Talk:Circumcision/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to end of December 2004

Contents 1 Bias 2 Non-medical circumcisions 3 Prevalence of Male Circumcision 4 Edit - Consensus in the medical community on what? 5 Jewish comment 6 Minor edits 7 Use of CIRP 8 Protection 9 Forced cultural and religious circumcision of adults 10 Less questionable link and stats 11 Alternative Treatments - more dubious stuff 12 NPOV Verification 13 History of male circumcision 14 Procircumcision and Anticircumcision 15 Semantics 16 Page move 17 Cited surveys 18 circumsized penis 19 deletion of relevant, factual material 20 Edit wars 21 A standard for controversial articles, then lift the protection. 22 Revert war

Bias

It seems that this debate will continue. I think that the current article is pretty good. It covers much of the topic, I think fairly and therefore is NPOV. For anyone wanting to see why I believe this, look at the external links. It seems that the anti-circumcision sites are out there for the medical good. It seems that the circumcision sites peddle old and inaccurate information for the benefit of people in the USA who are essentially having the operation done on their children for cultural rather than medical reasons. --Dumbo1 13:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Maybe it is lost on you that by posting this stuff you confirm your bias in this regard. Reread what you wrote. - Friends of Robert 07:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• As a newcomer to this page, I am impressed by the respect with which most users write, and dismayed by the rudeness and 'clever putdowns' used by only a few. Whatever POV you recommend, you do it no service and degrade the discussion as a whole by unscholarly writing. It is impossible to respect those who show no respect, and impossible to distill evidence from the writing of one who shows only anger. I recommend that those responsible remove all insulting epithets, so that the more worthwhile elements of their contributions are easier to discern. This will also condense the page considerably. Dominic Widdows 11:04, 29 Sep 2004 (EST)

That's a fair comment. Participants might like to read or reread wikilove and rhetoric as well. Some need to read them more than others of course. Andrewa 21:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Non-medical circumcisions

Non-medical circumcisions for religious or cultural reasons constitute the majority of circumcisions carried out world wide. The article must take cognisance of this fact and the necessary information must be inserted. - Robert Brookes 15:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a really difficult statistic to ascertain accurately, no? A good deal of these circumcisions will go unreported. How are we to posit our data as reliable when so many cultures consider circumcision unnecessary for record? A more beneficial statistic would be an age-based survey that could track generational trends much more effectively. - Methylsoy 17:56, 21 Aug 2004 (EST)

• The statistic is not difficult to estimate really. The problem is that there are attempts to exaggerate or understate the prevalence from the pro or anti POV. In the article the "low" estimate has been placed there by "you know whom". Something like "estimates vary from 16-30%" will probably have to suffice as a compromise. With respect, who is going to carry out an "age-based survey" of all the peoples of the earth? This point is, however, much less of importance than to be sure to include information on the non-medical circumcisions (religious and cultural/rite of passage) which make up the majority of circumcisions performed world wide. - Robert Brookes 05:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prevalence of Male Circumcision

This section needs a lot of work. There are glaring inaccuracies (probably deliberate lies) that have been posted there. Before the editing starts, should we play spot the lies? - Robert Brookes 15:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I was under the impression that circumcision was much more popular as well, I'm certainly going to refrain from calling my fellow Wikipedians liars. If you've used the word "probably" because you have no evidence to support your accusations, then please refrain from promoting a situation that could lead to hate or anger. The word "liar" is as useless to Wikipedia as misinformation, especially if it's unfounded. - Methylsoy 17:56, 21 Aug 2004 (EST)

• You need to know who you are dealling with here. Then you need to realise that you cannot take anything on face value from the monomaniac anti-circumcision extremists. So armed you will find it a lot easier to deal with debates around articles on what should or shouldn't be included. The fact that this article, to achieve NPOV, has been radically edited indicates, or should indicate, that left unchallenged and to their own devices they just can't controll themselves and will post the most outrageous propaganda. I hear and understand your point about lies and liars. But are these people wikipedians or are they single issue monmaniac anti-circumcision fanatics hell bent on using wikipedia as a vehicle for advancing their dubious cause? As to what is an isn't a lie, as we progress all will be revealed. - Robert Brookes 05:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know this is an old post there, RB, but I just love your attitude. “Extremists”, “monomaniacs”, “liars”, and all kinds of ad hominem, or group attacks, that’s what come from you. Very nice, makes you all the more believable. And you seem like as if you were on the brink of exploding, too! Cool, my dear, lest you end up with heart problems! -- Ralesk 21:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit - Consensus in the medical community on what?

The AAP 1999 Statement said as follows:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy." AAP Statement

How this got to what was posted remains to be explained. This is what was posted:

"Today, there is a broad consensus in the medical community that the potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms."

Unless someone could explain where this statement comes from and substantiate its accuracy it should remain deleted as yet more "wishful thinking" rather than even a mere POV. - Robert Brookes 07:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics says there are potential benefits and risks to circumcision. The AAP policy statement does not say the potential benefits are greater than the risks nor does it say the risks are greater than the potential benefits. That indicates the AAP thinks the potential benefits of circumcision are about equal to the risks.

The official policy statements of professional medical organizations in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain also discuss the relationship between potential medical benefits of circumcision and medical risks and harms.

Canadian Paediatric Society

"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."

Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians

"Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure."

Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002. http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm

British Medical Association

"The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003. http://web.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003

The sentence "Today, there is a broad consensus in the medical community that the potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms." is an accurate reflection of the consensus in the international medical community as expressed by the official policy statements of professional medical organizations in several different countries. In my opinion the sentence is accurate and should be included in the article. DanBlackham 09:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the evidence displayed above it is obvious that medical bodies in different countries have come to varying conclusions about circumcision.

Americans potential benefits not great enough to recommend circumcision

Canadians equally balanced risks and benefits.

Australians no evidence of benefit outweighing harm

British claimed medical benefits not convincingly proven; medical and psychological risks.

The assessment of risk and harm of the various bodies reflects the circumcision practices of the various countries. So the British are most against it and the Americans are most in support. Even so, the American body says that the evidence is not strong enough to recommend circumcision.

As there is no consensus it would be more accurate to point out the varying policies in the different countries. Michael Glass

• Nice try boys. But nowhere does it all add up to": "Today, there is a broad consensus in the medical community that the potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms." You should really try to stick with the truth, maybe just maybe it could set you free. - Robert Brookes 16:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's try again. The American body says that potential benefits are not great enough to recommend circumcision. This statement implies benefits, even though it says they are 'potential' The Canadian body says that the benefits and risks are equally balanced. The Australian bodies say that there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm. Finally, the British body claims that the benefits are not proven and there are medical and psychological risks. Clearly the British statement is less in favour of circumcision than the others.

• When ever anti-circumcision activists make emphatic statements it is well to verify the accuracy of such. What the British Medical Association actually says is this:

"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. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children's interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." BMA

"The Association has no policy on these issues". Caught with your hand in the cookie jar again? So what's new? Spend a little time here: Truth - Robert Brookes 05:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the two quotations from the British policy are accurate it is evidence that the varying approaches of different doctors in Britain are reflected in the statement. It is not an occasion for self-righteous posturing.

Michael, although there are small differences in the statements of the various medical organizations, I think the similarities in the statements are greater than the differences. No organization says the potential medical benefits are significantly greater than the medical risks and harms. Also no organization says the medical risks and harm are significantly greater than the potential medical benefits. Therefore I think it is reasonable and accurate to say the medical organizations state the potential medical benefits of circumcision are approximately equal to the medical risks and harms. DanBlackham 23:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be better to summarize the policies of the various countries but point out that circumcision practices do vary sharply between countries and parts of countries.

The various statements by pediatric bodies were written before the publication of increasingly compelling evidence, much of it from Africa, that circumcision significantly reduces the risk (i.e. reduces it to 1/6th) of acquiring HIV/AIDS. This is not to say that it eliminates the risk. But a reduction that large is of great importance to everyone, and especially to boys/men in Africa, where anti-retroviral medications are out of reach, both financially and geographically, of the huge majority. Why deny such an advantage by discouraging so simple and widely practiced an operation? Tom.

I'm sorry, but those statistics are single-metric. I doubt very much that the statistical difference in HIV infection is above the margin of noise in the case of infections-per-sexual-act. If there is a reduced chance of infection between circumcised and uncircumsised males, it is because of the psychological effects and reduced functionality. Without the foreskin, sex can not be as prolonged because the female endures discomfort and even pain after a while. Although it is anecdotal, circumcised men who have undergone foreskin reconstruction report feeling more confident, and "less naked" when unclothed. The reduced sensitivity and subtle psychological effects would mean circumcised men are less likely to have sex as long or with as many partners. Less sexual exposure means less chance of infection.

In other words, I find this statistic inappropriate to the claim. Reduced viral infection via a body modification is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof. This is not even par.—Daelin 10:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"...that circumcision significantly reduces the risk ... of acquiring HIV/AIDS." Similarly, amputation of the arms decreases the incidence of a host of medical conditions, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tennis elbow. Let's all start amputating the arms of infants! -- Bblackmoor 00:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Can we please try to raise the maturity level of the contributions around here? The story that is told loud and clear through this desperate activity to counter the emerging evidence about the connection between the lack of male circumcision and a higher level of HIV infection is that this anti-circumcision activism is not motivated by human rights considerations (as so often claimed). - Robert the Bruce 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Regardless of these findings, behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as 'protecting' against such infections." -- American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision -- DanBlackham 11:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Dan. As to "a reduction that large is of great importance to everyone, and especially to boys/men in Africa... Why deny such an advantage by discouraging so simple and widely practiced an operation?" First off, the thing that would do the most to reduce AIDS in places like Africa would be to educate the men living there to the fact that raping virgins does not cure the diease. [1] (I grant you that having them mutilate their own genitalia would be a small step in the right direction, but not for the reason you state.) As for "denying" anyone the "benefits" of genital mutilation, I think we can all agree that adults should be allowed to modify their own bodies any way they see fit: scarification, genital mutilation, piercing, amputation of toes, what-have-you. It may be unwise, and others may or may not find it grotesque, but adults are capable of making those decisions for themselves, and should be permitted to make those decisions for themselves. The only real concern of the so-called "anti-circumcision monomaniacs" is when such mutilation is forced upon nonconsenting others (and children, by definiiton, are not capable of informed consent). Say what you will about China, but they outlawed foot-binding years ago.

