judaism; this is not true of the KNMG's viewpoint, which has received little if any attention in other sources. That doesn't mean that the KNMG statement should be completely ignored — it's still a policy statement worthy of mention. But to consider only the "fraction of humanity affected" aspect of appropriate weighting while ignoring the other, no less important, aspects will inevitably lead to absurd conclusions, as might be expected of any flawed reasoning. Jakew (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Your argument might be somewhat stronger if you were able to cite a reliable source in support of your assertion that sources discussing circumcision tend to place considerable weight on its role in Judaism, a religion that may be mentioned in a sentence or two in some historical introductions of various source materials authored by members of Judeo-Christian cultures (especially one that has promoted circumcision such as that of the U.S.), but that would not warrant the pedestal on which Judaism (or any other culture that promotes ritual genital surgery) is placed in this supposedly overview article. You have still failed to provide a pursuasive argument. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, a good example is David Gollaher's "Circumcision: a History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery", which in its index lists pages 31, 34-35, 111, 12-13, 37-41, 6-8, 140-2, 222, 24-27, 13-14, 66-67, 214, 17-19, 91-93, 210, 102, 22-23, 10-12, 46, 27-30, 6-10, 206, 142, 214, 14-16, 19-22, 215, 146, 214, and 234 as relating to Jews and Judaism. Unless I miscount, that's 64 of the book's 240 indexed pages, or 27%. To be fair, of course, this is a work of history, and as such may not be representative of the literature as a whole, but even so that's more than the "sentence or two in some historical introductions" that you propose. Please note that since this is off-topic here, I'm unlikely to discuss the weighting of Judaism further in this section. Jakew (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning Jews or Judaism throughout a 240 page book devoted to the history of circumcision, especially when Jews are among the most prolific writers and justifiers of this genital surgery, is hardly a persuasive case (as you yourself intimate); at best, you have justified the need to move information about "Jewish circumcision" to a specialized article (which is a task unrelated to the question at hand). Furthermore, again, the point is not to elicit a response regarding the weight Jews are given; rather, the point is to expose your argument for the fraud of reason that it is. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Weight is to some extent a matter of how much sourcing we have. There are a lot of sources about circumcision from a Jewish perspective (not surprisingly- it really important to Jews). There aren't that many sources about the Netherlands (not surprising. Again, cultural importance matters) so there are fewer sources. Having a lot of content related to just the Netherlands is not a good idea as we can see, if we did that just for every European country we'd have an article longer than the current article. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, cultural importance does matter; in most countries, male circumcision is viewed exactly as expressed by the medical organizations of the Netherlands; why should the perspective in cultures that promote circumcision have any more weight than the perspective in cultures that frown strongly upon it? Your logic is muddled, as it would provide for maintaining the article length by keeping more information from the Netherlands and less information from the Jews. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Your argument might be somewhat stronger if you were able to cite a reliable source in support of your assertion that the KNMG viewpoint is typical of "most countries". In the absence of such a source, it seems rash to make such a claim. Jakew (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh sweet Jake, you are too funny; you have such a way of abusing technicalities in order rationalize your warped world view. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornixtalk 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ActuallyRationalThinker, as has been pointed out, this article is already almost 8,000 words, and is an overview article. Devoting 15 lines, almost 250 words, to the view of one medical association in one small country is an egregious example of WP:UNDUE. There are over 190 sovereign states in the world; if we devoted 250 words to the statements of individual medical associations in each, that section alone would be over 47,000 words, and that doesn't include the fact that most countries have multiple medical associations. Even if we restricted it to the 42 countries that are "Very Highly Developed", that would still mean that section alone would be over 10,000 words. Your edits have been opposed by five different editors; could you please respond to this specific issue here, rather than continuing to edit-war? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

oh, please, don't get on the self-righteous bandwagon of an "edit war" that has been waged by the afficiandos for years on this article. Thus Spake Good (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Are there any changes you wish to make to the article based on reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"been there done that" Thus Spake Good (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? You don't appear to have ever edited this article before, or even commented on the Talk: page before January 1 of this year. What account were you using before that? Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The question presupposes so many hypotheticals that it's unanswerable in its current form. Thus Spake Good (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this your first Wikipedia account, or have you had previous accounts? Jayjg (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
False antecedents implying any consequents? Regardless, this article has been painstakingly pored over for years, and represents the bulk of the reliable sources out there. It should be used neither as a platform to support nor oppose circumcision; although, in many of our opinions, there has been a concerted effort to skew the article to the point of view of genital integritists; contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
That's nonsense... there really should be a requirement for the censors of this article to disclose their self-interest in the issue, i.e., do they earn income of any sort from the practice of circumcision. Such income should be disclosed, although denial of such would be expected.... Thus Spake Good (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So, what is your relationship with CIRP? -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, is this your first Wikipedia account, or have you had previous accounts? Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
well I take your silence to be acknowledgment that those guarding this article have an undisclosed motive... it makes sense if you give it some thought... the average joe doesn't give a hoot about circumcision as long as you don't touch his junk. My own disclosure? Never have earned a penny, or an income, or a gratuity from my work in the field of human rights... but then YOU wouldn't understand the altruistic nature I suppose. very sad that the human race has come to this in the 21st century.... search your conscience on this issue and you find nothing but a ... black hole ... where there should have been a soul. You stick out your tongue with this wiki nonsense, as though you're merely defending editorial neutrality. all who have labored here know otherwise. it's very sad... and sick.... Thus Spake Good (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That's enough, Thus Spake Good. Be civil. This is not negotiable. Jakew (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we maybe drop the double standard already?

The Female genital cutting page starts like this:

"Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), female circumcision, or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)"

There should be an almost exact duplicate opening on the main male circumcision page, at the moment only called "Circumcision". Something like this maybe:

"Male circumcision, also know as male genital mutilation (MGM), or male genital cutting (MGC)."

I am determined to resolve this double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.10.150 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But circumcision isn't also known as "male genital mutilation" or "male genital cutting". Circumcision and female genital mutilation are two very different things: the former is deprecated amongst health-care professionals, but is still carried out as fairly routine surgery where it's deemed necessary, and is not regarded as abuse. The latter is typically only encountered by health-care professionals when they try and alleviate the problems it's caused - it is regarded as abuse. TFOWR 11:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. You can't write an article about (male) circumcision by taking the FGC article and inverting the gender, because they're different subjects and we need to say different things about them. And one of the differences is terminology: "female genital mutilation" and "female genital cutting" are mainstream terminology among scholarly sources, whereas "male genital mutilation" and "male genital cutting" are fringe at best. If/when the terminology used by reliable sources changes, we'll report on that, but we can't do so until then. Jakew (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Different subjects in whose culture? The term female circumcision is also mainstream; indeed, in the cultures that practice female circumcision, it is often treated as exactly analogous to male circumcision. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision is known as MGM in some circles, particularly in health and human rights activism. So MGM is an appropriate alternative name to add. Besides, all forms of circumcision are genital mutilation anyway. It's done without consent, on a child, and has limited to no medical benefits. That is most definitely mutilation. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

As stated above, "male genital mutilation" is fringe terminology at best when scholarly sources are considered: Google Scholar returns only 480 hits for "male genital mutilation" (and ten of the twenty results on the first two pages are actually matches for "fe-male genital mutilation"). In comparison, there are 98,500 results for "circumcision". In other words, for every source using the term "male genital mutilation" there are about 200 using the term "circumcision".
This isn't the place to argue about whether circumcision is or isn't mutilation; please see WP:NOR. Jakew (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Male Genital Mutilation on Google turns up "About 998,000 results," with the first links being relevant to male circumcision. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

Google searches usually include all web pages, whether or not they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Google Scholar isn't perfect, but tends to exclude a lot of unsuitable material such as activist websites, forum posts, blogs, and so on. Jakew (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I presume you searched for male+genital+mutilation ("About 914,000 results") instead of "male genital mutilation" ("About 61,300 results"). Use quotes to search for the phrase, otherwise you'll just get anything that includes any of the words, in any order. For reference, circumcision -female returns "About 2,420,000 results". TFOWR 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FGM is culture bias. In African and Asian publications, it's referred to as circumcision. In English sites, it's called FGM because our culture views it as unacceptable. So MGM is a viable alternative name because it IS used. It produces the same results as male circumcision on search engines. So it should be called MGM because it is mutilation. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

So it should be called MGM because it is mutilation.

— User:LovelieHeart, 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC))
While you are entitled to the above point-of-view, wikipedia policy does not allow wikipedia to be used as a platform to disseminate that, or any other POV. As Jake mentioned above, the majority of sources in the English language do not equate circumcision with genital mutilation, so neither do we. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Except that it clearly doesn't produce the same result on search engines: "circumcision" occurs 40 times more frequently than "male genital mutilation". And that's before we consider the weighting to give to raw Google hits (i.e. how many of those are reliable sources). We need to reflect what society thinks, not impose our own points of view on this. When society changes to refer to circumcision as "male genital mutilation" then this article should too. Until then it shouldn't. TFOWR 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


MGM is a used name. Neurogenic shock is a less common word for a coma. It doesn't mean people don't use neurogenic shock though in medical fields. In medical circles, MGM is regularly used. It's not a point of view. (LovelieHeart (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

If it was regularly used I would agree that we should use it here. However, so far I've seen no evidence that it is regularly used. Can you show any reliable sources using the term "male genital mutilation" in preference to "circumcision"? TFOWR 09:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

These are medical, parenting, and political sites that use MGM in place of male circumcision.

(LovelieHeart (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

None of these, however, meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources (see also WP:V). To simplify somewhat, we must use sources such as articles in peer-reviewed journals, scholarly publications, or articles in respected news media. Jakew (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Bates Graber, "A Psychocultural Theory of Male Genital Mutilation." The Journal for Psychoanalytic Anthropology 4(1981):41 3-434. (LovelieHeart (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

The term is in common use, but the ones who favor the practice will not allow them to be used on the article. Coolgamer (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to discuss content, not the contributor. Your sole comment about content seems to be your assertion that "the term" (which?) is in common use. You provide no evidence in support of this claim, and it is in flat contradiction of the evidence presented above, so I'm inclined to give it little weight. But if you do have evidence, I'd be interested to read it. Jakew (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Have you noticed that those who shout the loudest that they want to see "evidence" lack the ability to see beyond the tip of their ... nose! Thus Spake Good (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." There is a letter of the law & a spirit of the law. This discussion page is so bland & unhelpful because there is no true dialogue about circumcision, but an on-going game of petty "GOTCHA" by those interested in preserving the status quo. Thus Spake Good (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There is not supposed to be "true dialogue about circumcision" here; talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not opinions about the topic. Discussion pages are supposed to be bland. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately you seem to misunderstand my point. There can be no authentic article about circumcision without an underlying philosophical approach to the problem. It's not a discussion about insect colonies, I hope you realize, but an authentic moral issue. Thus Spake Good (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't have a conversation about improving the article without an actual understanding of the practice, including accurate anatomical information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.194.205 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia seem to condone male circumcision by omitting male genital mutilation terminology? I thought it was supposed to be unbiased and involve relevant data whether they were mainstream or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.2.197 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Jakew (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No Moral Equivalence Between Ritual and Reason

The problem with this article, which essentially renders it useless to the public, is that it assumes a moral equivalence between those who defend the practice and those who defend human rights. The defenders of the ancient ritual offer ex post facto justifications to give their defense the appearance of science, while the defenders of human rights adhere to the tenets of humanism & science to oppose the primitive deed. This article would claim that both "sides" have an equally valid position, when in fact there is no equivalence between the two. As long as that discussion remains off limits to the self-appointed wiki censors, this article will be a hodgepodge of evasive rhetoric & moral equivocation. Thus Spake Good (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This rhetoric is becoming increasingly familiar. Did you use to edit as POV Detective (talk · contribs)/Historys Docs (talk · contribs)? Jayjg (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a strange question. Now let's roll up our sleeves and make this an article worthy of thinking people. Thus Spake Good (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion it is already such an article. However, please do make suggestions for neutral changes based upon reliable sources. You might start by addressing the request for a source in the above section. Jakew (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
my very point is that a definition of "neutrality" cannot accord equal moral weight to the proponents of the practice; in the moral universe, there is no such equivalence. they're out there alone with self-serving & ad-hoc justifications for a savage deed, by any definition except their own Thus Spake Good (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
Clearly you passionately believe that the anti-circumcision position is the correct one. That's fine, but Wikipedia cannot favour one position over any other. Neutral treatment requires unbiased treatment of all viewpoints without the assumption that one is "correct". Forgive my bluntness, but if you can't accept this you're likely to find your time at Wikipedia to be unpleasant and short. Jakew (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you would benefit from a thorough reading of Bettelheim, Freud, & Adler before you dare to pronounce yourself an expert on this issue. That is of course the problem with this article -- a bunch of uneducated folks hijacked it several years ago. Sad.... Thus Spake Good (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting a core wikipedia principle, that of no original research. This article cannot serve as anything other than a collection and synopsis of the existing material in proportion to what already exists in reliable sources. By all means, publish a "true discussion" elsewhere; mayhap you are correct and that it is necessary. However, wikipedia's core policies do not allow that place to be here. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets stop pontificating. Facts are missing (rates of specific complications, for example), overstated (medical issues), and frequently rely on vested interest (medical) promotion. Hard to find even medical personal finding benefits other than very minor. So, it's bias to put an equal number of pro and con points in the introduction, when the pro points come from Schoen (a rabid circ promoter) and the con points come from many many sources. Several factual points for staying intact are (POV) missing.Horngren (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it turns out that User:Thus Spake Good is a sockpuppet of User:POV Detective, and User:Horngren is a sockpuppet of User:Zinbarg. I suppose we'll have some quiet until new sockpuppets appear. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

