Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Fred Bauder writes that Nathan J. Yoder's user page cannot be found. It is at: User talk:Njyoder. - Jakew 23:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder writes "There are a number of websites devoted to information regarding circumcision and related issues: infocirc.org (http://www.infocirc.org/welcome.htm), circumstitions.com (http://www.circumstitions.com/) and others". This is not an accurate description. These sites are devoted to disinformation. The latter example clearly states that it 'does not pretend to be "balanced"'. A better description would be:

• There are a number of websites devoted to opposing circumcision and related.....

Would Fred Bauder mind correcting the description? - Jakew 01:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Might in the morning. Fred Bauder 02:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jake is a pro-circumcision activist or as he probably prefers an anti-genital integrity activist. He is the owner of a pro-circumcision web site. Jake's statement that web sites opposed to circumcision "are devoted to disinformation" is more a reflection of his own pro-circumcision agenda than the accuracy of the information on those web sites.

There are many web sites both for and against circumcision. The external links section of the circumcision article [1] has a fairly good list of both pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision web sites. However the official statements of professional medical organizations are the best source of unbiased information about circumcision. [2] -- DanBlackham 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect, Dan. As you'll see from my user page, I neither advocate nor oppose circumcision. I do, however, believe that accurate, honest information is vital to anyone's decision (a view shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics, among other notables). An example of disinformation that hampered my own personal decision was the oft-repeated claim by anti-circumcision activists that the glans desensitises (for example, see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Scientific research, however, has shown this to be false (see [8] and [9]).

I don't oppose "genital integrity" - it's just an idea I happen not to take as a guiding principle. I have no objection to people describing their beliefs, as long as they're honest and don't try to misrepresent the facts. Call me a pro-honesty activist, and I'll gladly accept the title. - Jakew 15:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When someone spends significant time and energy trying to convince non-Muslim and non-Jewish parents that cutting off a normal, healthy part of their son's penis without a valid medical indication is an acceptable practice in the 21st century in my opinion he or she is a pro-circumcision activist. When someone repeatedly exaggerates the small potential medical benefits of circumcision and minimizes the risks and harms and dismisses the idea that an intact male may place value in his own foreskin in my opinion he or she is a pro-circumcision activist.

Jake, many men who have restored their foreskin and men who were circumcised as adults disagree with your opinion regarding glans sensitivity. Their personal experience is different than yours. The placebo affect could also be the explanation for your claim that there was no loss in glans sensitivity after your circumcision. -- DanBlackham 05:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Dan. Call me a pro-circumcision activist if you like. Don't forget that by your definition, you're also calling the AAP, AMA, and other professional organisations the same. My position is no different to that of the 1999 AAP policy statement.

I have never included my personal experience in an article, simply because it would not be appropriate. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. Scientifically, anecdotal evidence has little value. If you want to convince me of "exaggerated" benefits, "minimised" harms, or "loss" of sensitivity, show me the facts. Show me credible, peer-reviewed studies (preferably performed by people without an agenda) that demonstrate these things, and I will not only endorse their inclusion in Wiki, I'll also change my opinion on that matter. Note: when selecting such studies, please remember that the high standard of methodology insisted upon by anti-circ activists in their endless critiques of "flawed" studies will be applied. I look forward to reading what you have to offer. - Jakew 09:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The American Medical Association (AMA) does not try to convince parents that medically unnecessary circumcision is an acceptable cultural practice. Of all the professional medical organizations only the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that circumcision for cultural or religious reasons is "legitimate". The summary of AMA report is very similar to the summary of the AAP statement with one important exception. The AMA report does not include the following sentence: "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision." The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) is even less supportive of medically unnecessary circumcision of children. The RACP statement says, "The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit."

The AAP and other professional medical organizations do not even mention a relationship between circumcision status and prostate cancer. However you added a section to medical analysis of circumcision about prostate cancer. [10] That is an example of what I mean by "exaggerates the small potential medical benefits of circumcision". -- DanBlackham 05:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...so the AMA neither advocates nor opposes circumcision, but instead recommends an informed decision. The RACP mention that others have raised the (frankly silly) human rights argument, but do not endorse that idea.

Now, why do you think I exaggerate benefits? Did those studies not find a protective effect? Did I misquote the figures? Or is your objection simply that you don't like the facts? This is an encyclopaedia, and we are supposed to report the facts, not pass judgement on them. Finally, do you think I exaggerate because I mention something not discussed by the AAP? If so, would you advocate removing every reference not in the AAP's policy statement? I doubt it. - Jakew 23:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding circumcision status and risk for prostate cancer, correlation does not imply causation. -- DanBlackham 02:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings

One of the proposed findings is

It is the contention of Robert the Bruce that "there is a well orchestrated attempt by anti-circumcision activists to force their POV in related articles on Wikipedia".

Does an Aye vote indicate that you agree that Robert made the statement or that you agree that Robert's contention is correct? Obviously there are several contributors who are strongly opposed to non-therapeutic circumcision. However Robert's suggestion that contributors opposed to non-therapeutic circumcision are "well orchestrated" is not accurate and is a refection of his own pro-circumcision activism. -- DanBlackham 02:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would just mean that they agree that this is what Robert says. Obviously nobody on ArbCom is going to take anybody's word for anything. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Including yours Tony, including yours. - Robert the Bruce 16:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Including mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The finding of fact reflects Robert the Bruce's beliefs, which had some foundation in fact, but to which he probably over-reacted. Fred Bauder 03:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)