Jewish comment

It's innacurate to portray circumcision as implying judaism, the remark about association with other religions certainly covers the same sentiment without the innacuracies or implied anti-sematism. --Starx 18:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have not viewed the comment, however I have a historical comment to make in reference to your own. Practicing circumcision in Western Civilization comes directly from Judaism. It was a Jewish practice which was practically unheard of in Europe, and historically revile in Europe where known. Only the arabic tribes (both Arab and Jew) were known to practice sexual mutilation. It made its entrance into Europe through Christianity. In very early Christianity it was assumed by the apostles that you had to be Jewish (and hence, circumcised, in ancient Judaism). Paul changed this, including the requirement of circumcision (a Jewish tradition, few of which were kept by Christianity). A minority practiced it, however, attempting to emulate the lives of the Apostles. For the vast majority of non-jews: the entirety of the lower class and most of the the other classes, it was not practiced.

I must point out that nobody in Europe practiced infant male circumcision, until the late 19th century. Infant mortality rates were extremely high, and causing open wounds on infants would instantly double them or more. Jews practice circumcision at the age of 13, as a rite of passage into adulthood. Infant circumcision has only been made possible with modern medical sterilization.—Daelin 10:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Daelin, you're incorrect. Jews perform circumcision on the eighth day of life (see Genesis). - Jakew 10:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected on this, but must point out that Genesis is an inappropriate document from which to make claims on Jewish society. You should look to Genesis for authoritive information as quickly as you'd look to Leviticus.

It turns out the historical Jewish circumcision practice is to remove just the tip of the foreskin. Greek Jews would perform a bit of foreskin reconstruction (stretching) to hide the fact that they were Jewish and blend in with Greek society, so the practice was changed. —Daelin 09:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well there is anti-Semitism involved. Certainly not at the root of it all but certainly is there. While all manner of wild and woolly reason for not to circ are given why should this one be singled out to be sanitized? I suggest that if "reasons" are needed at all they be limited to three either way otherwise this will end up as a repository for the product of over fertile imaginations. - Robert Brookes 02:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do you know there is anti-Semitism involved? Do you have any evidence? Jayjg 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, they should be limited. I know that anti-sematism is real but I've never heard of anti-sematism being a reason for distaste of circumcision. I'm sure there are people out their who hold that belief, but I don't think it's widespread enough to deserve mention. Plus it just seems vastly POV to even imply some type of association between anti-circumcision and anti-sematism. I think the comment should be removed, there is no reason that the reason given above the jewish comment is insufficient. --Starx 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not widespread enough to deserve mention? Can that be applied to the stuff that is claimed as reasons not to circ (or in fact a lot of the stuff they post in related articles)? Take the knife to the nonsense list then, three reasons worthy of mention each way should suffice. - Robert Brookes 23:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The majority of the population of earth is not circumcised, so I don't believe the "not widespread enough" argument can be applied to anti-circumcision as a whole. --Starx 03:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your essential theme but I see no evidence that the vast majority of non-circumcising cultures really give a damn at all. What we see is a very small, very vocal group of fanatical monomaniacal single issue activists who go beyond being simply “anti-circumcision” to the insane position of actual foreskin promotion. That is why in some of the related articles we see have a three line sentence explaining something about say, what 99% of Jews do, and the following ten lines about how the remaining 1% oppose the practice. The balance is all out of kilter, their agenda is showing through there is no NPOV. - Robert Brookes 05:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Jewish section is out of balance, but that can be rectified easily enough. Jayjg 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Parents are presented with a choice. As long as there is contention about the practice they should be presented with both sides of the argument. I don't disagree that there is a fanatical anti-circumcision presence on wikipedia. But there are individuals who do not agree with the practice of circumcision for reasons that are not fanatical. Their side should be represented. --Starx 02:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Please show me where you have taken this "fanatical anti-circumcision presence" to task. You have haven't you? - Robert Brookes 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This comment is not relevant to the issue at hand. Jayjg 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits

Someone should remove the picture of the penis and make a link. I would but I dont know how to do that. -Anon

No we have had numerous discussions about pictures like this in Wikipedia, and the general consensus is that if the picture is appropriate to the topic it goes on the page. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 23:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually disagree with that. Those same pictures are in the "penis" article, and this is an article specifically about circumcision, not penises. If we are to show a picture or diagram, it should be of the act itself. We don't show before and after photos breasts in breast reduction, right? That's because it wouldn't be appropriate to the topic of breast reduction itself. Though a sketch of where incisions and made and tissue is excised would be relevant. DanP 14:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would have no problem with before and after pictures of breast reduction. I would, however, have an object of showing the act of breast reduction. It is a type of surgery, and would therefore be off-putting. Showing the two types of penises is entirely appropriate, showing the act of circumsicion would be a blantant POV insertion, as no surgery is pleasant to look at. func(talk) 15:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These things are a metter of personal taste. I too would not object to before and after breast enlargement pics, in fact i would expect them in a breast enlargement article. Personally I would go even further and not object to pictures of surgery on surgery related articles although I suspect far fewer people would agree with me there. The fact is, we have had this same debate many times on wikipedia. The results of those earlier debates is that body parts, in appropriate articles are condidered ok by most people. This is IMO a perfectly appropriate article to show a circumcised and uncicumcised penis. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 18:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In order to avoid future misunderstandings I think it would be helpful to review the guidelines for indicating a change is a minor edit.

A minor edit to a Wikipedia page is one which most other contributors would agree is minor. When to use this is somewhat a matter of personal preference. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit.

In my opinion several recent changes marked as minor edits are significant changes to the article. DanBlackham 19:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Major, minor or whatever they may be, but certainly necessary. This is to be expected when the original text seems to have been pasted in directly from an anti-circumcision web site (cirp.org). No one should expect that those party to this deceit would embrace the process of editing the text to achieve NPOV. - Robert Brookes 20:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Reguardless of whether the edit was necessary it still should be accurately marked. --Starx 02:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Use of CIRP

I take exception to one user censoring out information simply on the grounds that it comes from CIRP. CIRP is a vast storehouse of information and is recommended by the British Medical Journal. CIRP reproduces information from medical journals and reputable newspapers. it is therefore reasonable to quote it. If people want to quote other sources of information, so be it, but that is not a reason to censor information on the flimsy excuse that they don't like the bias of CIRP. - Michael Glass

• Don't be so pompous. Using cirp.org as a reference on circumcision related articles is like using virusmyth.net as the definitive reference on HIV/AIDS. Cirp.org does of course only provide one side of the story and tends to insert text into studies/articles to make sure those who read stuff on their site get the "right idea". Drop it Micheal as all you are doing is declaring a conflict of interest. - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CIRP is a scientific archive and certainly scientific information in this archive by all means can be included. Removal of such information borders on vandalism.

• Not so. Cirp is nowhere near neutral nor balanced. (As stated) it is to the circumcision debate as virusmyth.net is to HIV/AIDS. It is an affront to intelligence that it should be presented as a definitive source of information on the subject. In fact to do so is quite disgraceful. - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I advise all interested parties to take a look at this article as it was before Robert's edits and compare it with the situation now. What was a fair and factual presentation on the topic is gradually degrading into a bullet point type POV mess. Unfortunately, POV-warriors like Robert are waging a war of attrition against anyone who disagrees with them and remove factual information with impunity.--Eloquence*

• The problem with the original was that it was lifted almost verbatim from anti-circumcision sources. Is that NPOV? What has in fact occurred is that the article is in the process of being converted into an encyclopedia article about circumcision from its initial state as a platform for anti-circumcision propaganda and slant. One does not expect for one moment that monomaniacal anti-circumcision activists will allow that process to take place without a fight. But in the end the truth will prevail. The article will be about circumcsion and not a platform for anti-circ propaganda. - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree, I think the older article is much better. --Starx 15:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's amazing. It needs a little wikification, but it's fantastically better.—Daelin 12:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• After the trash has been removed and the facts remain one can look at "writing it nicely". At the moment the main task is to get rid of the anti-circ POV trash. You do want the article to be truthful, don't you? - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean POV trash like this, Robert? All your edits on Wikipedia have been to circumcision-related subjects. This is true for how many other contributors to this article?--Eloquence*

• The truth seems to hurt Erik. It is funny how shrill the defenders of the prepuce become when their version of the truth is challenged. True for Walabio and Michael Glass. Now I wonder why you missed that? You seem to be losing it a bit now Erik. Close your eyes and take a few deep breaths. - Robert Brookes 08:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As the number of people who you call crazy grows, at what point do you wonder whether there might be anything wrong with you?--Eloquence*

• So you admit you made a real ass of yourself then? You really need to do your homework before you stick your neck out don't you think? As to my personal fallibility, I remain raked with doubt and constantly need to read widely to get to the truth of issues. With regard to circumcision and allied subjects one should surely read more widely than your old favourite cirp.org, no? This the anti-circ equivalent of Mao's liitle red book? Anyway as the man said:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell - Robert Brookes 09:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the quote is a good start.--Eloquence*

• Ok then, so it is settled then cirp.org is a POV no-no, and certainly not when they have doctored the text. - Robert Brookes 10:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are lying. They have not doctored the text.--Eloquence*

• Define doctored. - Robert Brookes 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reguardless of it's current POV Robert and Michael should stop the revert war and come to an agreement on the talk page before editing any further. As to the POV of the past article that Eloquence referanced. Yes it could use some work but I don't think it needs anything to drastic, just some touch-ups. It's far far closer to NPOV then the current article. --Starx 13:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Nonsense! It was plain and simple anti-circumcision propaganda. The process now underway as part of the cleanup is to establish a structure of facts about circumcision (note: not foreskins, foreskin restoration and anti-circumcision propaganda). Reducing a "good read" to facts will be resisted to the death by the monomaniacal anti-circumcision fanatics. This is understood. The articles in wikipedia should have a basis in fact and it should not allow itself to be misused for single issue propaganda purposes. - Robert Brookes 22:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I presented good evidence that female genital mutilation was practised in Indonesia, and documented it with a reference to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Robert censored this on the flimsy excuse that it was reproduced by CIRP. This is just plain bigotry. The article in question is still available on the SMH website [[2]] I think that this should be enough evidence for any fair-minded person and I expect Robert to cease from his censorship of this point.

Similarly, the article by Cold and Taylor has been influential in shaping public opinion. It is fair to include this as one of the reasons that parents might cease circumcising their children. Once again, this does not mean that the work of Cold and Taylor is conclusive, only that it is influential among some people. Michael Glass

• Michael, stop playing the victim. There is no argument about the inclusion of Indonesia as where female circumcision is practiced. I have taken a sentence from Female circumcision to that effect. Remember it was decided that the circumcision site would be about male circumcision and that female circumcision would be dealt with in a separate article. So why the need to provide additional information on female circumcision in the (male) circumcision article? Because you insist on trying to slip in links to cirp.org. Now you try to place SMH link in but seem to have forgotten that to read it requires registration. Dumb. There is no need for such a link either from cirp.org or the SMH. If you feel there is then go and insert it in the Female circumcision article.