New HPV results

I've just added the results of a newly-published Lancet paper. (I assume that there will be no problems with my addition, but if there are, please do revert pending discussion.) This paper, piggy-backed on the Ugandan HIV RCT, measured rates of high-risk HPV infection in female partners of the trial participants. While I haven't cited it (I don't regard it as sufficiently reliable), this eMaxHealth article helps to explain the study's significance. I'm inclined to wonder whether we should split the HPV section somehow, so that we can explicitly discuss cervical cancer in female partners? Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In case my edit summary was not sufficiently clear, the possible effect on HPV infections should not be overemphasized by primary sources. Furthermore I am missing the crucial information that there are several highly effective ways to prevent HPV such as vaccination and use of condomes. I think the whole section should be radically shortened. Richiez (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't agree with your rationale, Richiez. Per WP:MEDASSESS, the types of article most suitable for inclusion are, in reverse order, meta-analyses of RCTs, other systematic reviews, individual RCTs, and lastly studies of other designs. The general approach that we've taken in this article is to use a small selection of the best quality evidence for any particular topic, while generally excluding evidence of lower quality than RCTs. In the case of this particular topic (the effect of circumcision on HPV in female partners), this RCT is the highest quality data available, and I can't really see any justification for excluding it.
One more point: your edit summary read "addition of primary source gets undue weight over metyanalysis". What meta-analysis do you refer do? As I recall, neither Van Howe, Castellsague, nor Bosch actually cover the subject of the effect on HPV risk for female partners.
Regarding vaccination and condoms, these aren't relevant to circumcision, and consequently don't belong here. They are, of course, relevant in other article contexts. Jakew (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Richiez, I have to agree with Jakew's reasoning above. Per WP:MEDASSESS we should prefer this RCT, rather than exclude it, and vaccination and condoms are different topics, not relevant to this article, unless reliable sources draw explicit connections. Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since there have been no further comments from Richiez for approx 72 hours, I intend to restore the edit. I'll wait another 24 hours before doing so, however. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

add the philippines to this article

Im Filippino. Could someone that can write; add a section about Philippine circumcision. Circumcision is like practices everywhere. its looked down up if you are not circumcised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.137.233 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add a sentence or two to the 'cultures and religions' section. Can you suggest any good reliable sources? Jakew (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we add MGM to other names?

In "intactivism", human rights groups, political groups, and some medical groups, circumcision is referred to as MGM/male genital mutilation. Why can we not add that the article? Like "Male circumcision, also known as MGM or male genital mutilation,..."? I think it's sexist to deny men the same integrity status as women on this topic. (LovelieHeart (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

For sources referring to circumcision as MGM, see below: 

(LovelieHeart (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC))
This has been discussed previously. Please see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Can we maybe drop the double standard already?. Jakew (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But it is known as MGM. So it should be called MGM, right? (LovelieHeart (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

See the archived discussion. Jakew (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You say on your page that you're biased against circumcision opposition basically. So how is it fair that you run this page when you're not neutral? (LovelieHeart (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

First, I don't run the page. Second, discuss content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding Death as a complication of circumcision

According to ICGI and the Journal for Boyhood Studies, it's estimated 117 boys die every year in the USA from complications of circumcision. (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/04/prweb3929634.htm). I believe death should be listed as a medical complication. More children in the USA die from circumcision complications than they do SIDS and suffocation. It's a viable concern that deserves a place on the wiki page in my opinion. (LovelieHeart (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Um, death is discussed in the complications section. It's the subject of the last paragraph of that section. Bollinger's paper is cited as ref 152. Jakew (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have its own section though. Considering death is a big deal, I think it would deserve its own section. (LovelieHeart (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

The complications section isn't split into sub-sections at present. Jakew (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be then? It'd be a lot easier to search by section than read a section that covers several topics. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

I think the existing structure is fine. Subsection headers help navigation to a certain extent, but if overused they harm readability. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding Ruptured Bladder/urinary retention as a complication of circumcision

Bladder problems from circumcision are not listed under the medical section of the Wiki page. http://www.springerlink.com/content/rg77767230355h62/ (LovelieHeart (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

We don't have space to list every single complication that has ever occurred. The source you cite describes "a rare complication", so it probably isn't worth including. Jakew (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not rare. Search google for plastibell and bladder problems. (LovelieHeart (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

According to the source you cited, it's rare. I couldn't find any reliable sources stating otherwise. Jakew (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I could find more sources if you'd like. (LovelieHeart (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

It's not clear why you cite these sources. In the case of the first report, no abstract is present and the title says nothing about how frequently it occurs. The second describes an "uncommon" case of venous obstruction. So neither appears to contradict the original source's description of ruptured bladder as rare. Incidentally, please note that all three sources are case reports, and as such are unsuitable for inclusion per WP:MEDASSESS: "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." Jakew (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding MRSA and meningitis as a complication

(LovelieHeart (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

As with ruptured bladder, these are really too obscure to mention at present. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it that you just ignore medical reports? You're clearly pro-circumcision. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

A web page at Doctors Opposing Circumcision's site is not a reliable source. Of the remaining links, two are actually the same paper ([15] [16]), by Scurlock and Pemberton, and is a case report. The paper by [http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijpn/vol5n2/meningitis.xml Oyedeji] is also a case report. Case reports, as I explained above, are not considered to be reliable sources. This leaves a single study by Nguyen et al which, while acceptable as a source, is just an isolated primary source and as such should be treated with caution and care for appropriate weight. It is cited in medical analysis of circumcision, where there is space to do so, but I think it would be inappropriate to include it here. Finally, remember to discuss content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Jakew's analysis above sounds reasonable to me. This article is a highly condensed summary of a large literature on circumcision; there isn't room for everything in it, and choices need to be made in a balanced way. Citing single primary studies, case studies, web pages etc. would usually upset that balance. I've replied here to LovelieHeart's comment, and here to Wandooi's. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

sexual abuse

surely we should not be pussyfooting around the brutal sexual abuse of infants by religeous types and doctors. It is clearly an evil thing to do to a minor and it can be seen as a way of reducing the sexual urge, and specifically masturbation, as this is more difficult for the amputee due to the lack of a frenulum to tug the glans. Also what about the ugliness produced by the scar tissue. We call the female equivalent female genital mutilation, why not the male? religeous apologists should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.95.220 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:TALK. Talk pages are not intended to be used as a platform for one's personal views about the subject, but are instead for serious discussion about the article. Jakew (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Many groups are fighting to end the circumcision of male children. This "routine surgery" of males in their infancy has been fought by religious groups whom attempt to impose their religious values on their children, and advocates for equality fight that it is agains the First Amendment Right of the child to Freedom Of Religion. People for circumcision state that it is to fight infection, while doctors state that circumcision encourages infection with impaired skin integrity and impaired wound healing, that essentially an open wound promotes infection. Doctors advise that it is a totally unnecessary surgery that cuts away and removes a perfectly working organ which has Langerhanns Cells in it, that fight infection. Both the ANA (American Nurses Association) and the APA (American Pediatrics Association) state they are against this surgery as it has "inherent negative consequences" on the children. As America has the highest rate of circumcisions in the world, and the highest rate of erectile dysfunction in the world, there are on-going studies to verify the link between the two. Legally, circumcision is considered legal, however, lawyers fight stating that it is sexual bias that America protect the rights of females to protect their bodies, and not be circumcised at birth, but that right is not extended to men. Lawyers also cite that the act of cutting up childrens genitals without medical need for surgery is a felony assault with a deadly weapon, child abuse, and child endangerment citing the hundreds of cases of deaths of children from excessive bleeding from the surgery, and infection from the surgery which, in some extremes, has led to amputation of the entire penis, and cases where the child had to undergo a sex change operation. Religious groups state that it is their right to circumcise their children, while American law states that it is the right of a person to exercise their religion themselves, and not their right to force others to exercise their religion. Most religious groups contend that they are respecting the Bible by circumcising infants. While anti-circumcisionists explain that the religious groups by altering childrens appearance are actually acting against Gods Plan and Gods Will by cutting up and victimizing babies that were made in Gods Divine Image. They further state that religious groups whom fight to end the victimization of babies in the womb, via abortion rights that are in American law, should be as inclined to fight for childrens rights to be protected after they are born. While female circumcision is spoken and fought against on an international scale, the protection of males from circumcision and their right to remain physically unharmed is virtually undiscussed by politicians. Many sites have been built to fight these crimes of circumcision including a site built by doctors called www.Noharmm.org, a site from mothers called www.mothersagainstcirc.org, Nocirc.org and many others. There is currently a proposed bill to end the routine and un-medically required circumcision of males looking for political-backing which can be viewed at MGMBill.Org. In the past, many politicians have refused to protect the young American male children by supporting their First Amendment rights to Freedom Of Religion. However, through education and willingness to respect others believes, there has been a growing support for such a bill, and politicians have considered bring this to the floor to be voted on, suggesting that it would make a strong stand to end violence against children, and would make a large contribution to the millions of voters who support it.

Posted by Jason Luciano Romero TheMasculinist@hotmail.com

Hiding the truth

I found out that this: "In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."" is trying to hide the truth. first of all the refrence is in 2006 and also not available on the the original website. second the source being AAFP is using the another srource as reference which is from 1966 and there have been many newer researches after which have more detailed work on the subject and more exact data.

I believe if we do not mention this data, we are hiding the truth. We should mention That how they knew that. or, otherwise we can just remove the data from AAFP and put the data from the original source here. Amidelalune (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the AAFP's statement is dated August 2007. The AAFP have moved their document, and someone seems to have inserted a link to an older archived version, which may account for the confusion.
Secondly, we generally do not cite the primary sources cited by a secondary source. The whole point of secondary sources is to use them to summarise evidence and draw conclusions from it; picking apart the evidence they cite is not what we're supposed to do.
Finally, the AAFP cite Masters and Johnson (their ref 24) for the sentence that reads: "An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. (24)". But we don't quote this sentence, so the reference they cite for it is completely irrelevant. Moreover, to discuss it is actively misleading, since it implies that they cited this reference in support of the material which we do quote. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
you are right the article gets updated often, the last one I found was august 2007
we/you usually do not, but there is no rule or problem to prevent us from doing so, specially when needed to show the truth.
This is the only reference they used in their paragraph, so what they say comes from that reference or at least a conlusion from that reference. I think this way of editing is good here: they used the data from ... or while pointing to the data from ...
but I have another solution: to add the data of the orginal researches and remove the secondary ones. what's your idea? tnx for your truth investigation Amidelalune (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem with identifying primary sources is that it can be taken as original criticism of the secondary source: it comes across as saying "look how outdated their references are". Of course, it's up to the authors of secondary sources to judge whether the age of a study is relevant or not in assessing it. If the source didn't make a big deal of the date of the primary source, we shouldn't either.
It's not logical to presume that their other sentences are conclusions drawn from M&J. "No valid evidence to date" is clearly a statement about the literature as a whole as of 2007; a 1966 study is but a small part of that literature. Consequently it wouldn't make sense as a conclusion.
Regarding your suggestion, no, we cannot remove the secondary sources and cite the primary sources instead. That is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia's policies dictate. Per policy, we strongly prefer secondary sources. Please see WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS#Definitions. Jakew (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ooops, so I have edited in a wrong manner, I didn't know that. so sorry for that, I will fix it as soon as possible. but can we briefly provide the summary of the related primary source which is cited by the primary source by side of the primary source to make resolution. because I think there might be some misunderstanding, for example for the variety of sexual experiences or dysfunctions. Amidelalune (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
When you realized your edits were inappropriate you should have reverted them, rather than instead mockingly writing "oops, so sorry, will fix as soon as possible". If you had time to comment here, you had time to revert yourself. And we can't "provide the summary of the related primary source", because that's not appropriate for the reasons already given. Also, if you think your edits here are "needed to show the truth", then you are not editing for the correct reasons. We make edits that are accurate, informative, neutral and verifiable; we are not on a crusade for the TRUTH™. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I had to leave the house and there was three edits which were combined, they were not distruptive& it was not just pressing a revert button I had to rephrase.(as I think was the correct edit). Your use of the "mockingly" is very offensive and you shouldn't use it when you do not have enough reasons. It depends how you use the word truth and what you mean with it.(I didn't know how it is used here in wikipedia) My definition of truth was  : "accurate , informative and neutral". I guess I have not been distruptive and I don't know how the label you applied on my talkpage can be removed. can you please tell me?
They are using old data in their reports, we should neutrally show what data they were using if needed for 1-neutrality because they use old data which have changed 2-accuracy: some words like "variaty of sexual relations" is not accuarate at all 3- there is an organization named something like: "physicians agains circumcision" They are not accepted as a source. if so, are we really trying to be informative? Amidelalune (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. The two words "variety" and "dysfunction" in the AAP seem to be a bit confusing, can we add what they mean of those two words. As I followed their citation to the primary source the dysfunction was defined: "Lack of interest in sex, unable to ejaculate, premature ejaculation, experiencing pain during sex, being anxious about performance, having trouble achieving/maintaining erection" and vareity was "Active heterosexual oral sex, passive heterosexual oral sex, Active homosexual oral sex, passive homosexual oral sex, heterosexual anal intercourse and masturbation"
  2. In their report they say: "had less sexual dysfunction" but in they cite for this reference, (the lauman report): "the data indicate a slight tendency for such dysfunctions to plague uncircumcised men". This is why I think we should mention some data of the primary source by side of the secondary source. The primary source ofcourse should be included with caution. tnx Amidelalune (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreskin reconstruction

