Talk:Circumcision/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 19

Contents

"Controversy" in the second paragraph

For a very long time (more than a year), “controversy” was the gist of the second paragraph. At one point I objected to the emphasis, because I see no controversy in the medical findings … there is NO medical indication (according to all medical associations) for neonatal circumcision. But there is significant controversy due to the continued practice ... just look at these discussions! Just think of a baby usually undergoing the surgery without anesthesia... The paragraph doesn’t have any proper theme without this intro sentence: "Non-therapeutic infant circumcision has become controversial in recent decades."

Jakew said it best (forcing me to leave the emphasis on controversy)...

"The controversy is acknowledged by two major medical associations. To quote the AMA: "Debate on the wisdom of routine circumcision centers on the possible benefits offered by circumcision, and whether they medically justify the risks associated with the procedure." Or the BMA: "Circumcision of male babies and children at the request of their parents is an increasingly controversial area and strongly opposing views about circumcision are found within society and within the BMA’s membership. ... There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself." Jakew 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC) TipPt 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a discussion with Dasondas from my talk page:

First, please go back and properly sign your edit to the circ discussion page. Second, forgive me for being suspicious of your representation of Jakew's contibutions; I would prefer to let him speak for himself. Third, whatever tiny level of controversy may exist wrt to neo-natal circumcisions performed for religious or cultural reasons it is insignifcant compared to the hundreds of millions of people who have had these procedures performed for thousands of years without any complaints or regrets. You should be careful with your edits to make sure that any controversy you wish to discuss be limited so as to conform to WP:NPOV Undue Weight. If not, this will continue to be a source of conflict in the editing of this topic. Dasondas 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I signed the entry to the discussion page, right after Jakew's quote signature. It's a full, direct quote of Jakew's work, found here: [1] We can't speculate about the distant past, though I've read that the Greeks and Romans thought circumcision was wrongful. In the current context, I find controversy in the Jewish and Muslim communities, between doctors, between doctors and parents, between editors in Wiki, between authors, and between researchers and practioners. Finally we have authoritative medical associations finding controversy in the current setting. We may be going back and forth on this sentence foreverTipPt 17:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas...You're reverting to a very recent change, from a version that had been agreed upon (much) more than a year ago.TipPt 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

TipPt, you took an entry of mine and placed it here on this page where I would have placed it myself if I had wanted to. You previously did the same with a long post of Jakew. I find this type of editing behavior to be extremely unethical, among the worst I have seen at Wikipedia, and conducive to increasing conflict and tension rather than working towards resolution. Dasondas 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The following quote from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy statement indicates that there is a controversy:

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law."[2]

Why isn't Australia included in the section of statements from national medical organizations? -- DanBlackham 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not there is enough controversy regarding religious and ritual circumcisions to mention this in the article. I am not disputing that there is medical controversy about the procedure, but from what I've seen so far these various medical associations, et. al, avoid making any statements against religious and ritual circumcisions. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Dasondas 22:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Religious "individuals" (i have a different term for them, that isn't so civil) don't get special consideration - circumcision is circumcision - non-theraputic circumcision is non-theraputic circumcision, no matter WHY you're doing it - it's still controversial, it's still a contravention of human rights, which the RACP recognizes - that RACP position statement belongs in the article because it varies from the ones already placed in there. Don't preach undue weight as us when you're the one that appears to be guilty if it, not the other way around. The medical organizations don't have to be the one's objecting for it to be controversial, any group that objects can make it contraversia. The entire genital integrity movement objects, it's controversial. If it wasn't controversial we wouldn't have constant flamewars on this very talk page! We wouldn't have you accusing me of being an antisemite and islamophobe for considering the practices of those religions in violation of human rights! Lordkazan 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Please stop soapboxing. This talk page isn't here for expressing your personal opinion about whether circumcision is a human rights violation.
  2. Don't misrepresent the RACP. They don't recognise a contravention of human rights: they simply acknowledge that the possibility has been raised. There is a significant difference.
  3. Undue weight is an interesting and important aspect here: we need to consider both a) whether there is a controversy over any circumcisions, b) whether there is a controversy over religious, etc, circumcisions, and c) whether in each of the preceding cases the controversy is significant enough to warrant discussion in the article. Jakew 18:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A) Yes, B) yes, C) yes and don't forget D) whether well cited medical information is being censored from the article by pro-circ editors, which is again yes Lordkazan 18:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Lordkazan, characterizing those who disagree with you as "pro-circ" is a violation of WP:CIVIL, as is claiming they are trying to "censor" material. I personally recommend that all editors ignore your comments and revert your edits until you cease violating policy and poisoning the Talk: page in this way. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please go read WP:CIVIL, stating that someone is "pro-circumcision" is not an insult, it is not uncivil when it is fact. I see nothing in WP:CIVIL that indicates that speaking the TRUTH is uncivil, except in the case of accusations of slander/libel. Reverting my comments, can in and of itself, be a violation of WP:NPA and constitute harassment. I am here to improve the quality of this article and defend *ANYBODY* (both pro-circ and anti-circ) who improves the quality of this article. It is a sad truth that I consider some users (on both sides of the debate) incapable of doing so. Lordkazan 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if something is true, stating it is often a violation of WP:CIVIL; for example, one might say that a certain editor is a "stupid edit-warrior whose prejudice against circumcision is only exacerbated by his misunderstanding and deliberate misinterpretation of the medical literature regarding it" - even if every word is true, it's a violation of WP:CIVIL. And, in this case, it is only your opinion that those who disagree with you are "pro-circ" and "censoring". Again, please learn to use the Talk: pages for their intended purpose; if you cannot avoid violating policy with your comments, then you should avoid commenting. And if you continue to violate policy, I recommend your comments be ignored and edits reverted. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not engage in logical fallacies. You committed the logical fallacy of the false analogy in your previous statement. Saying someone is in favor of a position, and is preventing content from going into the article (censoring) is not the same thing as your hypothetical statement, which was clearly meant as a defamatory to me (and therefore a violation of WP:NPA). For the sake of getting you to stop harassing me incessantly I will avoid making true statements, and just quote other people's statements - such as the opinion of medical researchers. Lordkazan 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