• Further your insistance in trying to slip in Cold & Taylor is to further a anti-circumcision argument. It is out of place in an article on male circumcision but then you can't see that as you are blinded by your POV. - Robert Brookes 21:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At long last Robert has stopped trying to censor out information about where female circumcision happens, but he still contests links to information. I provided the CIRP link and he objects because it is CIRP; I provided the SMH link and he objects because it requires registration; I will now go back and provide links to both copies of the article.

• The links are not necessary. You must be braindead to think the SMH link through a registration required interface is of value. - Robert Brookes 21:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The charge of "slipping in links" is a nonsense! What could be more upfront and fair to the reader than providing back-up for the information that is posted? I challenge Robert to provide information to back up his claim that certain tribes in South America practise female genital mutilation.

• I took the sentence off the Female circumcision article. Go challenge it there. - Robert Brookes 21:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for the Cold and Taylor article, it is in the public record and is influencing people. It is a Loony Tunes to object to any reference to this article. - Michael Glass

• It has its place, but that is not to be slipped into the circumcision article. I understand why you want to do that though. - Robert Brookes 21:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is double standards to put information into an article on circumcision on the strength of another article in Wikipedia, but object when someone else puts information into the article and sources it to a reputable newspaper like the Sydney Morning Herald and to the British Journal of Urology. - Michael Glass

• If I paid for a supplement in the BJU I could put in (like you guys did) any off the wall stuff I may like. Wikipedia should not be used to promote your rather dubious agenda. - Robert Brookes 18:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the claim that the Cold and Taylor article should not be "slipped into" an article on circumcision, this is bunkum. If you are going to argue chopping off the foreskin it makes sense to consider what is being chopped off. - Michael Glass

• What is being chopped off? The foreskin. The detail on the foreskin should be found at Foreskin and not "slipped" into the circumcision article like you are desperately trying to do. - Robert Brookes 18:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Such an argument would make some sense if Robert wasn't trying to censor out information on Foreskin as well. However, the Cold and Taylor article does have relevance to the question of circumcision for the reasons that I stated above. - Michael Glass 05:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Ok lets put in a anti-circumcision disclaimer warning on the Cold/Taylor piece. I'll do it. - Robert Brookes 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Warning" is POV. However, we could note that CIRP is against circumcision provided that the note also says that the British Medical Journal says that CIRP provides useful online information on circumcision. The note that I last saw was OK to me.Michael Glass 01:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I have a proposal. Let's move all the anti-circumcision discussion into an article devoted to the issue. This would allow this article to focus on factual data about Circumcision, and get the hell off cleanup. The anti-circumcision article can then concentrate on the accurately representing the opinions and factual basis of the anti-circumcision movement. The issue of contention then becomes how much reference should there be from this article to the anti-circumcision article: I propose a short section of about 200–400 words summarizing the anti-circumcision arguments. (Robert, your POV edit is not appreciated. Your war of attrition is wearing thin, and harming the encyclopedia.)—Daelin 12:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I acted on a request and protected the page. Please work to come to an agreement. --Michael Snow 21:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is too little too late. How did you allow the circumcision related articles to become mouthpieces for anti-circumcision propaganda in the first place? One should look through the history of who posted what and censure the culprits accordingly. Name them and shame them I say. Quite disgraceful! - Robert Brookes 06:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt very much that you'd be up for the same censurship yourself. What you should be doing, is attampting to work with people with opposite POV's in order to come to an agreement as to how best to come to a neutral point of view. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 07:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You mean like work with the Flat Earth Society? Come on. By entertaining the lunatic fringe all one achieves is to move the centre line over into their territory. Wikipedia should not be the result of a compromise with any monomaniacal fanatical group. It should strive to achieve POV and not a compromise for the sake of peace. - Robert Brookes 16:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about compromising for the sake of piece. I'm talking about compromise for the sake of a better article. How you can possibly call people against circumcising a "lunatic fringe" is beyond me? The fact of the matter is there are two widely held views on circumcision. Both should be represented in the article. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You are not contributing to a better article. You are actively working towards a POV anti-circumcision piece. Shame on you. Go the Votes_for_deletion/Genital_Integrity discussion and see what the lunatic fringe get up to. Whether you wish to allign yourself with them or not is up to you. Define "widely". - Robert Brookes 17:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • At the moment my concern is with this article. What people get up to on other articles is neither here nor there. My definition of a widely held view is one held by a significantly large number of people. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes I understand. Don't go there and let some facts cloud the issue. Now define it you will the % related to "a significantly large number of people". - Robert Brookes 00:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Robert, we've discussed the inapplicability of the flat earth comparison. There certainly are some anti-circ zealots out there, but that doesn't mean that everyone who holds that POV is a "fringe lunatic". There are plenty of reasonable people who also hold that belief. Circumcision is not the status quo in the majority of cultures in this world, their argument certainly deserves as much representation as anyone elses. --Starx 02:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • No. You have stated that in your opinion the FES comparison is inapplicable. Of course this does not make it so. You should really read up on the "blatant nonsense effect" as this is the stock-in-trade of the anti-circumcision monomaniacs. Once hooked the "embarrassment effect" takes over. Read and set yourself free. - Robert Brookes 07:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The entire basis of that comparison lies in your judgement of the anti-circumcision arguments to be nothing but lunatic fringe beliefs. That is simply not so. I don't deny that the movement has its crazies, but there are plenty of reasonable people who hold those beliefs. Many of them are doctors who specialize in pediatric care. The medical bodies discussed above clearly do not have a definitive position in favor of one side or the other. That tells me that both sides have valid points, and as such both arguments should be represented fairly. None of that can be said about the Flat Earth Society, the comparision is simply a straw man argument and does you no good. --Starx 14:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • The problem with your argument is that it is not the "plenty of reasonable people who hold those beliefs" who post here but rather the crazies (as has been seen in the Genital integrity knock down, drag out). This is something you need to come to terms with. - Robert Brookes 23:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Calling everyone who disagrees with you crazy is no way to work towards NPOV. This encylopedia is a collaborative endevour. You have to stop insulting people. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Theresa YOU are not trying to work towards NPOV, you are pushing POV. It is obvious, so please drop the pretense. - Robert Brookes 00:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • Exactly what POV are you accusing me of pushing? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • By pushing the deceit around the cirp mention in the BMJ you disgrace yourself. - Robert Brookes 02:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I have said above that I don't deny that there are zealots. But reguardless of whether the reasonable or unreasonable post here there are still two sides to the argument and both need to be represented fairly. --Starx 02:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Point me to comments you have made directly to any of the foreskin jealots. - Robert Brookes 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • I don't need to, we're not discussing them, we're discussing your heavy handed denile of the existance of a valid opposing viewpoint. There are 2 sides to the argument, both should be represented fairly. --Starx 21:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • I am trying to get the mainstream opinion fairly represented but someone let the dogs in. - Robert Brookes 04:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

¡I certainly agree with Robert Brookes! ¡Punish the wrong-doers! ¿Who are the wrong-doers? Let me look at the page:history for Circumcision for August. ¡Oh my! ¡The wrong-doer is -- Robert Brookes! - Ŭalabio 08:08, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Indeed, we should have NPOV. But that means treating this like other topics, not singling it out. Nobody is pushing to glorify the benefits of any other surgery but this one. A good NPOV is to treat this the same. If there is a diagnosis of disease, circumcision is surgery. If there is no diagnosis, it is mutilation, or body modification when voluntary. No dictionary will say otherwise, and it makes sense to list all of these possibilities. So I ask some of you to tone down the pro-mutilation rhetoric. DanP 20:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery is called surgery not body modification. We don't call ear piercing mutilation even though it is frequently done to children. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 21:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not surgery most of the time. According to our definitions, surgery is strictly for a disease or injury. Technically plastic surgery is the right one to classify body modification and mutilation (such as circumcision) under, not surgery. Ear piercing does not remove tissue, but it probably does some damage on a cellular level. As I understand it, a mutilation is to "cut a part off", often a laceration is to "tear it open", and a piercing is to "make a hole in". I think many people go further, and would classify, say, piercing a child's genitals by force as mutilation. DanP 22:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here we go again...

The word "mutilation" carries a negative connotation in the English language, implying damage. Insisting that any procedure — circumcision, breast enlargement, hedge pruning, whatever — is "mutilation" is taking a POV against that procedure.

I am not a big fan of circumcision, routine or otherwise. However, it happens. Because it happens, we should describe it in an NPOV fashion. NPOV does not include damning anything. As such, we should not describe anything using words that carry a negative connotation. The notable exceptions to this are in attributed quotes and in describing the positions of opponents. AFAIC, those two places are the 'only' places to use the word "mutilation".