Can someone add a sub-section heading about Foreskin restoration please? Tx 78.144.249.231 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's really too obscure a topic in the context of circumcision. Very few reliable sources discuss foreskin restoration: only 163 (or 0.17%) of the 91,300 Google Scholar results for "circumcision" also discuss foreskin restoration. For comparison, 38,200 (42%) discuss religion, and 17,600 (19%) discuss complications. Jakew (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. "foreskin reconstruction" results in 258,000 google hits, while "foreskin restoration" results in 96,100 hits. The issue has recently had columns and features in various and wide categories of major magazines and news stations. There's also 2,590 and 1,450 books discussing the issue. I think it deserves a mention in a circumcision article. 78.144.249.231 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You've constructed your searches incorrectly. Searching for foreskin reconstruction returns any item with the word 'foreskin' and the word 'reconstruction' anywhere in it. To find instances of the phrase 'foreskin reconstruction' you need to enclose the phrase in double quotes, like this. There are some additional problems, too. First and foremost, this article is about circumcision, so it doesn't actually matter how many sources discuss foreskin restoration if they don't do so in the context of circumcision. (There is, after all, a separate article about restoration.) For that reason it's essential to include 'circumcision' as a search term. Finally, using Google (as opposed to Google Scholar) tends to overestimate relevance due to the fact that Google indexes all web sources, whether reliable or otherwise, whereas Scholar tends to index a much higher percentage of reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
However, we should, and already do, mention foreskin restoration (or reconstruction). For NPOV I suggest removing "however" from this sentence: "Moses et al.' (1998) state, however, that "scientific evidence is lacking" for psychological and emotional harm,..." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not described as mutilation?

So cutting up males is an okay surgical procedure, but cutting up females is mutilation? We have to be consistent. If cutting up female genitals is described in the lead as mutilation, it should be with males too. 84.13.28.51 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times previously. Please see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Can we maybe drop the double standard already? Jakew (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

source?

"^ Tomb artwork from the Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BCE) shows men with circumcised penises, and one relief from this period shows the rite being performed on a standing adult male. The Egyptian hieroglyph for "penis" depicts either a circumcised or an erect organ. The examination of Egyptian mummies has found some with foreskins and others who were circumcised. " Where did you get the illustration? 4.249.63.30 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sleeve resection

This article doesn't seem to explain well the sleeve resection technique in which a wide ring of skin (which may or may not involve any part of the foreskin) is removed from the shaft of the penis and the two ends sutured back together.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right: it doesn't explain this technique. A large part of the problem is sourcing: we have to be able to find reliable sources for such descriptions, and it's surprisingly difficult to find detailed descriptions of these techniques in the literature. If you know of any, please supply some citations! Jakew (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Physicians' websites perhaps? Also, I know Circlist's status as an encyclopedic source is at best questionable, but they might reference some sources that would be considered legitimate. At least that's somewhere to start.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition to 7. Policies of various national medical associations - Norway

I looked up what the stand is on this issue by the Norwegian Medical Association (Den Norske Legeforening) and found an article in their magazine online which clearly states their view on this matter. The reason why I thought it might be an idea to add the stand of a Scandinavian country in addition to the UK, which is the closest to us, is that we have no tradition whatsoever on doing this. It is also very interesting to the the difference in opinion when it comes to children giving consent between the Norwegian and UK Medical Associations. Ritual/religious circumcision was not a matter of debate here in Norway whatsoever until increased immigration made it a subject, because the parents came to Norwegian public hospitals (referred by their GP), asking them to perform the procedure. For a while it was done in hospitals here, when parents from other cultures asked for it, and the costs were then automatically covered as other healthcare is, based on medical necessity alone, except that in those cases, there were no medical necessity. A few years back things changed though, and the national health care system no longer cover, or do, circumcisions on boys, except for cases where there is medical necessity. Recently this issue has come up again, with newspaper articles and also covered by a TV actuality show on the public TV-channel NRK (Norsk Rikskringkasting/Norwegian Broadcasting) where the lack of regulations of circumcisions were brought up, as the lack of help from the public health system has caused some problems, immigrants and religious congregations are bringing people from abroad to mass-perform circumcisions, sometimes with complications involved (e.g. one case where a Bosnian Physician performed circumcision on two boys, using a very unusual procedure which involved 1.5 hours per boy, possibly with inadequate pain relief and another case where a "mohel" was brought from Germany to perform circumcisions on many boys during 2 days in Kristiansand). Sweden is different in that their Parliament some years back enacted a law on Circumcision, requiring public certifications for people who want to perform this procedure. Their education, equipment and office is inspected before they get a certification as a Mohel. A Registered Nurse has to be present when it is done, to oversee that sufficient pain relief is given to the child (I saw that they used Emla cream before the procedure was done on an infant and it looked as if the child also was given glucose, which does provide some pain relief to small infants. Interestingly the procedure was done on a child of American/Christian parents, not Jewish or Muslim, as you would expect here in Scandinavia. It is the first time I have heard of circumcision done on a non-Jewish/non-Muslim child here in Scandinavia, it is probably a very, very rare occurance).

I have translated the article below to my best ability, but welcome help in correcting it if there should be any typographical/grammatical errors. Otherwise the text of course is NOT mine, it is a translated article, written by P. Gulbrandsen. My question is, how would it be best to do this, write a somewhat shorter version based on this article (and of course citing the article/author/magazine as the source)? We of course can't use it as it is, without consent by the copyright holder, the author/the magazine.

I appreciate all help! :)

Translated article from "Tidskrift for Den norske legeforening" ("Magazine for the Norwegian Medical Association") COMMENT AND DEBATE - Right and Wrong

Ritual circumcision of boys. By P. Gulbrandsen

The Council for Physician Ethics means that ritual circumcision of boys are not in line with important medical ethical principles, that it is without any medical usefulness and should not be covered by the public health system.

The Council has sent their opinion to the Board of Directors for the Physicians Association regarding this issue. There it is said, amongst others, that ritual circumcision of boys do not have any established medical use. Even when local anesthetics is used, the procedure cause pain and is associated with a certain risk for medical complications. The Council for Physician Ethics mean that circumcision of male children is not in line with important medical ethical principles according to the generic provisions in $1 of Ethical Principles for Physicians. These imposes on physicians to protect human health, to heal, soothe and comfort. The Council also points out that the fact that children cannot consent, is an important factor.

According to the Council, physicians also have to reserve their right to refuse to perform ritual circumcision, for reasons of conscience. Even when the procedure is not done on medical indications, it is still pointed out that circumcision is a surgical procedure which should only be performed after recognized surgical principles and with optimal anesthesia. In accordance with Ethical Principles for Physicians § 12, it should not be demanded that the costs be charged the public health system.

The Council encourages relevant religious leaders in our society to work on replacing circumcision with symbolic rituals which do not involve surgical procedures.

(end article) Source: http://www.tidsskriftet.no/?seks_id=419642

Peapeam (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, using Google Translate, your translation seems to be fairly accurate. However, I am not convinced that this material belongs in the article, for several reasons. First, it is not clear that this represents official policy of the Norwegian Medical Association. It appears to be the opinion of a group called "Council for Medical Ethics" (using Google's translated phrase), apparently urging the Association to adopt this position, but there is no indication that the Association actually did so. If they did not, it's not policy, and doesn't belong in the section. Also, it is unclear who the "Council for Medical Ethics" are: are they a subcommittee that is part of the Association, or are they an independent organisation? Secondly, I'm concerned that the article is already rather large, and I'm not sure how much value this would add. I think we have to recognise that there isn't space in this article to include the policy of every medical association; and at some point we have to say enough is enough. If we're able to confirm that this is indeed formal policy of the Association, I'd be happy to include it in medical analysis of circumcision. Jakew (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Stats

Hello Jake. Why did you remove the Sansom findings by suppressing it under a footnote? Sansom, et al. found that "circumcision reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV for a U.S. male by about 16%." I feel that these findings warrant inclusion in the article, as HIV statistics are listed for South Africa, Kenya and Uganda. Dr. Stephanie Sansom is a Senior Staff Epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of HIV and AIDS and provides a U.S. perspective. Principal findings are: "Circumcision reduced the lifetime HIV risk among all males by 15.7% in the base case analysis, ranging from 7.9% for white males to 20.9% for black males."[4] --Sunfox1 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sunfox, did you actually read the article? This is not an RCT or anything. They took the high end estimates of the African RCTs and they said, well, if we assume that (similarly inflated) numbers apply in the US, what will the cost effectiveness be? Their 15.7% was suspiciously also the portion of new HIV infections in males that are from heterosexual intercourse. This paper is essentially meaningless trash just to increase the publication count of the authors. There's no way anyone could honestly suggest that a few clinical trials in Africa, which by the way have important methodological flaws themselves, are externally generalizable to the entire United States. Aside from the wildly different prevalence of HIV between the African countries and the US, let's make one thing clear. Even the authors of the pro-circ African trials admit that you still need condoms. Condom accessibility and use is way higher in the US than in Uganda. There's generally better access to testing and treatment and better ability of female partners to insist on condom use. It's totally dishonest of the authors to publish a paper like this even if the results are internally valid. It's based on absurdly optimistic notions. The authors are clearly desperate for publications and part of the pro-circ lobby that has arisen like a phoenix in recent years in academia. It's a good bet that the authors' primary concern is not the health and well-being (not to mention human rights) of American men (and those of the rest of the world), but with promoting non-consensual genital cutting on infant males. --68.33.57.9 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a modelling study intended to determine whether circumcision would be cost-effective in the US. As such, if it must be included here (and personally I think it is better suited to a more detailed article such as circumcision and HIV), it belongs with other cost-effectiveness studies. The absolute risk estimates are not the primary focus of the study, and in any case we do not include absolute risk figures for any other country, so doing so would be rather US-centric. Jakew (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I can move the Sansom citation to the Circumcision and HIV article instead. Although it is a modelling study I thought that it might be worthwhile to include as the numbers differ from the African studies. But if the consensus here is that we're not including modelling numbers that's fine with me also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunfox1 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on section 6.3 "Complications"

Well, I am unsure how to say this in the right way, but I feel that the comparision pictures for 'Flaccid and erect penis.jpg' and 'Erection Homme2.jpg' show penises of different... aesthetics (maybe not the right word). I consider this to be a subject important enough to mention, merely because it may have a bias impact on the opinion of some individuals who unconciously may relate a penis with more girth with an uncircumcified penis. Therefore I am only suggesting that the pictures should show penises with similar overall aesthetics. My humble observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.178.102 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 April 2011

Interesting observation. However, that seems that the one depicting an uncircumcised penis is simply closer up.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Superpep222, 1 May 2011

We should add www.intaction.org to the external links section: Groups opposed to circumcision.