circumcision is circumcision - non-theraputic circumcision is non-theraputic circumcision, no matter WHY you're doing it

– Lordkazan , 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The American Medical Association completely disagrees, as evidenced by the opening paragraph of the single-most quoted reference in this article, and perhaps the entire literature: “This report is confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes. In this case, the term "non-therapeutic" is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States.”. Your incivility is against wikipedia policy, as is your soapboxing. Please constrain your polemics and strong feelings to myspace or blogspot. This is an article. Thank you. -- Avi 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The american medical association is not the only authority in the medical field, nor do their definitions for their statement apply to everyone else on the planet. They restrict their commentary to only non-theraputic non-religious circumcision, others do not. Dictionary definition of the term therapeutic is "1. of or pertaining to the treating or curing of disease; curative.". That clearly puts "ritualistic or religious" circumcision into the category of non-therapeutic for general definition outside of articles that specifically redefine terms for their purposes. The genital integrity movement does not agree with the american medical associations redefinition of the term. The simple fact is they are ALL contraversial whether you wish to admit it or not. Lordkazan 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The genital integrity movement's position is mentioned immediately after the AMA's position. Ergo, your worries should be appeased, and anything more would be POV-pushing. -- Avi 19:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the purpose of your above statement? I was discussion the situation using the general dictionary definition and you tried to introduce a special-case definitionLordkazan 19:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you have a source for your claim? If not, you're violating WP:NOR. Jakew 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's only a violation of WP:NOR if i were to put that into the article, which I have no intention of doing - as it is my opinion
PS: Avi that was a good edit, I made the first sentance of the paragraph more inclusive (addresses both the AMA and the GI positions) to try to make the paragraph make more sense/be more consistent/not give undue weight to one position or the other Lordkazan 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages.' Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research." -- WP:TPG Jakew 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
My mistake Lordkazan 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A good-faith warning, LK, your statement about the AMA may be libelous. I doubt anyone will come after you, but talk pages need to be careful about that as well. If Jay is around, maybe we can get an off-the-cuff ruling if that and the history needs to be expunged to protect wikipedia. -- Avi 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Technical it's not libelous if it's intent is not defamation. Libel law is a PITA for plaintiffs that way - i've removed it from my post though. Lordkazan 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and I've taken the liberty of removing it froom Jake's post as well. My apologies, Jake, but I think mention of it needs to be removed. -- Avi 19:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

“Discussion” vs. “Controversy”