Do I need to clarify any further? - jredmond 23:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I second this comment, well-said. People should take connotation into consideration when choosing their words. Rhobite 00:06, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, clarify please. The tissue removed necessarily dies off, the genitals as a whole are not undamaged as you imply. Some of it is dead. I have a big scar, which is often what happens when you get injured. Yes, seems like damage to me. I don't care if you want to remove "mutilation" and use neutral terms. But saying there is no damage is clear POV, contrary to the material fact of forced circumcision. To use your example, would you say forced breast enlargement is mutilation? Do you think it takes POV to say so? If a person feels harmed by an act, it does not seem to be a POV to say so. Many other articles are similarly expressed. But if you wish to say "mutilation" nowhere in the article, that is OK. But perhaps we can remove all the pro-mutilation terms in the article too? DanP 00:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You really need to talk to someone about your feelings in this regard. You are sounding very troubled. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not viewed as damage by most people. I know you disagree with this, but you'll have to face it - this is your POV, and the article is locked because people like you can't tell their own POV from a generally accepted opinion. You keep framing this as a factual debate, as if your repeated arguing based on a dictionary will suddenly turn everyone into raging anti-circumcision activists. Stop it. Rhobite 00:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100% with jredmond regarding the use of the word "mutilation" in the article. DanBlackham 03:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I never attach negative connotations to the word. Mutilation just means to mutate, i.e. to change the form of something. Nicholas 23:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was in agreeing, but with some concerns, despite the vague way NPOV is demanded from one side and not the other. As I said, remove "mutilation". But let's also clear out the pro-mutilation attempts to glorify the act. What I can't understand is why saying "it's damage" is POV, despite the physical evidence. But saying "it's not damage" magically is NPOV. Is their scar made of gold or something? Obviously bias is rampant among mutilation proponents. Why not have a nice neutral "maybe it's damage, maybe it's not" view in the article? DanP 15:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Damage and mutilation are subjective and not NPOV. You need to revisit where you draw the line in terms of what is POV and what isn't. Find a professional to help you work through your little problem. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• If you want to throw your dictionary away, I will agree with your first sentence. But saying it is "not damage" and "not mutilation" is equally not NPOV. It's your opinion and yours alone. Let's model this page after other ones. We do not have mastectomy patients debating their surgery or trying to cut their daughters by force, so why not express this page without the irrational pro-mutilation rants and accusations of needing "professional help"? The NPOV is to say those who undergo this practice by choice are "modified", those who are forced into it are "mutilated". If you want to eliminate the latter, then eliminate the former POV too.DanP 16:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • In the circumcision article it is noted that some people consider circumcision to be a mutilation. That fact that this minority fringe opinion seems to be so important to you indicates that you may need to work through the causes of this with a professional. You never know but this may be beneficial to you and your current mind set. Now that said do you have anything intelligent to offer to this article? - Robert Brookes 04:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um I don't see your point about masectomy? But anyway I cannot agree that mutilated is a good NPOV way of describing circumcision. The issue of force is a difficult one. Even the word force is emotive in this context. I have a scar on my left arm from a TB vaccination. I didn't want the jab, I was forced into having it by my parents. I do not consider it mutilation. There must be a less emotive word we can use. As for accusations of "needing professional help" Robert Brookes is going the right way about getting himself banned from editing Wikipedia. In the meantime I suggest you stop feeding this particulaly nasty troll. Every time someone argues with him, he says something rude and offensive. So stop argueing with him. Ignore him. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 21:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Talking about trolls. I notice that you have tried to slip in a piece on lysozyme in the smegma article. Now what about a little honesty here Theresa? Tell us what the sigmnificance of lysozyme is to the anti-circumcision POV. I know the game you are playing. - Robert Brookes 04:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This isn't the talk page for the smegma article. If you have an issue with that then take it to that articles talk page. --Starx 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I have and if you go there you will see my prediction has come true. Now do you have any comments on Theresa's agenda? - Robert Brookes 02:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Robert: Go read Wikilove and ponder its wisdom for a couple weeks before coming back. You are not winning any allies, and you are definitely not helping write an NPOV article. - jredmond 14:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not circumcised, and I'm perfectly healthy. Same for my father and brother. I don't think it should be a routine operation and neither does the AAP. My family and I, and the AAP are not insane. Personally, I have many interests in life so I can't be called monomaniacal. I haven't participated in the debate here, yet Robert Brookes is calling me a raving lunatic. That hardly bespeaks a Neutral Point of View, and furthermore isn't very nice. Theanthrope 22:37, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• It is a case of if the cap fits, wear it. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You have been fairly rude to almost everyone else to has tried to edit this article. Even if your views differ, and even if you see their views as being monomaniacal/stupid/fringe-lunatic/whatever, please try and keep some air of civility. It makes the editing process much smoother. --Starx 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I just clicked on the "discussion" link, and... Is Robert a troll? If he's not, then does anyone else think that he might just be in denial? Like he can't even for a moment entertain the possibility that foreskin serves an erogenous purpose, that men with foreskins get pleasure from them, that sex is better for both partners with an intact penis than with a circumcised one? Maybe he's insecure about his masculinity and can't dare admit that his sexuality has been permanently and irrevocably impaired. If he's not in denial, I wonder if he has fetish for circumcision. I honestly think the "Flat Earth Society" comparison is far more accurately directed at Brookes, who refuses to believe foreskin is anything but a useless "piece of skin," despite overwhelming evidence, basic common sense, and testimonials from the vast intact majority (8 out of 10 men) to the contrary. - Steve LL.

I agree that Robert is either a troll or he's just incredibly stubbornly and emotionally held to his pro-circumcision belief. He claims to be interested in the facts, but then proceeds to incorrectly call anti-circumcision people a "minority" fringe group despite the majority of the world not practicing ritual circumcision. The flat earth society comparison definitely invalidates his neutrality on the subject (as well ass demonstrating his ignorance of it). It's true that websites like cirp.org are biased, but he is going beyond rejecting those and promoting his own zealous pro-circumcision agenda. It's ok to use a source like that, but only if you look up the originating source that it came from (i.e. a medical journal). I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized. That includes an edit to exclude so much as a statement that a popular opinion (stated in the form of "they believe") of anti-circ people is that circumcision reduces sensitivity. He obviously only wants to represent the anti-circumcision view in as negative of a light as possible. It's just screwed when an extremist fringe zealot calls all others who hold the opposing view extremists. Nathan J. Yoder

Has Robert edited anything else besides circumcision and foreskin related articles? I ask because I skimmed his edit history going back a month and that's all I found. This guy is honestly starting to creep me out. - Steve LL.

• New here, Steve? Three posts, all circumcision related. Came straight here didn't you. Follow the rallying cry did you? LOL - Robert Brookes 02:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Concur. Steve LL's IP address has only three edits, all circ related. This person may edit under multiple IPs, but its pretty cheeky to point the finger at someone else's edit history without having a verifiable history of their own. func(talk) 02:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've never edited any circumcision related articles besides talk:circumcision. And yes, I do edit (infrequently) under multiple IPs (dial-up), but that doesn't preclude me from pointing out this wacko's obsession with circumcision. He's spent the last month here doing nothing but trying to twist and turn every single circumcision related article he get his hands on in favor of the procedure, and again, I really have to wonder why. Is he just trying to validate what was done to him, or does he have a fetish? Either way, he doesn't seem very reasonable to me. - Steve LL.

¿Why do not you create an account? An account has many advantages. I could go over them, but if you click on "login/create an account" in the upper right corner, you will see a link entitled "¿Why create an account?"

Ŭalabio 21:25, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Interesting, I was reading through the CIRP website and believe I may have been mistaken before. Since it does contain a wide variety of articles (medical and otherwise) that are verbatim copies of the original source then that would be ok so long as citing the original source itself would be considered ok. Unless there is good reason to believe that those documents have been doctored, which has not been substantiated by Robert, then it is perfectly reasonable to use. Nathan J. Yoder 05:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I do not see how the cutting away of healthy tissue from the genitals of an infant (whether male or female) can be classified as anything other than "mutilation". Eschew euphemisms. -- Bblackmoor 04:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forced cultural and religious circumcision of adults

I believe this practice exists, so why delete it? Is it suddenly not circumcision because it's an adult victim? This is historically key to how male genital mutilation got started in the first place, forced on slaves instead of babies. There is also a tremendous amount of weasel words and various POV pushing the "benefits" of mutilation. Please refer to the NPOV article, and it says nothing about stifling all views, but rather explaining both sides. DanP 22:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the justification for having it is historical, then it belongs in part of the history section. Who, what, when, where, why? It is a phenomenon that happens, but tacked on to the end as it is, it just seems like an out-of-place afterthought. Shimmin 11:33, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I deleted it is because IMO it has little to do with circumcision as such and everything to do with war and violence. The first reference decribes a slave situation, where children are being shot, and women repeatedly raped. The forced circumcision is one tiny quote from an unnamed slave with no corroborating evidence. The second reference is again a quote from a single person, again without a name, again in a war situation. It on christian solidarity website, and again with no other evidence. You believe the practice exists? I at the moment don't. The whole thing looks like propaganda at the moment. Of course if decent evidence comes to light ( new reporters seeing it done for example) my view will change but for now I feel that it's only purpose is to elicit an emotional response from the reader, not to inform them i a NPOV way. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Circumcision has always been tied directly to war and violence. The Bible[3] and even recent history [4] describe these events. Forced circumcision of adults are sometimes isolated incidents [5][6]. But it can be organized group mutilation as well, and you can try to find hundreds of similar articles, both ancient and recent. Not all of these articles are tied to Christianity and/or Islam. I don't see your objection to including this, unless you believe so many people in Africa and Indonesia are fabricating these events. DanP 16:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that it is going too far to say that circumcision has "always" been tied directly to war and violence. This overstatement is POV and damaging. The connection between circumcision and violence needs to be established carefully.Michael Glass 03:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By "always", I was referring to circumcision on a worldwide scale. If a person says "weapons have always been tied to war and violence", that is not implicating all weapons or all persons who have weapons (as a blanket statement), is it? Nonetheless, I should hope it's a fair NPOV assessment of historical context, and the invariant way it applies to worldwide history, I would expect. If there is a better way I could have phrased this notion, I cannot think of it at present. DanP 22:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The statement, while one possible explanation of the origin and propogation of circumcision, is not the only one, nor even the only plausible one, that has been advanced. Promotion of endogamy within a group, or as a hygeinic measure where regular bathing is impractical, have particular sociobiolical relevance. Quite frankly, the custom predates history, and to claim certain knowledge of how it arose and spread is POV. Shimmin 22:48, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• True. But do you really think that will stop them? - Friends of Robert 07:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added more information on forced circumcisions. The problem is not just confined to Muslims. Several sources are given for the forced circumcisions that happened in the Moluccas. If anyone feels that there is not enough evidence, or if they find that any link does not work, please comment here. Michael Glass 13:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Michael one must credit the anti-circumcision zealots over at cirp.org for their exhaustive research. I think they have found every possible snippet with regard to forced circumcisions that can be found online. Some stuff is so obscure as to be bearly relevant or representative. But let that be. I would ask that in return you become the champion of the insertion of equally obscure detail which may balance the various articles perhaps coming from a different angle. I will watch your attitude towards this with interest as it will be a kind of test of your integrity in these matters. All this said remember Theresa's Law, which is clear that if it is not supportable through a credible source then it gets deleted. I am going to tidy up a bit in the main article and will expect to rely on your support if either or both of the Dans start frothing at the mouth. Good to see you working constructively on this matter Michael. - Robert the Bruce 16:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, why do you use such a sneering tone about evidence of human rights abuses? Am I to gather that the suffering of persecuted people in obscure places is of no concern to you? Michael Glass 22:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Michael it is the narrow focus upon the foreskin which is both hilarious and deeply sad at the same time. The thought that there are people out there ignoring the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda and searching the news wires hour after hour in the hope of tracking down reports of incidents which relate to the foreskin. It tells a story, a very sad story. One would love to hear the explanation behind this narrowest of focus on the foreskin. - Robert the Bruce 03:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please read your comment again and ask yourself what it says about you and your preoccupations. The article is on circumcision. That accounts for the focus on forced circumcisions. However, through that concern we can see a whole pattern of abuse and disregard for human rights. That said, I am glad to see that we share a concern about the appalling human rights abuses in Darfur and other places.Michael Glass 04:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Less questionable link and stats

Rich Farmbrough replaced U.S. government statistics and a government link with cirp-based stuff. I would like Mr. Farmbrough to attempt to defend this change, in particular, how does it lead to a more NPOV article? func(talk) 19:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted them to the U.S. government figures, which obviously carry far more weight. Jayjg 20:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I think that Rich Farmbrough was attempting to bring the statistics up to date. The US gov't statistics are from 1999; the CIRP statistics are from 2001. Moreover, according to CIRP, the circumcision rate decreased by almost 4% between 1999 and 2001, a fairly substantial change.