Superpep222 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no particular reason to add this site. If we were to add it, we'd need to remove another anti-circumcision site to preserve the balance of links; this doesn't seem to offer anything that the existing links do not. See also Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Edit request from Intaction, 5 October 2010. Jakew (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the comment above, please review WP:LINKFARM. Jayjg (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mitzvah as "Good Thing"

The introduction to this article misleadingly says that Judaism regards circumcision as a "good thing," with a link to the page for "mitzvah." As anyone who actually read that article knows, this is misleading, substituting a tertiary meaning of "mitzvah" for its primary meaning of "religious commandment." The next sentence makes this worse by saying that circumcision is "not a commandment in the line of the the Ten Commandments." While it is true that circumcision is not one of the 10 commandments, it is one of the 613 commandments, and is as obligatory for Jews as the 10 commandments are. In fact, the Talmud says that circumcision is equal in value to all the other commandments combined (Nedarim 32a). Finally, that the link for the Ten Commandments here is to the Charleton Heston movie seems to be a perverse joke. At best, this is a misleading presentation of the topic being discussed; at worst, it is a mockery of a core practice of a world religion. Sisterray24 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry: The part you're talking about was just edited in recently and was removed again here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The insertion was poorly written and inaccurate, but as Coppertwig points out, it was removed a couple of days later. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Moisture

?... Obviously this is a difficult topic, but I didn't see anywhere (particularly in the sexual effects and HIV sections) that or if removal of the foreskin affected the moisture level in the environment of the head of the penis. And though a "glans" is mentioned, there's no mention at all of whether a part of the foreskin actually produces and releases lubricant. I think this would help inform a reader on the causes perhaps of circumcision's effect on both STD transmission (if extra moisture would keep a virus infectious longer, and thus a drier enviro would lessen transmission), and arousal levels. Claycrete (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It all depends one what reliable sources say on the subject. Did you have any in mind? Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE3/html/clitoral_adhesions.html Here speaking of the clitoris, they say that the female foreskin like the male's releases an oily substance that if not cleaned away results in "smegma" (a toe-cheese like substance). But I can't find a source specifically stating "The male foreskin of a healthy subject (no edema) produces fluid". Claycrete (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Schoen paragraph

Is about circumcision activism, pro and con. We need to start the paragraph out with something like:

  • Schoen, an advocate of circumcision, argues that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period. Milos and Fayre, opponents of circumcision, argue well you get the picture.Earthsales5 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Prior to May 22, the article read: "Arguments that have been raised in favour of circumcision include that it...". I don't understand why you changed it in the first place. Jakew (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I made it worse, and will change to advocate/opponent.Earthsales5 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This is 20 years old and does not belong in the article per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You misconstrue WP:MEDMOS. And, the basic extreme (important benefits versus medical myths) opinions held by activists are pretty much the same. It may not belong in the lead, which should tie in more with the body.Earthsales5 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry meant WP:MEDRS. This issue is the age. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

RACP, RDMA, WHO and CDC statements

User:Earthsales5 keeps adding the following statement to this article's lead:

After reviewing the currently available evidence, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2010) "believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand",[5] and the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) called upon “doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications”.[6]

Because the lede of this article is contentious, and has been arrived at through extensive discussion and negotiation, any change is bound to be controversial, and unbalance the material there. Could Earthsales please explain:

  1. Why he quotes these specific medical associations, when hundreds of medical associations exist in the world? These associations represent sub-sections of medical professionals in three countries with fairly small populations: out of just over 200 countries in the world, Australia is 50th, the Netherlands 61st, and New Zealand 123rd in population. Their combined populations of 43 million equal approximately the population of Tanzania, out of a world population of almost 7 billion.
  2. Why he uses these specific quotes?

If he objects to the statement by the AMA in the lede, to be honest, I'm happy to remove that too, and have suggested it should be done more than once in the past. Earthsales, please discuss and get consensus here before continuing to edit-war. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suggesting removing the AMA statement is very strange. Why would you seek to remove primary information content?
Properly, HIV shouldn't have its own paragraph in the lead, being a minor health issue in the West. It's addressed prior (by Schoen), and covered fully in the main body. Unless your a poor black baby the incidence on HIV is too low to be worth considering, and it would be unethical to recommend only those babies be circ'd, says a CDC DR. The paragraph does serve to topic current news, which must be evaluated by experts, like from the RACP and RDMA.
That sentence (jayg placed above) is needed because both the RACP and RDMA explicitly covered HIV prevention benefits to arrive at their conclusion. Please read the RACP comments on HIV:

HIV/AIDS Three recent randomised trials conducted in South Africa, Uganda and Kenya, all countries with high prevalence of HIV, reported benefit of adult male circumcision in reducing HIV incidence in men, with circumcision halving the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse.[80, 85, 86] (Level 1+) Prior to theseresults, a comprehensive assessment and systematic review of 37 observational studies undertaken in 2005 also showed a consistent association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV.[87, 88] A further systematic review has now been undertaken confirming these results.[89] (Level 1+) A population survey conducted in South Africa however failed to show benefit of circumcision in prevention of acquisition of HIV.[90] In addition there has been recent criticism of early cessation of clinical trials because of clear therapeutic benefit because of the tendency for this practice to over-emphasise benefit.[91] Nevertheless United Nations agencies emphasise that male circumcision should be considered as a part of a comprehensive prevention package in Africa, but that warn it does not provide complete protection against HIV.[92] (Level 1+) A systematic review published in 2008 was equivocal about the protective benefits of circumcision in protecting men who have sex with men from HIV transmission, but recommended further evaluation.[93] A Ugandan study showed that adult male circumcision did not reduce the acquisition of HIV by the female sexual partners of HIV infected, circumcised men, and suggested an increased risk of HIV acquisition in these women.[94] (Level 2) It is still not clear that the findings from African studies, where the predominant mode of HIV transmission is heterosexual intercourse, can be extrapolated to Australia and New Zealand or other western countries, which have much lower rates of HIV infection and where the predominant mode of transmission is penile-anal sex among men.[93, 95] A recent Australian report provides some information on this issue. A longitudinal study of 1427 initially HIV-negative homosexual Australian men showed that in the 53 who later seroconverted circumcision status was not identified as a relevant factor.[75] However among those with a preference for the insertive role in anal intercourse, being circumcised was associated with a reduction in risk of HIV seroconversion.

And the RDMA information on HIV:

Medical/preventative In the past, circumcision was performed as a preventative and treatment for a large number of complaints, such as gout, syphilis, epilepsy, headaches, arthrosis, alcoholism, groin hernias, asthma, poor digestion, eczema and excessive masturbation.10 Due to the large number of medical benefits which were wrongly ascribed to circumcision, it is frequently asserted that circumcision is ‘a procedure in need of a justification’.11 In recent decades, evidence has been published which apparently shows that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS12, but this evidence is contradicted by other studies.13 Moreover, the studies into HIV prevention were carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, where transmission mainly takes place through heterosexual contact. In the western world, HIV transmission is much more frequently the result of homosexual contact and the use of contaminated needles.14 That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions.15 The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin.

We have a news item in the lead, which must be professionally qualified or it is potentially misunderstood as significant to public health. Note that the CDC, UNAIDS ect statements only find public benefit where there relevant incidence.Earthsales5 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There isn't space in the lead to cover the policy of every organisation in detail, Earthsales5. We have a reasonable summary as things stand: regarding whether routine infant circumcision is recommended we have the AMA's summary of the policies of "virtually all" other organisations, and regarding whether circumcision is protective against HIV we have the CDC and WHO. These seem to balance each other nicely, and I really can't see why your addition is needed. In fact, it seems inconsistent with NPOV to include (as Jayjg pointed out) non-representative policies and/or out-of-context quotations. Jakew (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the lead is the problem. It relates to recent HIV findings in the news, implies they are really important, and that there will be some recommendation to circ. by the CDC, or that the AMA statement is old/uninformed. I agree that we shouldn't be redundant saying don't recommend. But with the HIV studies, so far, two similar organizations (med professionals) have studied the same HIV facts and arrived at their association conclusions. Those statements are stronger than the AMA statement, so per wiki we're required to present that information. But we also need the global scope provided by the AMA quote. I guess we combine statements into one stronger one which can be dated 2010 with both cites? Properly, we should add HIV to the Schoen sentence. Would you prefer that approach?
There is no excuse for a grossly misleading paragraph lacking key neutral information, which is what we currently have.Earthsales5 (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, you're picking these statements and these specific quotes because you want to contradict the view of the World Health Organization regarding circumcision and AIDS prevention? Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I join in the conversation quickly. There are no contractions between the statements of RACP and RDMA and the recommendations of WHO and UNAIDS.
For developed countries, WHO and UNAIDS have said that :
"In settings with lower HIV prevalence in the general population, including where HIV infection is concentrated in specific populations at higher risk of HIV exposure, such as sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men, limited public health benefit would result from promoting male circumcision in the general population. However, there may be individual benefit for men at higher risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection such as men in sero-discordant partnerships and clients presenting at clinics for the management of sexually transmitted infections. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that circumcision reduces HIV transmission among men who have sex with men."
"Countries with other HIV epidemic situations should carefully consider the potential impact that promoting male circumcision and expanding safe circumcision services will have on their HIV epidemic."
Currently three countries have studied the question : France, Australia and Netherlands. (for France: "Report on Male Circumcision: an Arguable Method of Reducing the Risks of HIV Transmission", French National AIDS Council, 2007).
And conclusions are similar: that is applicable in Sub-Saharan Africa is not in developed countries.The health situation in Lesotho is not the same as in Italy. Regards.--Galateo46 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Galateo. So, why does the paragraph (HIV in lead) imply there will be a change in policy? Why does the paragraph imply "significant" though of limited public benefit in the West due to low incidence?Earthsales5 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't imply that there will be a change in policy. Furthermore, according to the WHO and other organisations, the potential impact of circumcision programmes is expected to be significant in the geographical regions where it is being promoted. Please remember that Wikipedia is a global project: we don't write it as though developed Western nations were all that mattered. Jakew (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
How's this fix. I got rid of the CDC speculation line in paren but left the reference, moved HIV up, and added RACP and RDMA affirmations to the now ending paragraph. Answering jayg, the RDMA is a quality group of professionals producing quality work.Earthsales5 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
@Jakew, WHO and UNAIDS have said that :
The greatest potential public health impact will be in settings where HIV is hyperendemic (HIV prevalence in the general population exceeds 15%), spread predominantly through heterosexual transmission, and where a substantial proportion of men (e.g. greater than 80%) are not circumcised.

Other settings where public health impact will be considerable include those with generalized HIV epidemics where prevalence in the general population is between 3% and 15%, HIV is spread predominantly through heterosexual transmission and where relatively few men are circumcised.
And look at the map of the prevalence of AIDS.
Conclusion: with the exception of some small Latin American countries, all countries have a prevalence of AIDS than 3% are in Africa. Wikipedia is a global project and the world is not just Africa. The health situation in Lesotho is not the same as in Italy, Japan, India, China or Brasil. Regards. --Galateo46 (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that if people in these countries were unimportant then sources wouldn't pay them any attention, Galateo46. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, the introduction should be noted that the WHO recommendation is for countries with high prevalence in Africa.--Galateo46 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't currently mention in the lead that the WHO actually recommend circumcision (we say that they note that it reduces the risk of HIV, which isn't the same thing). Are you suggesting that we should explicitly note that they do? Jakew (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Earthsales5, you still haven't explained why the lede should contain material from these small-country medical association statements. Please frame your response in terms of WP:UNDUE, which you should read first. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Jakew and Jayjg, first, read: WP:BITE WP:AGF
Second, read carefully WP:NOTYOURS :
Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against all others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.
So, WHO has never indicated that circumcision reduces significantly the transmission of HIV worldwide. In fact, in its recommendations that the WHO says circumcision reduces significantly the risk in countries where prevalence exceeds 3% and where HIV is spread predominantly through heterosexual transmission and where relatively few men are circumcised.
We must be faithful to the recommendations of WHO and do not interpret (WP:UNDUE). So I propose this addition (in red) :
The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex in countries where prevalence exceeds 3% and where HIV is spread predominantly through heterosexual transmission, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures.
For the CDC, the introduction mentions that. "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex". It is not true. In fact, the CDC says (1 and 2) :
"Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trial."
And :
"It is important to note that the recommendations are still in development and CDC has made no determination at this time about the final content".
The CDC has made ​​no statement. So to avoid any speculation, it should not be mentioned in the introduction.
Regards--Galateo46 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Galateo, it is not correct to say that the WHO state that circumcision reduces the risk in these countries. They give no indication that the protective effect depends upon geographical location. What they state is that circumcision reduces the risk, and, therefore, they recommend it in certain countries with high prevalence of HIV and low prevalence of circumcision.
Regarding the CDC, I do not understand why you've added emphasis to "It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed", since this sentence is about male-to-female transmission, whereas the sentence in the article is about female-to-male transmission. The sentence in the article is accurate, and the parenthetical comment also notes that the CDC have not issued final recommendations. Jakew (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
WHO/UNAIDS state public benefit will be limited to areas where the infection rate exceeds 3%, which overlaps geographical locations. Generally, no public benefit outside Africa. I agree that the sentence must be qualified as proposed by Galateo.Earthsales5 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not what they actually say, Earthsales5. Jakew (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
jayg, Medicine is global now, with care in the US as good as in Australia ect., and vice verse, obviously. With the RACP and RDMA we benefit from committee groups of a world class group of scientists and doctors. World class, so wiki benefits. The RACP and RDMA statements are relatively independent of the social culture and politics (procedure profit) of circumcision in the US.Earthsales5 (talk)
I'm sure that the RACP, etc., are highly competent, but that isn't by itself a good argument for quoting them in the lead. Jakew (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The AMA link page is gone. We should replace it with the RACP and RDMA medical association statements. OR, how about a short compliation of statement from the major globla associations?Earthsales5 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That's irrational: whether the statement currently appears on their website has no bearing on its value as a secondary source regarding the policy statements of other organisations. Jakew (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cool. That saves lots of round and round discussion to get almost nowhere.Earthsales5 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet you added the material to the lede again, despite providing no justification for the WP:UNDUE weight you've placed on both of them. Please don't do that again. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The citation for the third paragraph goes to a non-existing link, so there's a question as to whether the report cited even exists. According to the AMA's website, the page does not exist. In addition it seems to me that this information, if in fact it ever existed, is rather old to be cited at the very top of the article (1999) Research on this topic, as well as medical opinions, have changed since then, so this position may be out-of-date. The medical sources cited in the rest of the intro are within the last five years. Obamancrush (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC) :This is the current position of the AMA and AAP published on September 1, 2005 http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686 .--Quabosman (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See my proposal above to use the RACP and RMDA affirmations of similar policy dated 2010.Earthsales5 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
To which all other editors object. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of introduction