Personally, I think that clarifying the GIM's position in the second paragraph (based on the Svoboda cite) and making the opening sentence more inclusive is a suitable compromise that does enhance the article's NPOV. I agree with LK in this case, although perhaps I would write the opening sentence as “Elective infant circumcision has come under more discussion in recent decades.” as the controversy is more contstrained to the GIM's philosophy than the medical org's and calling it a controversy in the opening may be giving undue weight, but I would like to hear other opinions as well. Thank you. -- Avi 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "discussion" is too weak of a word, "controversial" sounds more appropriate Lordkazan 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that mentioning GIM in the lead is in itself a suitable compromise and that acknowledging controversy as to religious/ritual circumcisions at such a prominent location in the article is inconsistent with the undue weight provisions of WP:NPOV. Dasondas 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree - infact it doesn't make a good english paragraph to open the paragraph with a sentance only reflecting one of multiple positions discussed in the paragraph. I don't see what your basis for objection is here. Lordkazan 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above, I think that Crimsone's edit is quite close to the mark. If we changed the word "much" to "increasing", I could accept it as a balanced paragraph. Dasondas 19:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
'Discussion' seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Jakew 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Wording now states "Elective infant circumcision has come under increasing discussion in recent decades, ranging from the supportive to the controversial." how about "Elective infant circumcision has come under increasing discussion in recent decades, ranging from the support to condemnation." or something similiar "supportive vs controversial" doesn't strike me as making very much sense in terms of english. Lordkazan 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How about: Elective infant circumcision has come under increasing discussion in recent decades, ranging from supportive to adversative. -- Avi 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that even better.. I was just putting in my version.. putting in yours. Lordkazan 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be logically equivalent to saying that the original 'controversy' text, and thus the same NPOVUW issues apply. What's wrong with simply saying that it has been discussed? Jakew 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)'
Because then their really WOULD be a WP:NPOV#UW issue - in that it's giving the AMA position undue weight to the exclusion of other groups including other medical associations that recognize the controversial nature. Lordkazan 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be logically equivalent to saying that the original 'controversy' text, and thus the same NPOVUW issues apply. What's wrong with simply saying that it has been discussed? Jakew 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jakew on this. If you want to mention "controversial" or "adversative", you should add the qualifier "non-religious, non-ritual". Undue weight needs to be a consideration, and it does not favor GMI on religious and ritual circumcisions. Dasondas 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You absolutely should NOT - because religious/ritualized circumcision IS controversial, as clearly documented in the article! To add that qualifier would be a violation of WP:NPOV. We're trying to make the article more NPOV, not less Lordkazan 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Infact it is EXPLICITLY controversial - "We are a group of educated and enlightened Jews who realize that the barbaric, primitive, torturous, and mutilating practice of circumcision has no place in modern Judaism. " http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ Lordkazan 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"Jews against circumcision" is a tiny extremist minority group that is not even citeable under WP:NPOV. As far as I can tell, it consists of under a dozen individuals. Which reliable souces indicate that religious/ritual circumcision is "controversial"? Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jay on that, JAC is so fringe as to merit very little weight, and is covered by the reference to the GIM anyway. -- Avi 20:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Both of those are argumentum ad hominem - and I cannot believe WP:RS allows for that to be a valid objection - that's ludacris! 50 years ago agitators against Female Genital Multilation would have been labeled extremists! People who said women shoudl receive equal pay for the same work were considered extremist by many! It's pure argumentum ad hominem! Lordkazan 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPOV#Undue weight: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This is an article about Circumcision, not about "Jews against circumcision". If you tried to create an article about Jews against circumcision, I have no doubt it would rapidly be deleted as non-notable. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
LK, an argumentum ad hominem would be to say that JAC cannot be allowed in thisarticle because they are all a bunch of overweight fat-headed hippies whose collective IQ resembles chicken fricasse. Namely, an argument against them as people. What Jay and I are saying is that wiki policy is against bringing EVERY last opinion. There is a cut-off regarding what is due weight and what is undue weight, and as nice people as the JAC crowd may be, breaking with 3000 years of Jewish tradition means that they are so fringe as to not be representative of Jewish idea on this topic. As for there stance, it is already referenced by the parent GI movement. -- Avi 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion, FWIW, is as follows. The only cited source we have that disagrees with religio-ritualistic circumcision is the GIM's Van How article , whereas all the major medical organizations are no longer routinely recommending non-religio-ritualistic purely elective circumcsion. To say controversial about ALL non-medical circumcisions gives the GIM undue weight, IMO. To deny that there are those that argue even with religio-ritualistic circumcision is also problematic. "Discussion" is a neutral term, and is true (just look at the boatload of citations we have). That the discussion ranges from the supportive (Schoen/Williams) to the adversative (Van Howe) is also true and neutral. Giving a range does not show undue weight to any one section of the range, IMO, as does the blanket statement "controversial", which implies even weight to the extremes. This way, the range is shown yet no implicit judgement is made, which is rather NPOV in my opinion; but that's just me :) -- Avi 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As Jay remarked, see WP:RS.
Undue weight is what's at issue here: is there enough of a controversy to note it early on in the lead section?
The key thing to understand is that practically anything could be controversial. For example, if I (Jakew) say "green vegetables are bad for you," then should Wikipedia's article on nutrition state that the idea that they're nutritious is controversial? Of course not. One crackpot's view isn't enough of a controversy to be noteworthy. Indeed, if Wiki were to make a controversy out of my view, it would give me undue weight. That's why we have to think carefully about this. Jakew 20:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why saying that the discussion "ranges" as opposed to being a controversy is more neutral in my opinion. -- Avi 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Avi's got it right - the statement is totally non-judgemental - it says discussion ranges and the word "controversy" doesn't enter. Lordkazan 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Avi, given that examples follow immediately afterwards in the text, what benefits do you think the article gains from inclusion of that description? Jakew 20:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, that the opening sentence forshadows the paragraph. Secondly, that there is a neutral (or more neutral than previous) way to allow this edit-warring to stop and the article to continue. Of course, consensus needs to be reached, but I think we have a better shot this way. Thirdly, I think that "discussion ranging over all elective circumcision" is a somewhat more accurate portrayal of the literature that I have seen than "controversy over non-religio-ritualistic circumcision". Then again, I am not a physician nor do I have your fluency in the literature. -- Avi 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think he'd agree with me that it's more NPOV and inclusive of the range of views on the subject. Lordkazan 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I agree with Jakew. "Supportive to adversative" gives equal weight to those who support and to those who are adverse; this is not consistent with the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV unless the procedure is qualified as "non-religious, non-ritualistic". Dasondas 20:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In this I am not sure, for all that is said is that the discussion "ranges". All that is necessary is the existence of one. Saying "controversy" regarding purely elective DOES give equal weight to both sides in the purely elective arena, which may not be the case either. The medical orgs have stopped routinely recommending it. I do not think they all recommend against it. -- Avi 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If I may correct you, the medical organisations have never, to my knowledge, recommended elective or routine circumcision. That claim is often made, often referring to the AAP, but to quote the AMA, the opposite is closer to the truth:
This statement modifies the Academy's 1989 conclusion that newborn male circumcision has "potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."11 The 1989 statement by the Academy reversed a long-standing opinion that medical indications for routine circumcision were lacking. It emerged primarily on the basis of data that suggested circumcision caused a large reduction in the risk of urinary tract infections, particularly within the first year of life. Jakew 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Avi, the "discussion" ranges from those who believe they are fulfulling a covenant with God to those who would put people in prison for having their children circumcised. How would you feel about making that your "range of discussion" in the lead paragraph? Personally, I'd be against it. And I'm still against the current range. I think "increasing discussion" is the best attempt yet at bridging the gulf. I could live with that, but I haven't heard anything yet that would make me comfortable with the other attempts. Dasondas 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) As I tried to point out in my green vegetable analogy, saying that there is a controversy at all can, theoretically, violate NPOVUW, if one side is so miniscule that it ought not to be mentioned. Jakew 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And you and Dasondas' stubborn refusal to acknowledge, in that sentance, what is acknowledged later in the paragraph seems pointless to me. It's a simple fact that discussion has increased and it ranges from supportive (You) to adversative (me). I'm trying me best to assume good faith with your assertions, but I am having a very difficult time understanding how they could be. Please give me a reason why we should censor the statement from the article - why can you live with saying "discussion has increased" but not "discussion, both supportive and adversative, has increased". I am having a VERY hard time seeing how your position isn't a violation of WP:NPOV#UW in favor of the religious position! Lordkazan 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
(For pedantry's sake please note sentence is spelled with an e, not an a :) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.157.123 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Lordkazan, it is time to remind you to familiarize yourself with, and to apply WP:CIV and WP:NPA, both of which are violated in the above post and others you have made today. Dasondas 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop name-dropping policies. I did not engage in a personal attack, I did not violate civility in the previous post - if you think refering to you as being stubborn is a personal attack, then I apologize - but it is an accurate description of your behavior. I am also going to be stubborn - I absolutely refuse to budget one picometer until you give me good reason to. I have had my rights trampled by religion my entire life, and I'm not going to let it start trampling wikipedia.
Give me a good reason why we should censor the article. Explain to me how your version isn't a violation of WP:NPOV#UW in favor of the religious position. Lordkazan 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The basic problem, as I see it, is that we've got reliable sources - the BMA and AMA - referring to a controversy, which we can certainly quote. However, any reinterpretation of those (or other sources), especially if it widens the scope beyond the medical context that those organisations refer to, risks violating NPOVUW and NOR. Jakew 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The medical organizations are not the end-all be-all of whether or not it's controversial - the genital integrity movement also exists, furthermore the RACP recognizes the potentially contraversial nature of circumcision specifically by mentioning that it may be considered a contravention of human rights! ""he possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit." [3]. Not only does that show that the RACP acknowledges it's contraversial status - but that the RACP explicitly states that it has no proven medical benefit! Lordkazan 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You're misreading this in two ways. Firstly, they don't say it's controversial, and we can't interpret that sentence as saying so. Secondly, if I say "Bob says that we should cross the road because the light is green" doesn't mean that I agree that the light is green. It only means that I understand that this is Bob's argument. Similarly, the RACP recognise but do not endorse another person's claim regarding an absence of proof.
Now, if the genital integrity organisations have stated that it's controversial, and in reliable sources, that could potentially be quoted. Jakew 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The RACP is recognizing the controversial status, and the GI organizations are well documented and are WP:RS (they cite medical data FFS!) you need to look no further than a few sentances down the paragraph to see reference to them! Lordkazan 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please can you show me where the RACP use the word "controversial"? You won't be able to, because they don't. You're interpreting. Jakew 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh puhleeze - that's as much WP:OR as saying "Bob lives in Chicago, therefore Bob lives in the United States" is WP:OR. (great example from the new upcoming policy that will be replacing WP:V and WP:RS) Lordkazan 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
To my mind, the looser language in that proposed policy opens the door to a lot of nonsense, with POV-pushers arguing that their analysis is 'obvious' or 'trivial'. However, for the time being, it doesn't matter. What matters is the current policy, which states: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." WP:NOR Jakew 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this seriously a discussion about whether Circumcision is controversial? Obviously this will vary depending on the person to whom you are talking, but a quick google shows that circumcision and conroversy go together in half a million pages, i.e. [4] [5]. I must have misunderstood this section(it is quite long now) because I think it is unlikely that any editor would think that controversy does not surround circumcision. Christopher 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Is there an emoticon to express incredulity?"
O_o --Scix 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you have indeed misunderstood this section. As I mentioned here I don't think there's any serious dispute as to whether or not a medical controversy exists. The issue, as I see it, is whether or not there is sufficient controversy about religious/ritual circumcisions to pass the bar of the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV. Indeed, the first of the two examples you chose (out of the "half a million pages" available to you) said, For some, it has an absolute religious indication, which transcends current medical logic and [R]eligious considerations aside, we would do much better to develop better scientific studies to answer the scientific questions. Your second example says, The most intriguing and controversial question focuses on the influence of circumcision (or lack of it) on subsequent urinary tract infection and related sequelae. There are no laws or policies anywhere in the world prohibiting religious/ritual male circumcision, and I am not aware of any study or survey that suggests any but a very, very tiny minority of the over 500 million religiously or ritually circumcised males alive today have doubts or regrets about the procedure having been performed on them. So, where then is the controversy with respect to religious and ritual circumcision? There are certainly **some** individuals who are against this practice, but there is a standard of relevance that needs to be met for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. That is what this discussion is about. Finally, as to the query in your edit note to this post I have no idea where to find an emoticon to express incredulity. If you locate one, please let me know because I could use it just about every time I visit this page. Dasondas 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I see now. Certainly little controversey surrounds religious circumcision. Indeed, many intactivists explicitly except religious circumcision from their opposition. The only thing I can come up with is the Swedish law putting restrictions on who can perform circumcisions. Also, that incident last year in New York with the mohel that infected an infant who subsequently died. There was a lot of media coverage for that. That might count as controversy. I will continue searching for somthing better. Christopher 02:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Christopher, within the article you will see that controversy is already discussed in connection with the Swedish law (here) and the incidents in New York are discussed at the end of this section here. The section on Judaism even uses the word "controversy" in connection with this type of procedure here in the concluding paragraph. Dasondas 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I notice on your user page that you only have two userboxes, one of which identifies you as an atheist. I think that your sensitivity to and appreciation for the religious and ritualistic significance of circumcision as contrasted with the purely medical debate is very open-minded of you and a great example of WP:AGF Dasondas 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics

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

I wonder if this section really needs to be included. Could it not now simply be deleted? It contains no citations; it is impliedly included in several other sections, especially those which discusss purely cultural issues: in Fiji and various West African socieites, for example, where circumcision had a traditional significance which is now largely lost and where it is now medicalised and continues a matter of aesthetic preference. (Fijians, who are almost entirely Methodist, nowadays sometimes rationalise the traditional custom on the basis of the Old Testament — one wonders whether they consult the New as to this — and clearly it is now simply a matter of cultural and aesthetic preference: “Iliesa, little Mosese is getting to be a pretty big boy: don’t you think that it’s time for him to take him to the doctor and get that foreskin removed? We don’t want him to be a kulina.”: in Fijian, a “kulina” is a dog and also an Indian — ie an uncircumcised adult male.) In traditional Fiji society there were customary rites of circumcision (actually in many parts of Fiji a superincision or dorsal slit) but these have long since been abandoned, but 10-or-so year old boys are still taken off to the clinic to be circumcised as a matter of now-aesthetic preference. Fijians who visit Australia as tourists and wind up on nude beaches are invariably astonished at the number of “kulinas” there: “But aren’t they Christian?” Masalai 21:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, nobody's objected so I've gone ahead and cut it.Masalai 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No pun intended huh? :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.10.244.163 (talk • contribs) 13:16, October 18, 2006 (UTC)

"Adversative"?

I can't think why someone considers the assertion dubious; the plain fact of the matter is that circumcision has indeed come under discussion in recent decades, hence its considerable decline in some western countries. However, the word "adversative" ("...ranging from supportive to adversative (dubious assertion—see talk page)" is certainly dubious.Masalai 08:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Adversarial" might be a better choice. The issue - and reason for the tag - is discussed at great length in 'discussion v controversy' above. Jakew 08:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Adversative" is just a fancy way of saying adversarial and the "ive" ending appealed to my sense of symmetry with "supportive". If you have a better synonym, by all means image:smile.gif. -- Avi 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
And there I was thinking it was a typo. You learn something new everyday... image:smile.png Jakew 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about scrutiny?TipPt 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC) I missed something in the reading, what's GIM?TipPt 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Genital Integrity Movement -- Avi 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Gairdner study

I propose that we remove the Gairdner study from the article. It is more than fifty years old and reports that most of the adverse consequences were due to effects of anaesthesia. Modern anaesthesiology is so much different than that of the 1940's that I don't believe that this study is any longer sufficiently relevant to include. Also, as noted in the article, the study did not differentiate between effects of phimosis and effects of circumcision and relied solely on the opinion of the author without scientific methods. Comments, anyone? Dasondas 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought one of his main contributions was to show that "phimosis" was normal in infants and boys. He also brought sea change to British thinking on the subject.TipPt 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Gairdners work should absolutely be kept in the article. Because so little research exists concerning the foreskin, every little study that followed the scientific method is valuable. In my opinion, the studies of Gairdner and Taylor are the most important, because without them we would hardly have a clue what was being removed.Christopher 18:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to keep Gairdner in, but reduce the emphasis on his findings re death rates. His findings on developmental phimosis are of historical interest, and probably belong somewhere. Jakew 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that this is a historical study of some importance to the GIM folks and others like-minded. I can see why they want to leave it in and I won't argue much on that point, but I do think that the statistics about death rates are misleading in a 21st century medical context and something should be done to address that problem within the article. I've played around with the wording a bit, but I think that we can do better. Dasondas 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion is WP:OR and is irrelevant - the scientific FACTS stay. Lordkazan 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:OR, Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. I have not placed any of my opinions in any articles, so your assertion that my opinion is OR is clearly untrue. While you are becoming familiar with WP:OR, I suggest that you also study WP:CIV. This is another policy which you don't yet seem to understand. Dasondas 05:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a Circumcision?

Different tools, techniques, practioners, anatomical differences, and ages mean that one single term for the procedure lacks proper discription.

The tissues actually damaged or removed varies greatly, and the norm has changed over time. You all know that my main concern is for newborns facing US hospital circs: 1930's tools applied by (generally) junior staff, seeking to appease uneducated parents who are interested in a look that entails removing most of the mucosa and often the whole frenulum. That tight shaft skin limits the sensation of movements (regaining mobility is often the main gain from uncircumcising), and damage to or removal of the fremulum and it's delta make orgasm harder to reach.

I defer to more religious folk in this respect, but I understand that ancient Jewish texts describe removal of just the tip of the foreskin. I see no harm there, but I recently just saw a Bris resulting in a pretty tight low cut. Why was so much removed?

Muslim religious texts also call for doing no harm. But current practice is often extreme, and that difference is a source of controversy.