I think ideally we should have government statistics from 2003 or 2004, but we should leave the '99 government stats in the article for now. Does anyone know where updated government statistics can be acquired?

Acegikmo1 23:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Sadly Acegikmo1 your bias shows through here. CIRP is an anti-circumcision site and can not be taken seriously in such matters. To attempt to present CIRP as a factual source on circumcision when all the content there is carefully selected for it anti-circumcision propaganda value proves you are POV pushing and as such should stop. - Friends of Robert 01:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, you are Robert. You show one of his most defining characteristics: inappropriate and bizarre accusations. Acegikmo1 was advocating for the inclusion of government statistics. Seriously, Robert, you only hurt your own cause when you attack those who are pushing for a neutral point of view. func(talk) 03:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Maybe you missed it. It is strange that he even considers CIRP as a possible resource. CIRP is clearly a selection of carefully chosen material to suit the anti-circumcision agenda. You do understand all this I suppose? - Friends of Robert 10:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you like to read into things a bit too much. I believe that both anti-circumcision sites and pro-circumcision sites can present factual information. To say that because a site has a position on circumcision it "cannot be taken seriously" pretty much eliminates all sources of information for a decent article.

As for POV pushing, you may want to re-read what I wrote. "I think ideally we should have government statistics from 2003 or 2004, but we should leave the '99 government stats in the article for now." I was advocating AGAINST using CIRP statistics. So, who's POV pushing?

Acegikmo1 01:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Please don't go and make it worse now. The CIRP figures which you claimed were for 2001 were projections which suited their anti-circumcision agenda. Nothing factual there and no surprise that the indicate a steady drop in the rate. Clearly they cannot be taken seriously. In fact as such very little from CIRP can be seen other than being "one-side" of the argument. BTW if you are so keen on factuality why not have a look over the whole article and remove all the stuff which cannot be absolutely verified? You will be busy, busy, busy. - Friends of Robert 01:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert, try not to be as rabidly pro-circumcision as the anti-circumcision activists are anti-circumcision, and people will take your statements more seriously. Also, try not to jump down the throat of people who are actually trying to remove anti-circumcision bias from the page. CIRP is an anti-circumcision site, which means its material should be viewed with extreme caution. However, that does not mean that every single item on the site is, by definition, false. Jayjg 02:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did I say that all the stuff on the CIRP site is false? No! What I am saying is that it is all carefully selected for inclusion in so far as it serves the anti-circumcision agenda. They also have the habit of inserting notes and comment into the articles so as to guide readers how to interpret the stuff from the "correct" perspective. I'm further saying that not only should its content be viewed with extreme caution but all CIRP cites should be immediately followed by a disclaimer (and not some bland foot note to the effect that it is anti-circumcision). Perhaps it should be declared POV by the Hobbits of Wikipedia and be done with? - Friends of Robert 05:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any CIRP stuff that is false should not be cited. Any CIRP stuff that is true can be cited. Why would any disclaimer be required for true information, even if it comes from the CIRP site? Jayjg 05:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Pretty simple really. CIRP contains only carefully selected stuff which supports their anti-circumcision agenda. If it appears on CIRP it is deemed useful to the anti-circumcision argument (thus POV). That makes it simple. The disclaimer would alert people to the fact that they are seeing only one side of the argument ... and that would be a good thing for Wikipedia to do, yes? I further suggest that any article from CIRP that has inserted notes or comment or highlighted sections should be automatically precluded from being cited on Wikipedia. - Friends of Robert 05:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and pro-circumcision sites present pro-circumcision information. In fact, most websites have an agenda of one sort or another, and present information favorable to that agenda. However, if specific information on the sites themselves is true and accurate, then it can certainly be incorporated into any NPOV article when the information is of value. There is no need for special treatment of true information from websites; if we followed your prescription we wouldn't be able to cite any websites at all on Wikipedia. Jayjg 06:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• That is not what I am saying. I am saying that where a particular piece is carefully selected for its support for one side of the argument it should be disclosed as such. Pubmed and Medline stuff does not fall into this category for instance. By all means use stuff from anywhere but where the source is obviously POV then state it. The problem I have is where they take an article, insert notes and comments and highlight certain sensentences those particular "doctored" articles should not be allowed to be cited on Wikipedia. Seems simple enough. - Friends of Robert 06:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems the exact opposite of "simple". People have strong feelings about webpages and POV on them; next you will have the anti-circumcision activists insisting that all pro-circumcision material have an asterisk beside it as well, noting that in their view it comes from a "pro-circumcision, and therefore biased" source. Soon every linked source on every article will have an asterisk beside it because some editor somewhere believes it to be baised. If an article is doctored, then there is no need to note its source, since it should not be used in the first place. If an article is factual, then there is no need to note its source, since it is factual. Jayjg 06:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

The Bollinger article from the cirp site has a couple of problems. For the period 1870-1979, it takes its estimates of the circumcision rate from one of Wallerstein's books. For the period 1990-2001, it uses its own calculations, which is based on the NCHS numbers for live male births, but not the NCHS numbers for circumcisions. Rather, it takes its circumcision numbers from a private consultant. The consultant's numbers are only a couple percentage points below the government's before 1995, but thereafter, are substantially below the government numbers. But the biggest problem with the paper is how it handles the period 1979-1990. Not having its own data to use for this period, and refusing to accept the government numbers, it simply plots a fairly linear decline from 85% in 1979 to where its data picks up again in at 63% 1990. During the same period, the government's data make rather small fluctuations around 65%.

This is my guess, but I think the source of this problem is that Wallerstein attempts to estimate the total rate of childhood circumcisions, while both the government's data and the consultant's are based on hospital surveys, which don't capture that fraction of circumcisions performed under ritual circumstances, or those done in the doctor's office in the first few weeks or months of life. Hence the 20% gap between Wallerstein's 1979 number and the government's. The sharp decline reported in the Bollinger paper during the 1980s is actually an interpolation covering a change in reporting method. Shimmin 01:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Good point, but I'm not sure CIRP would let a few facts get in the way of a chance to sell a half truth. As you can imagine the issue of circ rates in the US is a dynamite issue among the anti-circumcision activists. It has been noted that there is some despondency among their ranks that all there best efforts have shown so little results in this regard. The people who publish such stats also realise that it is a hot button and seem (understandably) to be in no hurry to publish anything which would lead to their being harassed or worse as a result. The fact is that CIRP's stats can be simply ignored. Then other figures need to be see as an indication and no more. I am not so sure why there is a need for detailed figures anyways? - Friends of Robert 01:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have found a table with data up through 2002 that is based on the same NDHS survey that the NCHS uses, but I am hesitant about using it. While its data, when broken down by region and race, is the same as the government data through 1999, the total figure is different. Its explanation of the discrepancy is that the government's "total" includes only black and white data, so that adding other data for other racial groups back in is necessary to reach the correct total. The government site, for its part, says that the total is the total for "all races," but that only black and white data are broken out for separate reporting because of the small numbers of reports for other racial categories. While I'd expect the government to have a better understanding of its own data, I'm less than entirely sure. Shimmin 16:59, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

It is wise to be circumspect about what to publish. This comment on the Circumcision Frequency Rate in the US comes from here. [7]

"Circumcision Frequency Rate

It is difficult to find accurate data regarding the circumcision frequency rate (CFR) among
neonates and older males in the United States as well as the rest of the world. The published
data are often anecdotal or "best guesses". Most reports estimate an 85% to 98% CFR in the United
States from mid-1940s through the mid-1970s (6). The National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS)
has been referenced regarding approximations of the CFR in the United States since the mid 1980s.
Unfortunately, the NCHS only collects voluntary data from participating hospitals. Fewer than 5%
of hospitals in the United States have their records reviewed by the HCHS. Moreover, many of these
institutions do not document neonatal circumcision as a specific procedure on the medical record.
For such centers, despite having performed circumcisions on the majority of newborns males, the
NCHS would assess a CFR of 0%. The HCHS data reveal an apparent decline in the national CFR from
approximately 68% to 62% during the mid-1980s.

I have been fortunate to have access to the comprehensive database of the United States Army
Patient Administration Systems and Biostatistics Activity at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas. During various
investigations, I have compared their data concerning newborn circumcisions with the information
physically recorded on the hard copies of the infants' medical records. I have found their data to
be highly accurate. The United States Army hospitals are located nationwide and there are a number
of hospitals overseas.

I believe this database information to be the most accurate available reflecting the CFR, and it
may best approximate true CFR trends in the United States. There have been more than 450,000 boys
born in the Army hospitals from 1970 to 1994. We found a decline in the CFR (3,7) from
approximately 88% in the early 1970s to 70% in 1984. I believe this reflected the influence of the
general anticircumcision AAP position of 1971 to 1975 (1,2). Army pediatricians during that period
(of which I was one) generally counseled against the procedure. However as data became available
linking urinary tract infection (UTI) and the presence of a prepuce (7,8), as well as the 1989 AAP
statement regarding other potential medical benefits of the procedure (4), the circumcision
frequency rate had subsequently increased to a level greater than 80% by 1992 (7,9). Lyon reported
a similar increase in the CFR of neonates in Alaska since 1985 (10)."

- Friends of Robert 17:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternative Treatments - more dubious stuff

It was stated in the article: "Urinary tract infections, while much less common in boys, can also be treated with antibiotics without resorting to surgical intervention."
This is only true if the boys are circumcised. The facts are: "The incidence of UTI in the first year of life was 1:47 (2.15%) in uncircumcised males, 1:455 (.22%) in circumcised males, and 1:49 (2. 05%) in females."[8]Uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of a UTI than girls while circumcised boys have a much lower risk than both girls and uncircumcised boys.
Further by the time the boy has reached the point where he requires surgery circumcision as an "afterthought" intervention seems to serve no purpose.[9] - Friends of Robert 06:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In general, the level is less than that of girls. Data on antireflux surgery in Korea is not very compelling evidence, but add it to the article if you think it's relevant. Both male and female babies often respond well to antibiotics, so I can't see why you'd oppose this "dubious" stuff. DanP 23:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• In general is not good enough. This is an old anti-circumcision misrepresentation. The only way the higher incidence of UTI's among uncircumcised boys can be hidden is when all boys are pooled together. Nice try, but the game is up on this one. - Friends of Robert 16:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of trying to deceive. Many populations do not circumcise boys, and the UTI rate remains substantially less than girls. Picking and choosing the intact boys living in a culture with a circumcising medical profession, then looking at some analysis by this medical culture hostile to them during one specialized procedure, that's not slanted to you? Even the US numbers don't say intact boys get more UTI than girls, and our medical profession is hostile enough. I notice you never once suggested using numbers from Europe or anywhere else. So are you saying your specific numbers are better than any general ones? DanP 22:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Please produce the studies which support your position, if you are able. - Friends of Robert 04:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Verification

Is the following NPOV? It is factually accurate, is taken from the female circumcision article, and has had the word 'illegal' removed and the note about the US inserted:

The practice is currently rejected within Western civilization (with the notable exception of religious peoples of the United States), where it is usually regarded an unacceptable (unless medically necessary) form of involuntary body modification.