Let just put the current position of the scientific literature in the lead. Ie circumcision works in Africa but there is little no evidence of benefit elsewhere. Moved the discussion of specific countries positions to there section. The only one that is notable in the lead is the WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's negative peer review on all the studies (and many show no or negative effect), and the point isn't Africa but HIV incidence. In the West, for example, the CDC might recommend US circ's for babies of poor black parents because of the high incidence of HIV among drug users in their neighborhood. The WHO isn't any better than the RACP or the RDMA when it comes to putting together neutral science based recommendations. In fact, the Dutch and the Australians have much better healthcare (based on outcomes) at about half the cost of Americans.Earthsales5 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry we are not basing this on 20 year old research studies. Please see WP:MEDRS. BTW it is not "peer reviews" we are looking for but "review articles". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You are vague, as I'm not sure what's 20 years old. Assuming we're talking about the AMA 1999 statement, the most current position of medical professionals in the West is best conveyed by the RACP and RDMA (both 2010). Wiki qualified groups, for sure. Much later date than the old WHO/UNAIDS publication.
Jakew rejects using full RACP and RDMA statements as redundant, though they can be used for affirmation and updating of the AMA statement. That should satisfy your concern of dated material.
Note the RACP takes into account the low incidence means lacking public benefit issue in their statement, which would satisfy both myself and Galateo46. See above item 2.Earthsales5 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I just read again your writing, and it looks like you object to schoen? I'd agree, but because many of the "important benefits" are grossly exagerated (cancer). You propose getting rid of the activists paragraph?Earthsales5 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No, he obviously objects to the RACP and RDMA material. Please stop adding it. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Read his writing jayg, he says nothing of the sort above. "20 years old" but the RACP and RDMA review of the literature statements are 2010.Earthsales5 (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He removed the RACP and RDMA material. That pretty much explains his thinking, doesn't it? Please stop with this pretense, Z. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed some of the stuff that was 20 years old completely. The other stuff by a couple national /sub national bodies was moved to the appropriate section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Most circumcisions are performed during adolescence for cultural or religious reasons; in some countries they are more commonly performed during infancy". I propose that this be changed to something like: "Secular circumcisions are performed within the first 48 hours of a baby's life, the Jewish bris is performed on a male's eighth day of life, and the Muslim circumcision is performed when a boy reaches adolescence." I understand that 68% of circumcised males are muslim, and so "Most circumcisions are performed during adolescence for cultural or religious reasons" is technically accurate. But it I think unfairly leads anyone in the west who is unfamiliar with the technical aspects of circumcision to believe that most of the males around them were cut at the age of 13. I think the rewrite avoids any such potential confusion a westerner might experience, plus it very quickly gives someone some of the most vital information regarding circumcision, namely: "When are boys circumcised?" Claycrete (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Why is the timing of circumcision "the most vital information regarding circumcision"? 2) What are your sources for any of this? Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am completely against rewriting or more to the point deleting all of the proprerly sourced well balanced data in the beggining of the article. People come to this article to get a sense of what circumcicision is and what the majority of medical opinions are. The intro is sapposed to be a quick summation of the the articles sections. Now it no longer is AND is unbalanced with only the highly critized WHO source. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully we just removed the poorly referenced material and replace it with material referenced to five recent review articles one of which was from the Cochrane collaboration. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think it was poorly referenced Doc? Trust me, typically anything that goes onto this page goes through the microscope. Why did you remove the paragragh about controversy? Poorly referenced? Are you trying to hide the controversy like many other editors that come to this page? Why remove the brief synopsis of medical opinions from the beggining? It was the main reason people came to this page. You are making some awfully big assumptions. Please revert yourself and I would be happy to go over any point in detail and link some of the torturous debates we have had to establish the intro. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


I have explained that the refs where 20 years old. I have updated them. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes well as a contributing editor to this article I have read WP:MEDS many times to explain valid sources to new editors and no where does it say a source 20 years or more is invalid. Yes we try to maintain updated information and include new studies but that doesn't invalidate older studies. Because of the controversy involving circumcision one can find many sources for and against circumcision each critisizing the other. Our job is properly weight them based on thier trial groups and validity of publish per se peer reviewed journals and try to show a balanced page with both views. The fact that virtually no well known medical organization reccomends circumcision should certainly be in the lead along with the basics pros and cons. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


How about the WHO? Are there not more recent review articles that support the points you wish to make? I agree that if we can find one that states no major medical organizations recommend circumcision than it would be appropriate for the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


(undent) Have found a few and added them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Doc please stop deleteing the work of many editors and much debating and properly sourced intro. If you wish to change bits and pieces try to make a small change then listen to others input about it and see where it leads. I shall list below here a few well debating sections in the archives. Please read them. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


The debates you post are all 3 or more years old. Forces old literature on too Wikipedia is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Once again your use of time as a disqualifier is incorrect. Time does not invalidate the logic of these arguments, if it did Wikipedia would be in chaos. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
We update Wikipedia to source in the last five years when possible per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Statements by major organizations

Many organization have statements on circumcision we have a section where these can be place. The only ones that would be significant for the lead is the WHO. This can go lower in the article


Medical associations respect parental rights and circumcision performed for cultural or religious purposes. After reviewing the currently available evidence, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2010), "believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand",[7] and the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) called upon “doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications”.[6]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, per discussion above. WP:UNDUE weight is being placed on the statements from these two medical associations out of hundreds or thousands, from small population countries. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. We do actually cite both the RACP and KNMG in the appropriate section. Jakew (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


As the WHO statement basically agrees with current review articles adding it does not add anything really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The intro must address medical neonatal circumcision. We can use the AMA as before, or use the AMA gist with updated statements using the 2010 association statments. Otherwise, we miss a key issue in circumcision. The WHO/UNAIDS publication is old relative to the RACP and RDMA stataements. The medical association statements meet WP:MEDRS.Earthsales5 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


We do not need to mention the positions of every national and subnational organization in the lead. I would support the statement of the WHO put little else in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I only used those two because they were current (2010) and included a review of current medical studies. What the AMA said is true, and we can use the same sentences w/o so much formality. We must have the same general paragraph content of before, stating medical associations and speciality societies do not recommend. We know of two association reaffirmations in 2010 taking into account a current review of the literature.

The WHO/UNAIDS publication does not address neonatal circumcision (the main issue in the US).Earthsales5 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would note, there was long discussion about having HIV in the intro at all; it being such a minor issue for most the people reading this article, and very well covered in the body.Earthsales5 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The review article published in the peer reviewed literature are very consistent on the conclusions in sub saharan Africa. We state that the effectiveness in the developed world and MSM is not known. Yes the WHO does not make any statements on the developed world and neither shall we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue of HIV to circumcision is minor outside sub asharan africa (or where incidence is less than 3% per above discussion), so giving it a full paragraph in the lede is grossly misplaced. Your last sentence is presumptious, and not supported by the reference: Evidence of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is yet to be determined.[8][9]Earthsales5 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, your removal all discussion of neonatal circumcision from the lede is POV. We at least must restore the AMA general statement.Earthsales5 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Let wait and see what others opinion are of this matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Doc James; the WHO does not make any statements on the developed world and neither shall we, and the individual statements by medical associations is not required. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The individual statements are required just in the appropriate section of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, where they are already found. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For whatever small amount my vote is worth, it goes to a: keeping the statements by the Dutch and Australasians, or b: leaving them out as well as removing from the intro the WHO Africa statements. I say this because I feel it unfairly colors the intro. In fact, I very very much would prefer that both statements not be in the intro, as a large number of people (from California especially) will be coming to the Circumcision article looking to inform an opinion on whether or not they should vote to ban the procedure. And while the intro's main paragraph seems quite neutral, the two statements concerning Africa and Australasia do not. I mean that if all I read were the Africa statements it would sway my upcoming vote to "No, do not ban circumcision", while if all I read were the Australasia statements it would sway my vote to "Yes, let's ban circumcision". It seems to me that Jayjg and Doc wish to color it pro-circ, and Earthsales wishes to color it anti-circ, and I think you should both restrain yourselves from doing so. My 2 cents. Claycrete (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow some big unbalanced changes to the intro in my humble opinion. Why not just scream all in caps that circumcision is good and an intact penis is evil. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Garycompugeek. I see you've been re-activated, now that the latest Zinbarg sock was blocked. Since your comment was not relevant to article content, and contained no specific criticisms regarding it, I've restored the new consensus lede. If you have any specific issues or criticisms regarding the current lede, please feel free to state them. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why Hello Jayjg. Didn't know I had been deactivated?? Who is Zinbarg and what exactly are you referring too? I find keeping the article well balanced very relevant. You know very well we spent untold months balancing out the intro only to have it all swept under the rug just because some of us have been busy and cannot babysit the page every 5 secs. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on review article per WP:MEDRS published in the last 5 years. When the reviews do not agree with your personal opinion one does not get to claim bias in those who added them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreeing with Claycrete above, I took out the WHO statement about HIV from the lede. As HIV prevention is the reason for a tiny tiny fraction of all circumcisions performed, giving it its own paragraph in the lede constitutes undue weight. LWizard @ 02:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Have restored the peer reviewed literature. The fact that its affects on health outside of Africa is an important point that deserves mention. BTW if someone can find a recent review (within the last 5 years) that discusses the position of major organizations on this topic I am not adverse to putting these in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is valid to require that we use speculation about the relative prevalence of reasons for circumcisions as the sole criterion for judging due weight, LizardWizard. It is more conventional in Wikipedia to use the relative weight given by reliable sources. In recent years, a simple PubMed or Google Scholar (or News) search will reveal that sources give considerable weight to HIV prevention. In fact, of the 318 papers published last year on the subject of circumcision (identified by searching for "circumcision 2010[dp]"), more than a third (116) discuss HIV prominently enough to be identified when adding that as a search term. Jakew (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That we should craft our content with special care to the political situation in California rather than Africa is a bazaar request. The later is much more populous than the former. As per Jakew weight is determined by sourcing to some degree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Africa is more populous than California, but I suspect the English wikipedia still receives more readers from California than from Africa. Considering the interests of the readers doesn't seem bizarre.

JakeW, I take your point about what reliable sources are writing about, but we can't go too far that way or we'll just end up writing about trends and not the thing itself. If we used your criterion for the article on Carbon, it would place a lot more weight on Carbon Taxes and Graphene. LWizard @ 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already too US centric we are not going to make it more so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
LizardWizard, you've been re-activated too? Where is this forum that is drawing everyone to this article? Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Jay, this article is on my watchlist. I only extremely rarely muster the motivation to come in here and spend time arguing with folks who have different goals than I do for the article and a lot more time on their hands. LWizard @ 07:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, so every 3 years or so you edit it? Seriously, where's the forum that drew you and all the other new/extremely intermittent anti-circumcision editors here? Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for the AMA to have two separate sentences in the last section; one is enough. -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the topic of statements by major organizations, I'm surprised we only cite the statements by medical bodies of English-speaking countries. Surely at least a few of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Russia, Japan, China, etc. must have medical bodies that have weighed in on the issue, right? Anyone reading this either good with one of those languages or knowledgeable enough about international medical bodies to track down some of those statements? I spent a little while looking without luck. LWizard @ 07:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia; sources in English are preferred (WP:NONENG). -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That said, it would be quite helpful to know what medical associations in large population countries (e.g. China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan) have written on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree this ref says "many nations" [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Benefit to women