I can provide newspaper articles describing mass Muslim circumcision rites (in Turkey and Indonesia) where they generally removed too much skin ... causing great angst in the community. Finally, I can cite Jewish groups in the US that reject and fight the practice.TipPt 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion above regarding such groups. Also, please stop trying to slip in POV that has been soundly rejected over a dozen times at least. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Makassar traders

Re: Avraham's edit ("(→Non-Western initiatory traditions - Update paper cite and green turtle did not corroborate statement) -- Yes it does. "For hundreds of years the Makassan/Bugis traders shared contact with the Milingimbi, Ramangining, Galiwin’ku (Elco Island) Gapuwiyak (Lake Euella) and Yirrkala communities. In exchange for turtles and trepang the Makassans introduced tobacco, the practice of circumcision and knowledge to build sea-going canoes." (http://www.mfgsc.vic.edu.au/greenturtledreaming/EKmigrate.htm). Where is the issue? Masalai 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. That's what happens when one tries to verify citations at 0200. I'll fix that, and then go to sleep image:smile.png -- Avi 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should accept some responsiblity: I could have offered a little more geographical elucidation (ie that Makassar=Ujung Pandang -- it now seems to have reverted to Makassar -- and Celebes=Sulawesi.) One tends to forget what an imponderable, here-be-dragons, sort of place the South Pacific and the Indonesian archipelago can be when viewed from the Americas and Europe.Masalai 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

recent changes to lead section

Fwiw, I agree with TipPt's recent edit to the elective infant sentence in the lead. I had been arguing against including that "supportive to adversative" clause. I had also written on this page that the "increasing discussion" clause was a compromise I could live with. So, bottom line, we may have finally hit on a solution to our long-running conversation about this point. Other opinions? Dasondas 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are the verifiability and notability requirements for this article?

And do people think that these are different to those for the rest of WP? And, if so, is that specially justified here for some reason?

I'm not normally involved in this article, as from a distance the level of in-fighting, argument and unpleasantness that one feels when approaching it are quite off-putting to me personally.

However I came across this deletion today, with the comment "rv further to remove misrepresentation, POV, etc". Now, I'm no expert, and I don't think there's anything special about this text - it's just a random example, but this small paragraph has three direct and therefore verifiable quotes from, what look to me like notable sources (American Academy of Pediatrics, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics and University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine). In any other article that I've worked on on WP, such verifiablility, of a few short statements from relatively notable sources, directly commenting on the named subject of the article, would be considered well above average in terms of eligibility for inclusion.

What seismic social forces have distorted the fabric so deeply around here that a contribution like this gets routinely deleted, as part of this article's on-going rifts, on a daily basis? And is this level of mutual aggression and destruction healthy? Are there maybe a few people here in need of a wiki-break? Maybe that would let this article's culture drift a little closer to the WP norm, and then maybe others would begin to get involved in it. --Nigelj 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed example:

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk." [6] Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”[7]. One researcher concludes that access to clean water and regular washing “should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.” [8]

Consider the first source. It is quote from the AAP, from their 1975 statement: one that reflects medical knowledge of more than 30 years ago. At least three policy statements have been issued by the AAP since that time, none of which contained that claim. Jakew 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-sequitur. Nothing has changed in the past thirty years that would cause this statement to be invalidated. Unless the AAP specifically contradicts itself, the lack of a claim in a newer revision does not void the claim in a previous statement. Besides which, the position is backed up by two recent articles. The removal of this paragraph is a detriment to the article. Christopher 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There were significant changes after 1975 that caused the AAP to substantially alter their position. To quote the AMA: "The 1989 statement by the Academy reversed a long-standing opinion that medical indications for routine circumcision were lacking. It emerged primarily on the basis of data that suggested circumcision caused a large reduction in the risk of urinary tract infections, particularly within the first year of life." (emph added)
In their current statement, the AAP make the more cautious statement that: "The relationship among hygiene, phimosis, and penile cancer is uncertain, although many hypothesize that good hygiene prevents phimosis and penile cancer.92" (Note: the AAP's 92nd ref is Frisch et al. If you follow the references, you'll see that the JME article above cites this as well.) Jakew 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Jake, usually I find your contributions to be of the highest quality, but in this instance you failed to deliver. Your edit, "rv further to remove misrepresentation, POV, etc" did not remove POV, it introduced it. You seem to have removed many quotes and statements that are the most valid anti-circumcision complaints, that is, that circumcision is unnecessary. These sentences are quite necessary for the neutral balance of POV in the article. I hope that you will review your edit and see your error. Christopher 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I shall look over it again. Jakew 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've looked over it again. Allow me to summarise. Because my edit was a revert, I'm assessing the merits of what was reverted.

  • Hygiene. Insertion of dubious quotes (see above) from out-of-date policy statements, etc. Such quotes contradict the AAP's assertion that this relationship is unclear. In an article that is supposed to be a summary (rather than the main medical analysis of circumcision), little good comes from including a one-sided selection of quotes that are themselves mere hypotheses. This addition only serves to advance a POV.
  • Canada. Addition of the text "There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed" above the main quotation. The result is that this sentence is now quoted twice, for no apparent reason. There is also a reference to their 1975 statement, which seems redundant. This addition only serves to advance a POV.
  • Britain. The changes to this paragraph seem unnecessary to me, and lengthen the article, but I don't see any major problem with them.
  • Sexual. Inclusion of "A 2002 peer reviewed journal of the AAFP reported on research finding." This bizarre way of introducing the article concerned only serves to put the article on a false pedestal. It's extraordinarily inconsistent: at the time of writing, we cite 123 sources, and I estimate that 95% of them are peer-reviewed journals. The vast majority of those journals will be operated by some medical association or other. Do we give any of those such a grandiose introduction? No. So why here? The only function is to mislead the reader into thinking that it's equivalent to the AAFP's policy statement itself. It isn't.
  • Sexual. "The sexual effects of neonatal circumcision have not been studied. Loss of erogenous tissues and attendant sensitivity varies with the amount and location of excised or damaged mucosa." This - and indeed much of this paragraph - is pure original synthesis.