It is my belief this is is correct (in the West, only the US has circumcision rates above 20%) and indeed it is usually regarded as unacceptable in the modern day and age by western societies post WW2 (see the article itself for confirmation). I am not advocating pro- or anti- circumcision positions, and my own pov is irrelevant in this matter.

User Rhobite reverted my addition of this change without first discussing it with me or the on the talk page. I consider this to be vandalism. For the record, Rhobite has recently edited three articles I created about (famous) friends of mine which were partly factual and partly humorous. I didn't expect them to last for ever but nor did I complain when he culled the pages after only a few hours of being up. He did not discuss this with me beforehand either.Nickshanks

You know, I don't enjoy being accused of vandalism. If I blanked the page and wrote "OMG RHOBITE RULLZ," that would be vandalism. Reverting POV is not vandalism. I, and most other editors, don't normally bring it up on talk pages if it's a simple POV revert.

Circumcision controversy stuff has its own section here and it doesn't really belong in the second paragraph. I also don't believe it's true that the practice is "rejected" within Western civilization. It's not widely practiced, but the word "rejected" has an incorrect connotation. Certainly European Jews circumcise, don't they? In the US, circumcision is not only done by religious people, so that sentence is also factually incorrect. Rhobite 00:17, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Its all about what one considers POV isn't it? Clearly that is where the problem arises. What someone or a group consider to be self evident others start frothing at the mouth over. In this case you picked up on the most blatant POV insertion but in general Wikipedians are clearly not aware of the nuances of the circumcision debate and as such either miss or do not consider it important when facts vital to the anti-circumcision agenda are slipped into the articles. Sadly, there is also evidence of "5th Column" style activity from within the admin/sysop fold which aides and abets this POV insertion by stealth. The question that needs to be asked is whether some who is not aware of the detail on a debate/argument or whatever can arbitrate/mediate to ensure NPOV. The obvious answer is no. - Friends of Robert 06:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"when facts vital to the anti-circumcision agenda are slipped into the articles" Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Well spotted Theresa! That should have been done as such: "facts". - Robert the Bruce 15:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't care whether certain facts support certain agendas - we should care about whether they're true or false. That is factual accuracy, in a nutshell. Rhobite 23:10, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Yes indeed. Alaways happy to accept a fact when I see one. Trouble with this subject is that much of the so-called "facts" presented in a barefaced manner often turn out not to have been facts at all. I suppose that is where wikicrime comes in. - Robert the Bruce 18:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That was the exact point I was making by bolding the word. Facts are always welcome in articles. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe it is factually correct. First, in the United States, circumcision is frequently done as cultural / aesthetic norm without religious connotation. Secondly, it ignores the presence of circumcising religious groups in Europe, or at least excludes them from being civilized in the western sense, which is both inaccurate and POV. Thirdly, it ignores the substantial minority of of Australians and Canadians who choose to circumcise. Secondly, "it is rejected" is excessively strong. Sweden may the the most anti-circumcision jurisdiction in Europe, yet even there, one can circumcise one's child if one elects to do so. The statement was far more accurately applied to female circumcision, as one would have great difficulty finding a surgeon willing to perform the operation on an elective basis in the West. Shimmin 12:24, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

History of male circumcision

On 15 Aug 2004 the section of the Circumcision article covering the history of circumcision was moved to a new article History of male circumcision. Then on 11 Sep 2004 the Circumcision article was reverted to a version before that change. As a result the information about the history of circumcision is now in two articles, Circumcision and History of male circumcision.

The current Circumcision article is 38 kilobytes long. Replacing the section on history with a short summary and link to History of male circumcision would be one way to reduce the size of the Circumcision article. -- DanBlackham 07:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Dan perhaps you should take that up with the smart guys who insisted that the article was consolidated. My current view is that rather than spread this article all over the show it should be condensed accordingly. I will start to remove the idle speculation and other nonsense that has been slipped into the article over time as soon I have some spare time. You are welcome to come along for the ride. - Robert the Bruce 18:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article should have a summary and link to the full history article. IIRC Robert Brookes insisted on removing the history section due to its pov, but refused to help bring it towards neutrality. This is the wrong reason to section it off. It should stay in a separate article but people need to work towards improving it too. Rhobite 18:29, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)"

• Maybe you should separate the two as was done before. Time permitting people can work to improve the history article. In the meantime "dubious" diclaimers for both article should remain in situ. - Robert the Bruce 04:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Procircumcision and Anticircumcision

Nobody is claiming any status is right for all people. These terms are POV and loaded words do express a meaning beyond what either side is really saying. Opponents of circumcision do not go against voluntary circumcision, and proponents do not favor circumcision of cats and dogs. The terms are loaded by wikipedia's own definition. Remember, these are descriptions of tendencies, not the absolutes they attempt to misguide the reader with. Further, these ridiculous claims that boys get more UTI than girls overall is completely without evidence. If the claim is not substantiated, then present both sides. But do not push and push slanted POV. Present both sides, or present neither. DanP 22:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I suggest you read the study Dan. The wording is a clear reflection of the findings. - Robert the Bruce 02:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I've removed "The sexual involvement in circumcision of some of its contributors has been noted [10]." Firstly, the link doesn't support the statement (it only describes the site itself as 'sexually charged'). You really ought to know this, Michael, since you wrote it! Secondly, I don't think it is appropriate to make ad hominem attacks against the membership in the context of a link. Think of it this way - would you regard it as appropriate to say "The sanity of some members is dubious at best" (with a supporting link to Mohl et al or Dagher et al) after a link to say NORM? - Jakew 09:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jake, you're right about the passing reference to Circlist in the letter that was finally published. However, it wasn't just an ad hominem attack on whoever might be behind Circlist. I don't know who might be behind them. However, much of Circlist is sexually charged. Take the following links:

"Masturbation and Circumcision" [11] appears to pander to a pedophile element. "Wife gives husband erotic circ." "Circ-nurse" and "circumcision slut" [12] are obviously written by someone with a fetish about circumcision. Other pages that demonstrate the erotic nature of "Circlist" include [13] [14]

It is because of web pages like this that Circlist is of concern to many people. ````

Semantics

The sentence "Doctors have made many claims about circumcision over the years, including the prevention of masturbation" seems a bit weasely, and unclear to me. I don't think anyone has seriously advocated circumcision because it prevents masturbation for many years now, but "over the years" is vague in this sense. Which years?

"Mohammed was born circumcised" Are you kidding me? I mean, I wouldn't put it past Muslims to believe such a thing (it's about as plausible as a virgin birth, if not more), but the meaning should be clarified; I think one could parse "born circumcised" as "circumcised at birth." I know they mean different things, but I think elaboration here is necessary. Kind of like when you talk about the Christian concept of the Resurrection, you don't just say "They believe Jesus came back from the dead," because Christians don't believe Jesus came back as a ghost or a zombie, they believe his physical body was resurrected. Am I making sense? ThePedanticPrick 20:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a not-entirely-implausible claim. A study of penile morphology of German army recruits found that in about 2% or so of uncircumcised men, the foreskin was too small to cover the corona, and so these men appeared to be circumcised under casual inspection. And while even these men may have had relatively larger foreskins as boys (the penis may have outgrown its foreskin), the Talmud does contain a rabbinical opinion as to what to do in the case of a boy born without a foreskin (a single drop of blood should be drawn from where the foreskin should be—a symbolic circumcision as is done for an already-circumcised adult convert to Judaism. So I would say that being born without a foreskin, or at least apparently without one, is an unusual circumstance, but not one requiring miraculous intervention. Shimmin 22:45, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

ThePedanticPrick, I agree completely. The paragraph was peculiar and confusing. I've replaced it with a shorter one referencing Medical analysis of circumcision. I should probably add History of circumcision. - Jakew 20:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page move

Could Jayjg please explain the move back from Circumcision (male) to Circumcision? Exploding Boy 16:56, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain your move from Circumcision to Circumcision (male) first? Jayjg 17:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should have thought it was obvious: this article is about male circumcision. It doesn't attempt to address female circumcision at all. It says so in the very first paragraph (and it said as much before I cleaned up that paragraph -- I didn't add it). There is a separate article on female circumcision. Exploding Boy 17:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

If you're not going to return to explain your page move, I'm moving it back. Exploding Boy 16:47, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Last August Robert moved the article to Male circumcision. The following quote summarizes the consensus regarding that change:

I think that creating a separate article for "male circumcision" is completely unnecessary. The word "circumcision" almost universally refers to the circumcision of the penis, so moving all the information related to this practice is not good. Acegikmo1 23:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the same reasoning applies to moving the article to Circumcision (male). -- DanBlackham 23:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but I disagree. The article concerns itself exlusively with male circumcision. There is a separate article for female circumcision. The term circumcision is in fact universal; the title of the article should reflect that (as does the title Female circumcision. Exploding Boy 00:40, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Are there two different articles for rape, based on the gender of the victim? Of course not. The gender of the victim is inconsequential, and only serves to obfuscate the topic. -- Bblackmoor 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Ah ... but that presupposes that the act across the genders is the same. Certainly FGM is more than the mere removal of the prepuce? Worth getting your facts right before posting. - Robert the Bruce 05:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of the clitoral hood in females is pretty much exactly anatomically analogous to removal of the prepuce in males. There are of course other forms of female circumcision beyond that, some of which are considered female genital mutilation, but that's not really relevant, is it? there exist identical forms of circumcision for people of both genders, that's the point. -Lethe | Talk

• • Circumcision is certainly more similar across genders than rape is. -- Bblackmoor 05:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In that case we should combine the Female circumcision and circumcision pages. Exploding Boy 16:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. The gender of the victim is a smokescreen. - Bblackmoor 18:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I tried that but the anti-circumcision activists and their fellow travellers around here would have none of it. It becomes fairly easy to predict their responses if one looks at the issue or question from their point of view then ask the question: how can the most anti-circ propaganda value be achieved? Every time a coconut. - Robert the Bruce 04:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well one way or the other something needs to be done. Either it's Male circumcision and Female circumcision or it's just plain old Circumcision. Exploding Boy 16:41, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Do it then, I will support you. But I hasten to add that the cabal will fight to the death over the staus quo. You feel up to the challenge? - Robert the Bruce 17:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the two articles are Male circumcision and Female circumcision I think it would be much easier for people to recognize similarities from an ethics and human rights point of view between cutting the genitals of boys for cultural or religious reasons and cutting the genitals of girls for cultural or religious reasons. Both male circumcision and female circumcision are not medically necessary. Both are done mainly for social or cultural reasons. Both are also done because some parents believe it is a religious requirement to circumcise their son or daughter. -- DanBlackham 10:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Off your grand stand please. Shots (vaccinations) are not medically necessary as no prevailing condition exists at the time of the intervention. So can we safely assume that you are equally vehemently against tampering with the natural immune system as well?- Robert the Bruce 01:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are three very significant differences between the recommended childhood vaccinations and non-therapeutic circumcision.