There have been a couple of reviews that have raised concerns about a lack of benefit for women. The review I have summarized was published in 2010 in a reasonable peer reviewed third party publication. We need a significant justification to exclude it beyond not liking it conclusions. We are here to represent the scientific literature not our own personal opinions. Have found another review which found weak evidence of benefit thus it appears the effect in women is controversial and have changed the wording to such. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Another review that states no evidence of benefit http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19849961 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but why is there any doubt about whether to include this or not? First, it's not very surprising that there's no benefit to women (to be honest, I can't see why anyone would expect there to be); second, as you say, these look like well conducted reviews in reasonable peer-reviewed third-party publications. Why would anyone think these should be excluded? As you say, our job is to represent the scientific literature, not our own personal opinions. Unless someone has equally good sources suggesting that there is a benefit to women, then I can't see why this should cause any controversy. garik (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not object to this information to the article but see no need for it to be in the lead. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that Wikipedia must reflect the literature rather than our personal opinions, and that means that we must ensure that we appropriately represent the literature through giving due weight to relevant material. As noted in an earlier edit summary, the Green et al article is an obscure opinion piece which advocates a fringe opinion, essentially that there is insufficient evidence of circumcision's protective effect against HIV (should there anyone have any doubt that this is an extreme minority opinion, try browsing PubMed's results for "circumcision HIV" — you'll find that virtually all authors agree on this, in contrast to Green's position). As such, including it in the lead (which is a very prominent location) would give undue weight to this viewpoint. Please note that I am not saying that it doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia; what is undue weight in one place may be appropriate in another. However, I do not believe that its inclusion in the lead can be justified.
Regarding the benefit to women, allow me to quote from Banerjee et al's reply to Green (entitled "Circumcision denialism unfounded and unscientific."): "Medical male circumcision also benefıts women. [...] a recent meta-analysis found that “circumcision may confer a 46% reduction in the rate of HIV transmission from circumcised men to their female partner.”7 Further, the population effect, or herd immunity, means that with fewer HIV-infected men, far fewer women would be at risk." Jakew (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


Which reference is [7]. Please provide PMID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm quoting from Banerjee et al, doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.005 PMID 21335254. Their ref 7 is Hallett TB, Alsallaq RA, Baeten JM, et al. Will circumcision provide even more protection from HIV to women and men? New estimates of the population impact of circumcision interventions. Sex Transm Infect 2010. Advance online article. That article (now published) is PMID 20966458 Jakew (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The one issue is neither one of these references is a review article per pubmed. Is there a review that makes the same statement?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's something of a red herring. Wikipedia policy doesn't actually require all sources to be labelled by PubMed as "reviews"; it requires them to be reliable (which these are), generally peer-reviewed or of an equivalent standard (which these are), and preferably secondary sources (which these are). While it is true that systematic reviews are among the best of all types of sources, none of these sources are systematic reviews, and a poor-quality paper labelled as a "review" is not necessarily a more reliable source than another secondary source that is labelled differently.
Nevertheless, in a few minutes searching I found statements supporting Banerjee's second argument:
  • "There is weak evidence that circumcision has a direct protective effect on HIV infection in women, although there is likely to be an indirect benefit, since HIV prevalence is likely to be lower in circumcised male partners." PMID 20622758
  • "Although at a population-level, widespread male circumcision will benefit women by reducing their risk of exposure to HIV, there are insufficient data to know whether circumcision directly reduces risk of women becoming infected with HIV" PMID 19850225 (quote from full text)
Jakew (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes thus I agree labeling it either "controversial" or "non evidence" is reasonable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think either label is particularly accurate. There are two issues here: i) whether male circumcision directly benefits women (by reducing the risk of M->F transmission of HIV), and ii) whether male circumcision indirectly benefits women (by reducing the absolute probability that male partners will be infected and therefore capable of passing it on). The controversy, such as it is, seems to be over point (i): there seems to be some evidence of a directly protective effect (per, eg., Hallett and to some extent Larke), but other sources (eg., Weiss) are saying there's insufficient evidence at this time.
There seems to be very little controversy over point (ii), though, and it seems to be mainstream scientific thinking: for example, the World Health Organisation state "As male circumcision programmes expand the lower HIV incidence in men means that the likelihood of women encountering an HIV-infected male sexual partner will gradually decline."[18] Jakew (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
How about "not definitely determine"? Than have this discussion lower in the article?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable suggestion. Jakew (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2009 Lancet systematic review and meta analysis found no benefit PMID 19850225 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the Weiss paper I mentioned above. Jakew (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Representing the science in the lead

There is currently a discussion regarding updating the science in the lead to reflect current research. I propose the following which is entirely based on peer reviewed review articles published in the last 3 or so years per WP:MEDRS. This will replace the 20 year old evidence currently in the lead.

Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in populations that are at high risk.[10] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decrease risk of between 38 and 66% over 2 years[11] and in this population it appears cost effective.[12] Evidence of benefit for women is controversial[13][14][15] and evidence of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is yet to be determined.[16][17] Ethical concerns remain regarding the implementation of campaigns to promote circumcision.[18] Medical associations of some developed countries have issued policy statements in which they do not recommend routine circumcision.[19]

Version based partly on old publications and some non review articles.

There is controversy regarding circumcision. Arguments that have been raised in favour of circumcision include that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during theneonatal period.[20] Those raised in opposition to circumcision include that it adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure, is justified only by medical myths, is extremely painful, and is a violation of human rights.[21]

The American Medical Association report of 1999, which was "…confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes," states that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."[22]

The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures.[23][24] (The CDC have not yet made any final recommendations regarding circumcision.[25])

  1. ^ Bissada NK, Morcos RR, el-Senoussi M (1986). "Post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis. I. Clinical aspects". J. Urol. 135 (2): 283–5. PMID 3944860. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Fetsch JF, Davis Jr CJ, Miettinen M, Sesterhenn IA (2004). "Leiomyosarcoma of the penis: a clinicopathologic study of 14 cases with review of the literature and discussion of the differential diagnosis". Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 28 (1): 115–25. PMID 14707873. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Rennie S, Muula AS, Westreich D (2007). "Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low-income countries". Journal of Medical Ethics. 33 (6): 357–61. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.019901. PMC 2598273. PMID 17526688. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Sansom, Stephanie L. (January 18, 2010). "Cost-Effectiveness of Newborn Circumcision in Reducing Lifetime HIV Risk among U.S. Males". PLoS One. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Circumcision of Infant Males". Royal Australasian College of Physicians. 24 September 2010.
  6. ^ a b "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010)". KNMG. 12 June 2010.
  7. ^ "Circumcision of Infant Males". Royal Australasian College of Physicians. 24 September 2010.
  8. ^ Kim, HH (2010 Nov). "Male circumcision: Africa and beyond?". Current opinion in urology. 20 (6): 515–9. PMID 20844437. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Templeton, DJ (2010 Feb). "Male circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men". Current opinion in infectious diseases. 23 (1): 45–52. PMID 19935420. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Krieger, JN (2011 May 18). "Male circumcision and HIV infection risk". World journal of urology. PMID 21590467. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Siegfried, N (2009 Apr 15). "Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (2): CD003362. PMID 19370585. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Uthman, OA (2010 Mar 10). "Economic evaluations of adult male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review". PloS one. 5 (3): e9628. PMID 20224784. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ Green, LW (2010 Nov). "Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity". American journal of preventive medicine. 39 (5): 479–82. PMID 20965388. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Larke, N (2010 May 27-Jun 9). "Male circumcision, HIV and sexually transmitted infections: a review". British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing). 19 (10): 629–34. PMID 20622758. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Eaton, L (2009 Nov). "Behavioral aspects of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV infection". Current HIV/AIDS reports. 6 (4): 187–93. PMID 19849961. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ Kim, HH (2010 Nov). "Male circumcision: Africa and beyond?". Current opinion in urology. 20 (6): 515–9. PMID 20844437. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ Templeton, DJ (2010 Feb). "Male circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men". Current opinion in infectious diseases. 23 (1): 45–52. PMID 19935420. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  18. ^ Rennie, S (2007 Jun). "Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low-income countries". Journal of medical ethics. 33 (6): 357–61. PMID 17526688. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  19. ^ (accessed Dec 2010). "Circumcision of infant males". Royal Australasian College of Physicians. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  20. ^ Schoen, Edgar J (December 1, 2007). "Should newborns be circumcised? Yes". Can Fam Physician. 53 (12): 2096–8, 2100–2. PMC 2231533. PMID 18077736. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  21. ^ Milos, Marilyn Fayre (1992). "Circumcision: A medical or a human rights issue?". Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 37 (2 S1): S87–S96. doi:10.1016/0091-2182(92)90012-R. PMID 1573462. Retrieved 2007-04-06. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  22. ^ "Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99):Neonatal Circumcision". 1999 AMA Interim Meeting: Summaries and Recommendations of Council on Scientific Affairs Reports. American Medical Association. 1999. p. 17. Retrieved 2006-06-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference WHO-C&R was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ "Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions: Implications for the United States". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008.
  25. ^ "Status of CDC Male Circumcision Recommendations". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved April 16, 2011.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

After a brief glance these references seem to come from publishing from 2006 - 2011. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Support first (new) version

  1. Support We need to use review articles and statements published in the last 5 years as a number of new RCTs have been published in this time. Using non reviews such as the piece from the Can Fam Physician and the paper from 1992 is inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support. The first one is better for the lead. The expanded info in the second version could be placed in the "Ethical, psychological, and legal considerations" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support Came here from posting on WT:MED. We should be using the best sources for the lead, which in the case of medical claims are the most recent up-to-date reviews on the subject (per our guidelines on medical claims. Yobol (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support first version, and specifically Axl's suggestions for handling the other content. -- Scray (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Support second (old) version

  1. Support. This is a lot more relevant information than the first version, since it touches on more than just HIV. I don't think that just because some of the references are a decade old means they're less true. LWizard @ 19:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'm not sure why version one and two can't both be in the lead, but the information from the second version is definitely relevant (although updating it to include more recent sources would be beneficial). From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Circumcision is not purely a medical issue. Because this surgery is often performed on infants who have no medical need for such surgery, this makes it a very controversial topic, and we need to mention this in the lead. The proposed version one does not adequately describe the controversy surrounding neonatal circumcision. kyledueck (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support. This version has much more balanced information than what Doc James is proposing. It touches on the controversy and gives a quick medical synopsis, plus it has been worked over by many editors on both sides of the issue. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support The article as it currently stands seems to be biased in support of circumcision. Lets be neutral. Pass a Method talk 12:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

#Support.The proposed new version does not provide an overview of the article, plus it puts too much emphasis on a low importance old news HIV health issue. The old version touches on main issues in the main article.Signssaids (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Sock puppet

awful non-neutral lead

The lead as it stands is awful. The lead used to adhere to WP:NPOV, but now it seems we have some activists tag-teaming. The understanding of the current lead is in short saying "circumcision is a healthy recommended practise". This edit warring will never stop if the current lead remains as one-sided as it is. Pass a Method talk 12:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We are here to reflect the current peer reviewed literature. Do you have review articles that you see are not reflected? The problem with the old content is some of the refs where nearly 20 years old and other where not review article. Thus it was updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
After the long-standing opening para, the present lead focusses quickly onto HIV infection in high-risk heterosexual populations, then stops. Where is the summary of the major article sections, 'Ethical, psychological, and legal considerations', 'Medical aspects', and 'Positions of medical associations'? I also note that the following paragraph has disappeared.[19] Have the AMA updated their position?
"The American Medical Association report of 1999 states that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."[1]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelj (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 June 2011
Take some time to read the discussion above. And re read what is actually on the article page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Excess comma in the infobox

Why isn't this article editable? There's no image of a lock in the corner.... At any rate, there's an excess comma in the infobox up top in the parentheses where it says "(most likely Turkmenistan,)." The comma after "Asia" that's before the parentheses should be moved to their right, and the comma inside the parentheses should be deleted.—Biosketch (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As Biosketch points out immediately above, there is a typo in the infobox. Please change the Caption parameter to read: 

Caption        = Circumcision being performed in central Asia, (most likely Turkmenistan), c. 1865-1872.  Restored albumen print.

Thanks. Jakew (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting reviews

The protective effect of circumcision against HIV, known since the 1980s, has been confirmed by more than 30 studies before these three famous randomized controlled trials, which are the criterion standard of clinical research. The global epidemiology data clearly indicates a reduction of over 99.9% in HIV prevalence in countries where C rate is over 80%. As we show in this review, MC not only reduces HIV but also other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Circumcision's decisive role in reducing the effect of HIV transmission has been so convincing that it has now been accepted officially by the WHO, UN, and NIH. Moreover, many nations have initiated adult circumcision as a public health measure.

2008 PMID:19745498

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And, from today's PubMed alert, a new Cochrane review assessing the effect of circumcision among MSM:

Current evidence suggests that male circumcision may be protective among MSM who practice primarily insertive anal sex, but the role of male circumcision overall in the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among MSM remains to be determined.

What's interesting about this meta-analysis is that it indicates that (to put it bluntly) a man's circumcision status only makes a difference if he uses his penis in sexual activity: "In a subgroup analysis, the results were statistically significant in studies of men reporting an insertive role (7 studies, 3465 participants; OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.44; I²=0%) but not in studies of men reporting a receptive role (3 studies, 1792 participants; OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.29; I² = 0%)." This should not be very surprising, and it does confirm the results of earlier, individual studies, but in an earlier meta-analysis by Millett et al the protective effect among men preferring an insertive role did not reach statistical significance. Regardless of what happens to the lead, we'll need to update the HIV section to reflect this.