In conclusion, having reviewed the changes carefully, I disagree with your assessment. What's irritating is that these proposed additions have been discussed countless times already. This is not the first time that I've had to point out these problems. Jakew 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility (and Jakew and others, with whom I largely, fact, substantively AGREE as to substantive issues: NOT, however, as to his and their general incivility)

Picking up and carrying on from what Christohperk says, I am loathe to weigh in here (because I’ve been extremely rudely slapped down by British persons on occasion myself in this and related contexts and in language they may well not have intended at all to be offensive, though it was) but I cannot resist the temptation, because I have run up against the issue of cross cultural questions of politesse myself in Wikipedia, inter alia.

AND I have been rudely (by international, though perhaps not by British standards) cut short by the English Jakew -- whom I in fact largely, be it said, agree with on most issues! -- and I have had to remind myself not to take offence, and to make allowances for the different standards of civility that seem to pertain in England, where he is, than internationally.

With an academic background in Canada and Australia and the South Pacific and elsewhere in the British Commonwealth, where there were in the past considerable high school staff and university faculty of English origins (and where also in the past the general community contained numerous persons of English birth), I have frequently had to deal with the issue of British persons’ abruptness (to put it mildly -- well, surpassing rudeness, to be honest) in what might have seemed polite discourse —- what in fact appears to non-British persons to be overwhelming offensiveness. ("Don't mind him/her," I have had to say: he/she is English and they don't really mean to be rude: they cannot help it; it is just how they communicate with each other in England.")

I myself have had to catch my breath at what prima facie strikes me, as a non-Brit, as astonishing rudeness at the hands of English people, and remind myself that in their culture it is not necessarily offensive to respond to a statement one disagrees with by saying, "Rubbish," or even (well, only in Wikipedia) "You are insane: I suggest you consult a psychiatrist." (And when I have responded as most Australians or Canadians or Americans naturally would by spluttering with astonishment, English Wikipedians have hoed in with, "Might I suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia?" Well, indeed.)

Brits really don’t mean to cut off discussion, really (I think): that’s actually how they talk to one another. Or, putting it another, from an Australian-American-Canadian way sort of perspective, they don’t know any better. Rudeness is, shall we say, in Britain, not rude.

Perhaps we non-British contributors could make allowances for Jakew’s apparent abruptness and apparent rudeness. I do strongly suspect it is only that: what American and Australian and Canadians take as extreme offensiveness, wasn't meant to be offensive at all. Possibly, indeed, he doesn’t mean to be quite as offensive as he is to non-British persons -- well, his remarks ARE objectively offensive, but I think he is genuinely puzzled that they are taken to be so. Perhaps in England, where he comes from, that’s just the way they interact, and such abruptness isn’t meant to be taken either seriously. Rather, let us say, it's a matter of his culture, and we can all surely understand that, living as we do in multicultural societies as we all nowadays do: he cannot help it (though perhaps by the same token he is also living in a multicultural society in England and he might at least try.)

I for my part do try, when continuingly astonished by Jakew's astonishing rudeness and peremptoriness: actually I really do try (and I reiterate that for the most part I actually entirely agree with what he says!), especially when confronted by some outrage against ordinary civility by some English person, to remember those poor old ladies who were war brides and who married Australian and Canadian soldiers in WWI and WWII and ran up against crippling social handicaps as a result of their inability to adjust to different standards of what is considered polite ("typical rude English bitch," my grandmother and great aunts and aunts and Mum would say about the several English war brides who came into the family after 1918 and 1945):

• a great aunt of mine, who married my doctor great uncle during WWI and who was NEVER forgiven for her English rudeness though she lived to age 94 ("'That English BITCH wife of your Great Uncle R. is on the driveway – have you dusted under the beds? She will certainly look!"' would say my grandmother: "Really, what is the matter with the English: they have NO manners at all!"); or

• a next door neighbour lady whom one would never have thought had any sort of exotic background, so thoroughly Canadian did she sound, but whose children and grandchildren continued to her life’s end apologise to the neighbours over Mum’s trickiness and tetchiness and downright rudeness: "Sorry about Mum: I know she is rude, but she can't help it: she's actually English, you see";

  • or any number of English immigrants to Australia who, no matter how long they are resident and how nice they may be, are unable to escape the stereotype of English rudeness; or

• an entirely ordinary mother of a school friend of mine, indeed, a distant cousin, as to whom I was warned, "Watch out: his mother Enid is actually English -- his Dad married her during the War -- even if she pretends to speak 'properly': you have to watch out for her nasty English tongue! She really is an English bitch!"

So perhaps we in Australia and USA and Canada can try to make allowances for the apparent peremptoriness of Jakew and other British contributors, and not readily take offence at what may only be a matter of cultural disharmony. In the interests of communicating civilly in the Wikipedia forum, I think it necessary.

On the other hand, possibly Jakew and other English persons could make allowances for the rather more elaborate conventions as to respectfulness and politeness that pertain elsewhere in the anglophone world than in England, and try to be a little more courteous according to overseas standards. As I say, I am the soul of cross-cultural accommodation, but even I find the abruptness of Jakew and other English contributors hair-raising, to the point of offensiveness, even when I (mostly as I do) actually mostly agree with what he has to say.