• The medical and public health benefits of the recommended childhood vaccinations far outweigh the risks and harms. The medical benefits of neonatal circumcision do NOT far outweigh the risks and harms.
• Professional medical and public health organizations unanimously recommend that children should be vaccinated. No professional medical organization in the world recommends that children should be circumcised.
• There is NO effective treatment available for polio once a child is infected with the disease. There are effective, non-invasive treatments available for almost all medical problems related to a boy's foreskin.

As you can see the recommended childhood vaccinations are very different medically and ethically from non-therapeutic circumcision. -- DanBlackham 07:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Only in your mind Dan. The two points which you wish to ignore (because they do not serve your agenda) are the preventive (rather than the therapeutic) nature of the intervention and the supposed lack of concent of the infant concerned (which happen to be the cornerstones of your anti-circumcision activism). Perhaps you can explain the obvious contradiction of your position here? - Robert the Bruce 01:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A preventive intervention for a child who can not give his or her own consent is only ethical if the medical benefits of the intervention far outweigh the risks and harms. The recommended childhood vaccinations meet that standard of care because the preventive benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the risks and harms. On the other hand, non-therapeutic circumcision does NOT meet that standard of care because the preventive benefits of circumcision do NOT far out weigh the risks and harms. That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of every professional medical organization in the world that has an official policy on circumcision. -- DanBlackham 09:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Sadly Dan that is no more than your interpretation. It is sadly pathetic yet funny (in a peculiar sort of way) how you switch from theory to specifics as your agenda dictates. One minute preventive is bad then is good but only if ... give us a break, please. One is obviously aware that the only issue on your mind is the retention of the foreskin at all and any cost. Everything else must be spun in that direction. It is sadly obvious. - Robert the Bruce 13:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia addresses the issue of circumcision as a preventive intervention in children. -- DanBlackham 18:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention." -- College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision

---

Right. I'm moving this page to Male circumcision. Exploding Boy 17:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cited surveys

The article refers to a survey that was conducted in the Midwest that shows that women prefer circumsised men. To make the article more balanced, I provided a link to a survey that found that women prefer intact men. Why was this deleted? I was just making the artcile more balanced. It is also a widely acknowledged fact that women prefer what they are used to in their community. I stated this fact, but it was deleted. Why is this? The present article clearly favors circumcision.

Thanks for pointing that out. I added a link to that information, although almost certainly Robert will delete it. Obviously the studies survey different demographics, so I noted that too as a source of bias. Anyway, if one opinion is deleted, so must the other be. That is NPOV by definition. DanP 18:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These were good additions, Dan. Presenting alternative interpretations and pointing out the possible bias of the surveys is a good approach for NPOV. -- Bblackmoor 19:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

circumsized penis

Again, i suggest we make a link to the picture instead of having it directly on the page, as has been done in other cases. Some people dont want to look at that.209.197.155.38

There has been a vote on the clitoris article. Consensus is pretty clear - photographs of human anatomy should stay on the page. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps one should view it that the "consensus" is that the use of photographs of human anatomy is desirable. Now part of the issue of that pic on the clitoris article was that it was a porn pic where the nail polish was altered to make it look more bland. The bean itself was not exposed so what actual value does that pic have in displaying the clitoris from an anatomical point of view? So while the principle of using pics of human anatomy is sound the selection of the pic in question represents poor judgement. Perhaps it is worth looking at the quality of the pics in the circumcision article? You seem to be an expert in these matters Theresa ... would you like to take the lead on this? - Robert the Bruce 00:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether you find it desirable or not, it's the way we do things around here. The value that the picture has is in showing where the clitoris is located on the body. There is no question of "selection" of the picture. We have no other picture to choose from. Obviously if a better pic comes along then that should replace or be added to the one we already have.But that's off topic here really. What is it about the quality of the current circumcision pictures that you don't like? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 09:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Theresa you seem to be using this talk page to cover issues relating to pictures in a number of articles. My main issue is with the use of a pic in the clitoris article which does not show the clitoris itself but rather a close up of the external female genitals. It seems rather pointless to me and supports my position that the view that any pic will do prevails whether it is of the subject or not. I can see why some people are offended. Now take the following for example [15] and tell me which (your pic or this drawing) gives the reader a better understandinhg of the anatomy of the clitoris. As to the "desperate need" to depict an erect penis in the Penis article. I can't see any particular value in inserting a picture of an erect penis into the main body of the article when there are already images of flacid penises. What is achieved by this "in your face" style? Why not have a link to off site images of one or two erections? My comment on quality of the pics in the circumcision article relates to the black and white images. Perhaps there are colour images available? I am sorry to say that once again it appears that you have shown poor judgement Theresa. It is just not good enough to place a pic on the clitoris page of a full frontal view of the external female genitals with a line indicating that somewhere under the prepuce/skin (somewhere there)lies the clitoris. It is very unprofessional. I would like your opinion as to how we should deal with the Anus with regard to pics? - Robert the Bruce 03:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone actually looked at this picture? (the one of the 'circumcised' penis? it is just an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin retracted, you can see it gathered just below the head

deletion of relevant, factual material

Robert the Bruce, please cease deleting relevant, factual material. If you can demonstrate that something presented as fact is incorrect, please do so. If you want to assert that the facts presented are not relevant to the article, please do so. -- Bblackmoor 00:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry, that is not factual and relevant it is pure spin. You are stating that the "world is flat" and demanding that those who disagree with you explain themselves. Look to yourself. - Robert the Bruce 01:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • pot...kettle...black... (by 161.57.55.159 at 20:15:34, 18 Nov 2004)
• Robert, stop using biased resources for your posts. Don't turn this into a revert war - you have already been banned for a reason. You, along with jake, are citing references to things like Yahoo! Groups claiming they are 'independant references', when they are American-centric sources. You don't even label the study you used under "contemporary views towards circumcision" American or was based on American women. A massive amounts of links and urls has already been removed from the page due partly to you as well. Just compare and contrast the earlier version on 05:50, 20 Oct 2004. From that, you increased a percentage from 15-25% to 20-30% without citing a source, just stealth edits trying to bias a neutral article. And these are the only ones that I currently know of. You removed the entire mention of current attitudes to circumcision by religious groups such as liberal Jews and a list organized non-profit groups dealing with circumcision to a paragraph citing a study on how American women "preferred" a circumcised penis - sexual attitudes that have nothing to do with the neutral POV towards the procedure of circumcision that only furthers your bias! STOP VANDALISING THE ARTICLE. Revasser 22:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi Revasser, I note you arrived here at Wikipedia around the time of the call to arms on various foreskin restoration and anti-circumcision lists. This would explain the sudden inundation of shril comment on the various circumcision related articles. Anyway no need for theatrics here. Lets just stick to the facts and get on with creating an encyclodeia. - Robert the Bruce 10:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • "Lets just stick to the facts...." Sorry, but we tried that, and you keep deleting them. As long as the lunatic fringe can keep removing objective facts and replacing it with pro-mutilation propaganda, Wikipedia is a lost cause. There is a reason that real newspapers and real encyclopedias have real editors. -- Bblackmoor 19:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

      • Ah, I note with interest that your arrival at wikipedia was around the time the call to arms went out on foreskin restoration and anti-circumcision groups. Is that a mere coincidence you suppose? - Robert the Bruce 02:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• lol, is that your only argument? an accusation of saying i come from some anti-circumcision or 'foreskin restoration' group? That is the most pathetic defense I've heard on wikipedia yet.

I think you are the one coming to wikipedia from some organization aiming to spread circumcision.

Do you want proof?

Let's look at you and your buddy Jake's edits at the following posts at circumcision-related topics:

Revision as of 21:03, 21 Nov 2004 (By Robert Blair) and Revision as of 22:49, 21 Nov 2004 (By your friend Jake) under "medical analysis of circumcision":

The original post from YOU had statistics from some Yahoo Group claiming that a 1988 study showed "new mothers preferred circumcised penises at 71%". So Robert (the other one that appears not to be fanatical) added a counter statistic showing that "experienced mothers preferred uncircumcised penises at 85%." So what did Jake do? He then, under his next edit, removed Robert's addition of a valid statistic (backed up by a source not from Yahoo groups, and god knows how accurate ANY of these statistics are to begin with) so that the article remains "pro-circumcision."

It doesn't end with Jake. YOU come in and revert it further with your edit of 02:11, 22 Nov 2004 (Robert the Bruce) to change a couple things: removal of the criticism following your "pro-circumcision statistic" of: "but Laumann did not control for socioeconomic status or general health, which may be confounding factors." and "but that appears to ignore the overall adverse effect of male circumcision on female sexuality as reported in several studies.[16]".