PMID 21678366 Jakew (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jake that if there's any reference to MSM in this article the differences between insertive and receptive anal intercourse (and circumcision status) should be noted. As a gay male myself I cannot see how a partner's presence or lack of foreskin would have any protective effect (on me) if I engaged in receptive anal intercourse, with ejaculation, and my partner happened to be HIV positive. If the studies point to a protective effect for the insertive partner that's one thing. This is supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada site, which states that the per-sex-act probability of HIV transmission for unprotected receptive anal intercourse is 0.82% per act; and 0.06% for unprotected insertive anal intercourse. Of course, an issue with such generalizations is that many men who have sex with other men do not exclusively practice either receptive or insertive, but may choose to be the receptive partner on some occasions and an insertive partner on other occasions. Having said all that, I really don't see why the intro jumps right into an entire paragraph on HIV.

--Sunfox1 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Here's a thought experiment for you (where "you" mostly means JaykeWJG). Suppose you changed lede of the article on Dowsing to describe it in solely positive terms with no mention that it's bullshit that doesn't work. (This might be fairly easy to do, since the only people likely to care enough about dowsing to get into edit wars over it will be pro-dowsing.) And then suppose the article got locked. And then dowsing appeared in the news a lot, say because a company was getting sued for false claims about the efficacy of its dowsing rods. What would happen? I expect that one thing that would happen is that a lot of people would come to the article, especially many due to the news coverage, and many of them would notice the biased lede. Most would shrug it off, but some small percentage would try to fix it. Upon discovering it was protected, their only course of action would be to turn to the talk page. The result? An influx of newly-active users, all of whom seem to share the same dowsing-doesn't-work this-lede-needs-rewriting agenda. If you were pro-dowsing, it might seem like all these new people must be meatpuppets.

Not a perfect analogy, just something to think about. LWizard @ 04:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your "thought experiment" is that:
  1. Circumcision is a medical procedure which reliable sources indicate has both benefits and risks, that former mostly prophylactic, and the latter generally quite rare. It is nothing like dowsing, which is, to use your phrase "bullshit that doesn't work".
  2. The lede of this article wasn't changed to "describe it in solely positive terms".
  3. The inundation of many of the new/rare anti-circumcision editors happened after the warning but before the lede was changed.
Editors here who actually understand Wikipedia policy are not idiots, and are rather tired of irrational, often-hysterical activists showing up here promoting un-scientific and overblown claims about the risks of circumcision, based on the flimsiest of evidence (or none at all). Maybe you weren't brought here by that forum, but many others obviously were. Jayjg (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I hadn't actually read that warning or the follow-up discussion to it until just now verifying your claims about the timeline. Having read that, it seems clear that there was some meatpuppetry going on near the start of the month. Sorry for not better informing myself earlier. That said, most of the obvious meatpuppets seem to have left. It's possible they just switched accounts. Though if these people are dedicated enough to stay around for over 3 weeks, we're going to have to stop writing them off as meatpuppets eventually. LWizard @ 07:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that somewhere out in the wilds of the Internet there is an "alert" out, calling for meatpuppets to attack this page. Given such an assumption, it is reasonable to assume that the arrival of these meatpuppets would be spread out in time (staggering though it may be to those of us born with an 8P8C connector on the end of our umbilical cord, some people don't even check their email every day, and presumably may check websites such as those containing an alert even less frequently). One would expect, perhaps, the graph of meatpuppets over time to show an initial peak with a gradual decline afterwards, over a period of weeks. Furthermore, given the existence of one alert, is it not reasonable to postulate follow-up alerts? I'm not saying that we should be suspicious forever, but it seems a little early to forget about the warning. Jakew (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What actually happened here: 1) an anonymous poster darkly warns of impending "anti-circumcision" activists trying to edit this page. 2) coincidentally, a few weeks later a new editor radically changes the long-established introduction, removing information about the controversial nature of neonatal circumcision. 3) readers question this change; it appears to be a pro-circumcision intro that minimizes the very real controversy, and doesn't summarize the rest of the article very well. 4) Jayjg charges that these readers were sent here to disrupt things, citing the anonymous post, and suggests that only frequent visitors are legitimate. 5) the article is now locked with this new intro.

So, after all this, we're left with an introduction that smells decidedly pro-circumcision, violating the long-held view that the article should be neutral and balanced. There weren't any "anti-circumcision" changes made at all and no deluge of edits as darkly warned. Very Strange. Jwkuehne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Given that the article has been a frequent target for vandals, and hence is usually semi-protected, it should not be surprising that "anti-circumcision" changes to the article did not occur: new or inexperienced users would, in fact, be unable to make such changes. We should instead look at the talk page and look at attempts to argue in favour of such changes.
Let's look at the timeline. Here is a list of editors who've made comments expressing anti-circumcision views, or who've urged such changes, since the initial warning:
  1. 02:41, May 27, 2011: 76.102.43.93 warns of alert.
  2. 09:20, May 27, 2011: Claycrete appears (22 edits since 15/05/2011)
  3. 05:41, May 29, 2011: Jtc218, a sockpuppet of Modulor1, appears.
  4. 20:32, May 30, 2011: Earthsales5, a sockpuppet of TipPt, appears
  5. 14:38, May 31, 2011: Galateo46, another sockpuppet of Modulor1, appears.
  6. 16:37, June 1, 2011: Quabosman, yet another sockpuppet of Modulor1, appears.
  7. 00:20, June 2, 2011: ApocalypseNow, yet another sockpuppet of Modulor1, appears.
  8. 06:23, June 7, 2011: Cyrrk appears (82 edits since: 24/02/2011)
  9. 20:03, June 7, 2011: Garycompugeek, who used to be very active at this page, but who had made only a handful of WP edits since 29/11/2009, reappears
  10. 03:59, June 8, 2011: LizardWizard (who edits only sporadically) reappears
  11. 20:00, June 10, 2011: Signssaids, a sockpuppet of TipPt, appears
  12. 21:08, June 11, 2011: Kyledueck appears (21 edits since 22/01/2011)
  13. 13:10, June 16, 2011: PassaMethod appears
  14. 18:12, June 16, 2011: Nigelj (who again edits only occasionally) reappears
  15. 01:15, June 22, 2011: Jwkuehne appears (35 edits since 11/01/2007)
  16. 02:06, June 23, 2011: Sunfox1 appears (32 edits since 31/01/2011)
Can you honestly say that this doesn't look suspicious? Jakew (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how making comments in the discussion page constitutes a conspiracy. Again, what really happened is that the page took on a decidedly pro-circumcision slant in a single edit, and was then locked down over fears of "activists" generated by a single anonymous post sent weeks before. It doesn't seem impossible that the anonymous post to which Jayjg has become so attached served the purpose of generating hysteria about "activists" needed to unbalance the introduction, and as such was simply a clever ruse.

I propose that in the introduction, following the new material, we balance it by including the paragraph so clearly explaining the controversy, pro and con, given below by Gary. Jwkuehne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Did you read about this article in the past month in some forum, offsite mailing list, or similar? Please answer "yes" or "no". Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This comments on the users page [20] makes one concerned about neutrality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not concerned, because this WP:SPA editor's editorial view and bias has always been clear. My main concern now is how to get some honest answers about the meatpuppeting that has been going on here in the past month. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thankfully Fastily has protected the page until this issue can be somewhat resolved. Hopefully people will come to the table with evidence going forwards rather than their own opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No consensus to change intro

In the event that no consensus is reached, that doesn't mean the new changes stay just because Jake, Avi, and Jayjg say so. 3 well known circumcision advocates I might add. Of course you want the controversy and general medical opinion out of the lead. At the moment its 4 to 4 so sign your names to the dotted lines boys and gives your well thought out opinions. In the meantime the old intro should stay and I would ask Avi to revert himself in good faith. As I have stated before most of the published material is from 2006-2011 hardly the 20 year old dated material that Doc has been exaggerating. The new proposed intro by Doc unbalances the intro and puts undue weight on WHO studies that have been greatly criticized, makes no mention of controversy, and no synopsis of current medical opinion which is not to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Why do you wish to hide this information? The old intro was the work of many authors on both sides of the issue with many months of debating thrown in to fine tune it. Should we just throw it out because Doc says its old? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is very clear consensus that we use uptodate sources for referencing. Yes this ref is only 19 years old rather than 20 Milos, MF (1992 Mar-Apr). "Circumcision. A medical or a human rights issue?". Journal of nurse-midwifery. 37 (2 Suppl): 87S–96S. PMID 1573462. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). This one is not a review article Schoen, EJ (2007 Dec). "Should newborns be circumcised? Yes". Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien. 53 (12): 2096–8, 2100–2. PMID 18077736. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) and consensus is that we do use review articles when possible. There have been issues with sockpuppets on this page and a 2 of the people who have opposed have few edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT
So what does that have to do with you removing the paragraph about controversy? You want to remove the opposition quote because its from 1992, then replace with something more current, there are plenty of them out there. Or the the AMA quote from a 1999 report? Do you have a better medical summation source to replace it with? You have completely unbalanced a very well balanced intro of a highly controversial article. The way it reads now is everyone should get circumcised or they will get aids. You are giving to much weight to WHO HIV circumcision issue. We are talking about 3rd world countries who do not practice safe sex and probably do not have access to the internet to read this anyway. There are plenty of sources that denouce circumcision as HIV prevention. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that either of the proposed options is going to satisfy everyone. Instead of voting on which one we will use, we should discuss which parts from each should be included, and which points need more recent/reliable sources to be included, etc. That way all points of view are represented, and we should end up with a concise NPOV summary. Also, until a final decision has been made, I suggest that we update the article to include a hybrid of the two proposed versions, so that the back and forth reverting can be stopped. Something like this:

There is controversy regarding circumcision. Arguments that have been raised in favour of circumcision include that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[2] Those raised in opposition to circumcision include that it adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure, is justified only by medical myths, is extremely painful, and is a violation of human rights.[3]

The American Medical Association report of 1999, which was "…confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes," states that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."[1]

Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in populations that are at high risk.[4] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decrease risk of between 38 and 66% over 2 years[5] and in this population it appears cost effective.[6] Evidence of benefit for women is controversial[7][8] and evidence of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is yet to be determined.[9][10] Ethical concerns remain regarding the implementation of campaigns to promote circumcision.[11]