If, as I say, even I and others from British Commonwealth countries, who are well acquainted with British habits of communication, and especially those of us who actually agree with what he says, find Jakew rude and offensive, one can scarcely imagine what Americans and others who are less acquainted with English persons might think.Masalai 05:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that all persons born or living in England are rude? You will have to forgive me, as this is the web, I can't tell if you are managing to keep a straight face. Does this apply equally to residents in Scotland and Wales, just across the border? How about if they make occasional trips across the border, are they noticeably ruder?
Please don't make sweeping generalisations, they are rarely true and usually reflect poorly on whoever makes them. Christopher 04:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No of course not. I am saying that allowances should be made for what people not acquainted with English people might take to be rudeness. English people like Jakew don't MEAN to be rude (I hope); if they were speaking to other English people their rudeness (as non-English people would take it to be) wouldn't be taken as offensive; when they speak to non-English people their ordinary manner of speaking is indeed terribly offensive, but they don't intend it to be so. And we should make allowances, because they don't mean to be offensive, but they are unacquainted with international standards of civility that overseas people, who are acquainted with English academics, have become accustomed to.
So when, in Wikipedia, English people make prima facie offensive remarks or are, as it seems, offensively peremptory, those of us who are not English should make allowances for their cultural insularity and not take offence, but move on to the substantive issues of the discussion. Masalai 05:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
But tell me, Christopherk: are you suggesting that Jakew's rudeness should NOT be excused? And that we should narrow in on that non-issue rather than the substantive one at hand? I was, in fact, trying to return the discussion to substantive issues by suggesting that participants in this discussion ought not to be distracted by Jackew's rudenessm given that his substantive contributions to the discussion are generally entirely productive and useful. (I confess that I have on occasion had to remind myself to be silent rather than joining issue with him when he has been extremely rude and offensive, because I am largely in agreement with most of his contributions, and I remind myself that the issues of rudeness are irrelevant to the matter at hand.
(Actually I have to keep reminding myself that Jakew is probably a pretty nice guy, when all is said and done - I, after all, actually quite like my English great aunts and next door neighbour ladies, even if every Australian and Canadian elderly lady I know (ie my mother and grandmother and mother-in-law) DO insist that I not have anything to do with any "English BITCH" [they fairly spit it out!)": Jakew just has English manners, which are assuredly somewhat foreign to people from other anglohone cultures, but those should surely be excused, while we get on with dealing with the matter at hand. Masalai 05:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Folks, if I may, please permit me to suggest that this conversation be continued on the various users' personal talk pages as it has strayed somewhat from the topic of circumcision. Fwiw, I know plenty of Americans, and even a couple of Australians, to whom JakeW - at least the little that I know of him through Wikipedia - couldn't begin to compare to in rudeness even if he was trying hard. It seems to me that in issues of cultural accomodation, everybody should do his or her best to adapt to everybody else and use tools such as WP:CIV and WP:NPA to guide us as to the acceptable limits of our discourses. Dasondas 05:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that emotion. In fact, this entire section needs to be discarded; this page is already too long. Exploding Boy 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No need. I only meant to suggest that in the course of general discussion Jakew and other more emphatic contributors, all of whom seem to be Brits -- and with whom I actually actually generally agree, apart from when he and they are prodigiously rude, as they sometimes absolutely are, from time to time, and then they alienate even their partisans -- might perhaps be forgiven on the basis of cultural issues as to what constitutes rudeness. At times Jakew (inter alia) is prodigiously offensive, even when he says things that are, mostly to my mind, substantively unobjectionable. (He has raised even my hackles at times, and I am, as I say, mostly on his side.)
It is always possible to state one's case non-confrontationally. Jakew and others (with whom, I reiterate, I generally agree) might take this under advisement.Masalai 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this should be moved to either Masalai's or Jake's talk page, as it has nothing to do with the article. -- Avi 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dasondas 15:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Why Neutrality is disputed (POV tag) ==

Yes, Jakew this is cut and paste...

1. The sexual effects section is a joke. We know that the frenulum is a primary erogenous zone, and it (or part of the delta zone) is generally reduced and may be removed during neonatal circs. The following information is blocked: Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum or that include a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," "very reactive," and "seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft," according to Hass and Crooks in college sexuality textbooks.ref Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100. Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129 The frenulum is a primary site for eliciting ejaculatory response.[9][10][11]

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

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

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

4. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Hygiene [12]: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk." [13] Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”[14]. One researcher concludes that access to clean water and regular washing “should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.” [15]

5. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality) because it is a later statement, which qualifies that cited statment.[16]: A 2002 peer reviewed journal of the AAFP reported on research finding “participants reported significantly reduced erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no significant change in sexual activity, and significantly improved satisfaction after circumcision. This improved satisfaction represented a more satisfactory appearance of the penis and less pain during sexual activity. These results cannot be generalized to neonatal circumcision.”[17]

6. Any or all of the following paragraphs, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality): There are few studies on sexual partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are varied. The intromission function of the foreskin may facilitate penetration and vaginal wetness.[18][19]

7. The medical association opinions should be edited to reflect their full (unbiased) statements and current position (especially the reaffirmation by the Canadians (CPS) that there is no medical purpose for the neonate).TipPt 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/r/Talk%7ECircumcision_Archive_19_86a8.html"