If there's anyone here not willing to contribute to wikipedia as a whole, but to spread a hidden agenda on the subject of circumcision, it's you. To accuse me and Bblackmoor of coming from an "anti-circumcision group" is just ignorant, unfounded, and plain stupid. If anyone's coming from an organized radical group, it's you. Making edits and reverting pages so that they fit your pro-circumcision views and hassling away the opposition with edits and stealth removals/fudging of statistics - to put it simply you are an ignorant troll. Revasser 04:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Methinks thou doth protest too much! ;-) - Robert the Bruce 04:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Turning light-hearted to shrug off an argument is not professional, nor representative of your radical views. Revasser 08:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit wars

The editing on this page seems to be turning into an edit war. I'm requesting that the page be protected. Exploding Boy 23:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Even then it's already been protected in the past. Jake and Robert have shown that their contributions on wikipedia have been exclusively dealing with the male genitilia/foreskin/circumcision. Just look at their contribution history, it's a bit disturbing. I'd go as far as to say that this page needs arbitration, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be approved considering they have had posession from hi-jacking the article since 2 months ago. The majority of edits and revisions are from Robert anyways. Revasser 23:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page has been protected on my request. I'd like to see these clearly contentious issues worked out here. Exploding Boy 23:39, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

There is no point. As long as the lunatic fringe can keep removing objective facts and replacing it with pro-mutilation propaganda, Wikipedia is a lost cause. There is a reason that real newspapers and real encyclopedias have real editors. -- Bblackmoor 19:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, I note with interest that your arrival at wikipedia was around the time the call to arms went out on foreskin restoration and anti-circumcision groups. Is that a mere coincidence you suppose? - Robert the Bruce 02:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Accusations, accusations. All unfounded. I can personally say that I'm not from these "groups" that you speak of - but I don't really care if you continue to accuse anyone of this that finds your trolling offensive. It just makes you look pitiful. Revasser 04:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Methinks thou doth protest too much! ;-) - Robert the Bruce 04:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Turning light-hearted to shrug off an argument is not professional, nor representative of your radical views. Revasser 08:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• So tell us which list are you from? Restorer? - Robert the Bruce 16:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Who is 'us'? And I'm not from any group; I'm not a partisan troll to spread an agenda like you. Revasser 01:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia advocates maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV). This means that all established opposing views have a place in these articles, as long as one view is not made to appear "correct". It should be up to the reader to make that decision. --Thoric 23:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV should be maintained both POV should be expressed in the article, but preventing either POV from being seen as the better or worse of the two. One may say "most X have this opinion" IF it is true. But it must not be expressed in such a way as to state "and the minority who don't are idiots". CheeseDreams 23:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you both agree to allow the others POV to exist in the article? CheeseDreams 23:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I have balanced the article from Robert's fudgeup of statistics on circumcision rates - if you take the populations of countries there (with respective circumcison rates of countries where it is not 100%) and divide them by the world population, then it does not make up to be 20-30%. Furthermore, in countries where the religion is predominantly Muslim or Jewish, populations of that religion were used (in most cases it was 90+%), or in special cases such as South Korea where the entire population is used. Population statistics were divided in accordance to male/female gender rate.

Information source used was CIA World Factbook 2004.

Removal of subjective American-centric statistic concering how women "preferred" circumcised penises - contradictory results have been posted before on another article on wikipedia regarding "experienced mothers" preferences. Data is subjective, biased, and holds no value for international visitors to wikipedia except Americans; weak scientific methodology. Revasser 10:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert - what is your source of "20 - 30%"? Revesser - why did you cut "Following circumcision, the pain is controllable using oral analgesics. Normally there is no distress when the penis is flaccid, but erections can cause significant discomfort for several days following the operation. Urination is normal during healing, and sexual functions can usually be resumed after 2-3 weeks. Some men report unpleasant sensitivity of their glans after circumcision, but this normally diminishes completely within the first month." ? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I'd favour that paragraph to stay in the article

2. I would propose readding the USA-study paragraph with the following modifications:

Besides cultural or religious motivations for circumcision, a 1988 study of new mothers in the midwestern United States (an area with a high circumcision rate) found that 71% of the participants preferred a circumcised partner for sexual intercourse, and 83% for giving fellatio. 92% cited cleanliness and 90% appearance as reasons. [17] Jpkoester1

• Oh whoops I forgot about mentioning that. That's too relative and certainly much too judgmental. For example, you cannot say that since you felt no pain from taking your wisdom teeth out, that there will be no pain for anyone else. Sure, you can give the aftercare information on the procedure itself (but even thats a bit subjective because theres so many different types of circumcision), but describing a personal experience is not helpful when it comes to a NPOV. Because of that, paired with the fact that it is quite irrelevant to the methodology of the procedure itself, makes it jargon.

Sorry for forgetting to sign. Have done it now. Hope it's ok if I put my comment inbetween yours. If not just move it below. I don't think anyones speaking about personal experiences. If you have any contrary evidence go ahead and put it in. I'll be the last to delete it. Until then I think the paragraph makes sense. Maybe we could tweak it a little to get to a compromise.

"Following circumcision, the pain is usually controllable using oral analgesics. Normally there is no significant distress when the penis is flaccid, but erections can be painfull for several days following the operation. Urination is usually normal during healing, and most of the time sexual functions can be resumed after 2-3 weeks. Some men report unpleasant sensitivity of their glans after circumcision, but this normally diminishes completely within the first month." --Jpkoester1 12:16, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph looks good to me. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• However it is still very arbitrary and there is no authority source - can you provide one? I have not removed it from the page, but it needs to be fixed. Revasser 09:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes to it, but it is basically correct. I speak from my own adult circumcision experience, as well as that of many men I've advised. -Jakew 14:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Secondly, the other study whoever posted after Theresa advocated is USA-centric; wikipedia is based on having a NPOV. And your proposal is taken into consideration, but you have given absolutely no reasoning or justification. Even further, as I already said, there is contradictory evidence to such subjective statistics. Revasser 11:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Added a bullet to your statement above to make it more readable) It's a study made in the US. The paragraph clearly states that it's a study made in the US. The study is adequately sourced and thus deserves to be in the article (my opinion of course). I don't see any reason not to include it as long as it sais what it is. If you have contradictory evidence go ahead and add it to the paragraph. I'll be the last to delete any adequately sourced information. Oh, and in case you have wondered, my own penis is not circumcised and it won't be - so please don't assume that I am trying to push a POV. As you might have noticed I haven't made any sweeping changes to the Article. My goal is to work towards a compromize diplomatically and quietly. Cheers, --Jpkoester1 12:16, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an international site. Now, you cannot put American-centric sutdies that have been CONTRADICTED with other studies - and are ethnocentric themselves! If an incentive to circumcise because American women prefer circumcised penises exists, then it ONLY applies to Americans. But that would not even be justified, even without the existance of contradictory studies! Thus we have two points! So unless you're going to leave both views and sides of the ball here, it's either all or nothing. Revasser 09:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revasser, firstly, I took the liberty of signing the preceding comment on your behalf. Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Williamson's findings apply only to American women. Plenty of surveys have shown similar preferences elsewhere in the world. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the only surveys with contradictory results surveyed female anti-circumcision activists! - Jakew 14:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cite a neutral source that criticises the study of that - furthermore, how can it not only apply to American women if it is a study based in America? "Similar preferences elsewhere in the world" show the same thing? Are you talking about the one done in Turkey or South Africa that has an even higher circumcision rate than the US? You and I both know the reasons for sexual preferences is due to what is deemed normal in the country - so unless you remove both the statistics, you have no right to remove mine because yours is just as biased. Revasser 16:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly I've taken the libert of adding User:Jpkoester1 sig as he forgot. Secondly the paragraph on pain relief isn't all that personal. I think it should be edited rather than deleted. Also the study on appearence - it is US centric - but any local study will suffer from that problem. We should indicate that this study was done in the US and so only applies to that area but that is no reason to cut the section completely IMO. I think the reasoning is obvious. If most women in that area prefer a circumcised man, then some men will want to be circumcised in order to appear more attractive to women.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, Robert has changed the statistic from 15-20% to 20-30% without ANY reason OR justification. I have already gave my arguments; as I have worked the population ranges and expected circumcision rates - however he does nothing but revert and edit such doings without explanation. I am tired of having to come here to cope with a troll that wants to spread an agenda. Further trolling will be a request in page protection or arbitration from an administrator. Revasser 09:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the statistic quoted to "15-30%". This, I hope, will accomodate everyone. -Jakew 14:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But a statistic isn't something that should be negotiable. Robert should say where he is getting the 20 - 30% from. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, statistics shouldn't be negotiable. The 30% figure is supported by: "It has been estimated that approximately one-third of the male population has been circumcized." (sic) [18]. Now, can we see some justification for the lowest figure? - Jakew 15:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The male circumcision rate in the USA is under 60%, down from a high of 85% in 1979. Most European, Asian, and Latin American countries have a near zero circumcision rate." You do the math. "Worldwide prevalence: The U.S. is the only country in the world that routinely circumcises most of its male infants for non-religious reasons. Over 80% of the world's males are intact." [19] [20] [21] Revasser 16:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Over 80% intact implies under 20%. But it does not imply 15%. Could you please do the math for us to justify 15%. Cheers Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This is a good opportunity to understand what anti-circumcision activists term "a near zero circumcision rate". (the quote comes from NOCIRC per kind favour our POV friend Revasser.) Two recent news articles indicate as follows: Around 8.5% of children born in the Netherlands are circumcised and a total of about seven or eight percent of the total population. in Trinidad and Tobago. So I thought I should just educate you all that in the mind of an anti-curcumcision activist 7-8% equals "near zero". You go figure. - Robert the Bruce 04:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that most boys who are circumcised in the Netherlands and in Trinidad and Tobago are circumcised because their parents are Muslims. The article on the Netherlands says "90% of circumcisions are carried out for religious, rather than health reasons". The article on Trinidad and Tobago quotes a doctor who estimates "the percentage of men in the country who had been circumcised as being 'the Muslim population plus two or three percent of the general population,' or a total of about seven or eight percent of the total population". -- DanBlackham 08:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The fact that the circumcisions are based on religious requirement says nothing about the deliberte attempt of NOCIRC and other anti-circumcision activists to deliberately misrepresent the truth. Since when in a normal persons mind does 7-8% equate to "next to nothing"? - Robert the Bruce 22:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A standard for controversial articles, then lift the protection.

Forgive me for being simplistic here, but topics as controversial as this call for a standard. My suggestion is to have within this article sections for "The Case For Male Circumcision" and "The Case Against Male Circumcision", and a clear acknowedgement of the controversial nature of the topic. Most likely, once the protection is lifted, the two sections will initially grow quite large. Then proponents of each view can start work on on eliminating some the redundancies in each section, point by point, until we have a manageable and well written piece.

I don't know who wrote this suggestion, but I agree just on principle. However, there is no controversy about male circumcision whatsoever. Only infant circumcision and other involuntary circumcisions are in dispute here. I can't imagine a paragraph The Case For Marijuana claiming they want to tie down children and force them to smoke it. The pro-mutilation folks take a different view distinct from "live and let live". These are all very different points of contention, and this article has done nothing but swap labels as slowly the juvenile behavior and radical anti-foreskin agenda dominates the article. DanP 23:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert war

Page protected. Please settle your disputes! David.Monniaux 17:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)