I realize that this won't solve the major complaint about the age/quality of some sources, but I'm only proposing this as a short term solution until a more permanent one is reached.kyledueck (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes I would be happy with further discussion (sorry miss typed).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This article has been locked. If one of you wants to add the changes and has the rights to do so, go right ahead. kyledueck (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin make the above agreed change since the page is now fully protected? Thanks Garycompugeek (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy with the first two references. Can we find better ones please... I am also not a big fan of large quotes of specific organization in the lead. This should be a summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, still no consensus for this. And the ancient AMA statement is obviously irrelevant at this point. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That big long AMA quote was summarized as "Medical associations of some developed countries have issued policy statements in which they do not recommend routine circumcision.[19]" We could add the AMA ref here but the current wording is an improvement IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It was issued in 1999. The main findings regarding HIV came out in the mid-2000s. The AMA statement is no longer valid or relevant. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In 2005 the AAP was tentatively positive and it seem the NIH is also supportive. PMID:19283940 thus I agree the notability of a 12 year old statement from the AMA that has not been updated since the new RCTs came out is questionable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't the AMA position from 1999 officially reaffirmed in 2005? Just because something hasn't changed recently doesn't make it less true. LWizard @ 05:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Havn't seen it. Do you have a ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you thinking of the AAP, LW? Jakew (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably so. My mistake. LWizard @ 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not happy with this proposed change. If the views of medical organisations are to be presented, then we ought to do so in a balanced way, citing both the AMA's 1999 summary and the WHO, etc. (as we did in the original lead). On the other hand, if we're presenting medical facts instead of viewpoints (per Doc James' version), that's okay too. But it is a mistake, from an NPOV perspective, to discuss viewpoints on one hand and facts on the other: it creates a skewed impression of both facts and viewpoints. Jakew (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. We could remove the paragraph on the AMA from the version that I proposed, or include the more succinct summary of medical associations proposed by Doc James ("Medical associations of some developed countries have issued policy statements in which they do not recommend routine circumcision.[12]"). If it's easiest to leave out a statement on medical associations/organizations for now, let's leave it out.
I don't think the AMA statement, or lack of, is what caused the flurry of reverts to this article though. By not mentioning that circumcision is controversial (and you don't need to look further than this talk page to see that it's extremely controversial), the lead as it stands now is in violation of WP:NPOV. That's a more serious problem than having old sources. I think it's important to have the paragraph noting that there's a controversy put back into the article immediately, while we check for updated sources (I'm working on it!), and discuss other necessary changes to the lead. kyledueck (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The fact that some editors disagree on an article Talk: page is no indication that a topic or practice is "controversial"; you'll need evidence from reliable sources, and even that might not mean that it belongs in the lede. in any event, there's no emergency here, and absolutely no tangible indication that the article lede at present "is in violation of WP:NPOV" - and we'd probably need an editor with more than 3 article edits to make that determination. Now, what was it that brought you and the flood of other new editors to this page? An IP warned that this would happen, and mentioned some sort of forum. Please explain. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If we can find recent reviews that say this practice is controversial I would not be against adding a sentence indicating this. Please propose wording with refs... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you challenging the assertion that circumcision is controversial? Really? I think this article could be a lot better-written if we occasionally allowed a statement of agreed-upon fact that wasn't worded like "According to a randomized control trial by Rousseau, et al. in 2005, water is wet[3][4][5]." LWizard @ 07:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I just care what the preponderance of reliable sources say on the subject. The fact that there are lots of people and websites on the internet writing huge amounts of uninformed and highly emotional material about circumcision isn't really relevant to whether something is actually controversial. The Holocaust is not "controversial", despite the multitude of uninformed people who write about it (and have websites devoted to denying it) on the internet. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, for someone so into circumcision you're pretty dreadfully underinformed about it. Or maybe you only read medical literature and never, say, the newspaper? Look at http://news.google.com/news/search?q=circumcision and tell me that reliable sources don't provide a preponderance of evidence that circumcision is controversial. LWizard @ 03:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I find your questioning of other editors' motives distasteful. See WP:AGF, WP:DONTBITE, etc. LWizard @ 07:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Three weeks ago we were warned that a bunch of new editors would show up at this article, trying to edit if from an anti-circumcision POV. Since then, a bunch of new editors (and editors who haven't edited the article in years) show up, editing the article from an anti-circumcision viewpoint. QED. Now, moving on, the question is, where is the forum that has brought them all here? Perhaps you can enlighten us? But no more games, please. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are wrong. An anonymous post was made from around 76.102.43.0, which is in Vallejo, California, warning that activists would try to put an anti-circumcision slant on this page, but what happened is the opening paragraphs were changed to a pro-circumcision point-of-view. In other words, exactly the opposite of what you are alleging. The only games being played are yours. Maybe you know somebody in Vallejo? Jwkuehne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
Actually, I'm completely correct. A bunch of activists did show up, and did try to do exactly what the IP warned of. However, they were unsuccessful. Now you've showed up too, another example of the same - an account with very few edits, who shows up here after a more than two-year hiatus. So, where's that forum that brought you here? Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have watched these comments and this article for several years, as you surmise. Your ludicrous charge - that this anonymous warning, which you well could have setup, is real - is what prompted me to write. I didn't just 'show up'. Are you suggesting that you own this discussion and article? You have a long history of misbehavior on Wikipedia, but I'm surprised you went this far.Jwkuehne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC).
Please review WP:NPA and WP:DUCK. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I certainly can't enlighten you. This article really is on my watchlist. I am more likely to edit it when there are more people on my side active, so there may be that feedback effect. But even if people were directed here from a forum, why does that matter? LWizard @ 03:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It matters, per WP:MEAT. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg if you think someone is a meat puppet then get a check user. Otherwise pipe down. Just because some anon came here a couple of weeks ago to "warn" you of some alleged activity doesn't give you the right to throw WP:AGF out the window. I agree with LizardWizard the intro is now very unbalanced and one sided. I actually started the paragraph about controversy 3 or 4 years ago. I got the same static then as you are getting now from the same editors. Anyone who doesn't believe there is medical and philosophical controversry regarding circumcision is trying to hide it or very nieve. I may not have been writing much for the last couple of years but that doesn't mean I haven't tried to keep an eye on my watchlist. So Jayjg, the new intro, is why I have been more active lately. I don't like it. I find it very unbalanced and promoting circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Checkuser allows detection of sockpuppets but not meatpuppets, Gary. Sockpuppets are in principle detectable, since a person's web browser tends to leave fairly distinctive and recognisable fingerprints. It is not ordinarily possible to detect meatpuppets through technical means, though since meatpuppets are (by definition) different people, and as such will likely use different computers to access Wikipedia. As such detection of meatpuppets requires considerable human involvement and the application of common sense and good judgement. I share Jayjg's concerns, as recent editing patterns have been highly suspicious, to say the least. Jakew (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Gary, please review User:Jakew's comments above, and WP:DUCK. Were you drawn to this article now by some external forum, website, list etc.? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no". Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
First Jake I understand, however we have ways to identify and catch meat puppets (tedious and imperfect) that I won't go into for obvious reasons, and second Jayjg, to answer your question "no". I shall reiterate my last sentence from my last post " I may not have been writing much for the last couple of years but that doesn't mean I haven't tried to keep an eye on my watchlist. So Jayjg, the new intro, is why I have been more active lately. I don't like it. I find it very unbalanced and promoting circumcision." Garycompugeek (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The current lede ends with these two sentences: Ethical concerns remain regarding the implementation of campaigns to promote circumcision.[18] Medical associations of some developed countries have issued policy statements in which they do not recommend routine circumcision.[19] Therefore, it could not possibly be "very unbalanced and promoting circumcision". The repeated non-specific and non-factual claims you have been making about the lede do not carry any weight. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not with you Jayjg but others agree with me. Your repeated and non-factual harassment of anyone coming to this page who disagrees with your viewpoint is getting quite old and unconstructive to the article itself. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Please make more accurate and factual statements, and please comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

While we currently have the line

"Ethical concerns remain regarding the implementation of campaigns to promote circumcision.[18]" And this review states "With renewed interest comes controversy, which has always been a close companion to circumcision." PMID 20844437

Thus we could change this to "There is controversy and ethical concerns regarding the implementation of campaigns to promote circumcision." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on one source? Anyway, why would it go in the lede? Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sure I could find more and it is a recent review article. There does appear controversy within society regardless or in spite of what what the science shows. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct, James.
Regarding your proposed change to add "controversy" to that sentence, I don't have an opinion one way or the other at this point. That change would note the controversy surrounding circumcision campaigns in Africa, but it is not sufficient to describe the controversy over neonatal circumcision, which is my main qualm with the current intro. I'm working on a paragraph to remedy this, but it's taking a long time due to lack of recent review sources mentioning the specifics of the controversy, even though it's mentioned frequently in the news these days. I fully support using the most recent, highest quality sources for this article as a whole, but I think the controversy may be beyond the scope of medical review articles. (For example, they probably don't mention recent events such as the proposed circumcision bans in California, not that I'm not suggesting adding that to the lead) Would recent peer-reviewed debate articles from medical journals be acceptable if there are no better sources available? Those describe the controversy well, and there are many of them. Either way, I'll keep looking through the reviews until I've exhausted that as an option. kyledueck (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an editor just a reader but not referring in the lead to the general controversy surrounding this topic seems strange. If you read the article, it seems to be very controversial and there is even another article on Wikipedia which goes into more detail. I estimate that about a third of the article mentions controversy. It should be in the lead then. (72.196.28.226 (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

"Male Genital Mutilation"

In the article on female circumcision, the text includes alternative names. Clearly there's a precedent in Wikipedia for including alternate names for the male variety. Two very common names are "male genital mutilation" and "male genital cutting". These should be included, if only to prevent accusations that Wikipedia is biased on this subject. I have tried to edit the page, but within a very few seconds the edit was retracted. This is not (or should not be) a controversial issue. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Why can't we add MGM to other names? Jakew (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What hope do we have of getting facts into the article if certain activists (who seem to be more interested in quickly stifling any change that doesn't forward their minority view) respond as if each source given doesn't meet some shifting criteria of what's an acceptable source. A source is either a source or it isn't - it either exists or it doesn't. If it exists, the change should be included. The archive clearly shows numerous sources supporting this proposed change. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that an issue is controversial should not mean that incorrect nomenclature should stay unchanged. The fact that pro-circumcision activists dislike a phrase should not mean it ought to be consigned to a sort of bureaucratic limbo. Wikipedia's editing process should not resemble the plot of a Kafka novel. There are always going to be people who don't like their favourite mutilation being described faithfully - that means we should be careful NOT to cater to them. Here I see the opposite happening. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses standard terminology, not the terminology used by activists. Were you directed to or advised about this article by an outside forum, maillist, or similar? Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This behavior is unacceptable Jayjg. Please comment on the article not the editors. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I note that your comment (and the two in the above sections) are wholly unrelated to the article. The irony is amusing, to say the least.... Jakew (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
While it may be amusing to you Jake, I don't find it amusing at all. If Jayjg would stop harassing everyone who had a different opinion than himself and comment on the article and not the editors then I would have not commented on his behavior. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
... says Garycompugeek, as he comments on editors, not the article. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised"?

"Uncircumcised" is a misnomer. A normal healthy boy with all his body parts is no more 'uncircumcised' than he is 'unamputated', 'unblinded' or 'undead'. This is a word that pro-circumcision activists use to normalize circumcision. Circumcised is not the normal state of a body, nor is circumcision the necessary procedure that the prefix 'un' implies. Aside from the necessity of leaving this misnomer in the quotes from medical texts, this word should not appear in the article and should be replaced by the word 'intact', which is the accepted usage. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Uncircumcised?. Jakew (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it not biased to stifle discussion of this issue? It's becoming clear to me that there's a pro-circumcision bias inherent in this article, otherwise discussion would be left open and simple definitions and commonly accepted words and phrases would not require sources to be included. As someone else said, do we really need to attach sources to the statement 'water is wet'? Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a waste of everybody's time to repeatedly go over the same issues. That's why I directed you to previous discussions. Jakew (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a 'waste of time' to discuss important issues openly. Such issues are often 'characterized' as a waste of time by those who have an agenda. It is sophistry to claim that this issue is a waste of time. It's only a waste of time in the sense that certain people don't want it brought up, and will work diligently to brush it under the carpet. This is a simple matter of correct nomenclature. Currently the article is using a word - 'uncircumcised' - that tends to bias the article towards the pro-circumcision camp. The fact that the word 'uncircumcised appears 16 times, yet the word 'intact' is not used even once in the article, is quite telling. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's Wikipedia's stance that the pro-circ-biased word 'uncircumcised' should remain, the number of occasions it's used should either be balanced by an equal amount of 'intact's, or the article should use the phrase "uncircumcised, also known as 'intact'" or something similar, in order to remove the appearance of bias.

Wikipedia uses standard terminology, not the terminology used by activists. Were you directed to this article by an outside forum, maillist, or similar? Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This behavior is unacceptable Jayjg. Please comment on the article not the editors. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
... says Garycompugeek, as he comments on editors, not the article. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been brought up and argued cogently and independently by several unrelated groups of editors in the recent past.

Presumably the fact that many editors argue the same thing repeatedly, but one or two regulars always prevent the changes staying in the article means 'consensus' is maintained in some mysterious sense. --Nigelj (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really mysterious; whenever a large group of experienced editors familiar with policy examine the issue (as opposed to a small number of inexperienced WP:SPA accounts), the consensus is that Wikipedia should use standard terminology, not the terminology promoted by activists. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatley I was MIA on these debates but after reading through them its hard to find much consensus one way or the other. I dislike "uncircumcised" for the mere fact that it leads one to believe that there is UNfinished business. Why not just state "Penis not circumcised"? Garycompugeek (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is clear, and we use "uncircumcised" because that is the standard terminology and is shorter. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b "Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99):Neonatal Circumcision". 1999 AMA Interim Meeting: Summaries and Recommendations of Council on Scientific Affairs Reports. American Medical Association. 1999. p. 17. Archived from the original on 2009-01-13. Retrieved 2006-06-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Cite error: The named reference "CSA:I-99" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Schoen, Edgar J (December 1, 2007). "Should newborns be circumcised? Yes". Can Fam Physician. 53 (12): 2096–8, 2100–2. PMC 2231533. PMID 18077736. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. ^ Milos, Marilyn Fayre (1992). "Circumcision: A medical or a human rights issue?". Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 37 (2 S1): S87–S96. doi:10.1016/0091-2182(92)90012-R. PMID 1573462. Retrieved 2007-04-06. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Krieger, JN (2011 May 18). "Male circumcision and HIV infection risk". World journal of urology. PMID 21590467. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Siegfried, N (2009 Apr 15). "Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (2): CD003362. PMID 19370585. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Uthman, OA (2010 Mar 10). "Economic evaluations of adult male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review". PloS one. 5 (3): e9628. PMID 20224784. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Larke, N (2010 May 27-Jun 9). "Male circumcision, HIV and sexually transmitted infections: a review". British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing). 19 (10): 629–34. PMID 20622758. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ Eaton, L (2009 Nov). "Behavioral aspects of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV infection". Current HIV/AIDS reports. 6 (4): 187–93. PMID 19849961. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Kim, HH (2010 Nov). "Male circumcision: Africa and beyond?". Current opinion in urology. 20 (6): 515–9. PMID 20844437. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Templeton, DJ (2010 Feb). "Male circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men". Current opinion in infectious diseases. 23 (1): 45–52. PMID 19935420. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Rennie, S (2007 Jun). "Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low-income countries". Journal of medical ethics. 33 (6): 357–61. PMID 17526688. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ (accessed Dec 2010). "Circumcision of infant males". Royal Australasian College of Physicians. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision/Archive_67&oldid=1143527706"