Talk:Circumcision/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 25

Contents

AIDSMAP report

I think it's significant to draw other editors' attention to AIDSMAP's report of the preliminary report of AIDS transmission in HIV positive men who resumed sexual relations before the circumcision wound had fully healed. If you read it you will see that there is a lot more detail of what happened and why the information was released at such a preliminary stage. <http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3CBF12A3-A1AC-4A0E-A79C-54FC6EF93E28.asp> At this moment the text of the article described this report as 'a news report'. I think it would be more accurate for the text to read as follows:

A preliminary report suggested that newly circumcised HIV positive men may be more likely to spread HIV to their female partners if they have sexual intercourse before the wound is fully healed. Researchers described the data as 'inconclusive' and stated that it 'may be due to chance,'<http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3CBF12A3-A1AC-4A0E-A79C-54FC6EF93E28.asp> but said it was important to put it on the public record at this time because policies on circumcision are currently being drafted.

I think it is better to use the link to the AIDSMAP report because it is fuller and more detailed than the others and also clearer and easier to understand. There is also a report in the New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/health/13prev.html> but it reads the same as the others, as far as I can see. Michael Glass 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New findings on Langerhans cells

I have inserted information on Geijtenbeek's new study on Langerhans cells. This study, which argued that Langerlin eats up and destroys HIV-1 cells, is in striking contrast to the previous hypothesis, which regarded the Langerhans cells as "target cells", weak points in the body's defence against HIV. We are then faced with the paradox of different commentators regarding the same cells as targets or protectors, and how to maintain a neutral point of view. I therefore changed the rest of the text to accommodate this situation. I have also put the Fleiss and Hodges hypothesis last, as it would appear to have been largely superseded by Geijtenbeek. Michael Glass 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention circumcision, thus including it here is OR. (Edited to add:) Nor does Geijtenbeek's letter itself (well, the abstract doesn't). We need to wait until someone links and discusses the two in a reliable source. Jakew 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether circumcision is mentioned but whether Langerhans cells are "target cells" for HIV or effective fighters against HIV. If there is some contrary evidence it should be mentioned. I see no particular problem with the sources quoted. After all, we quote your letter in this section, so why not refer to Geijtenbeek's letter? I agree that the wording should be trimmed; I don't think it should be removed entirely.Michael Glass 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about Langerhans cells, Michael. It's about circumcision. The only reason for discussing LCs is to discuss the biological mechanism by which circumcision affects HIV transmission. Thus, it includes papers that people have written about that subject, or works that explicitly criticise those papers.
Trouble is, we need something other than User:Michael Glass's assertion that it even relates to circumcision. If Geijtenbeek's research is relevant to the article, then surely you can find a reliable source that discusses it in that context? Jakew 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Langerhans cells, according to one theory, are "target cells" for HIV. However, there is new evidence that these cells excrete a substance that destroys HIV. It seems perverse to delete any reference to this finding simply because the study doesn't mention circumcision explicitly. It's like rejecting evidence, not because of credibility, but because it isn't on the correct form. Michael Glass 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The legality of circumcision

Although circumcision is traditionally regarded as legal, this usually applies to medical circumcisions. When it comes to others, there have been a couple of cases where people have been convicted of assault. I think it is important to note that fact. I believe it is also important to note that the forced circumcision of an adult is against the law.Michael Glass 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, forced circumcision has nothing to do specially with circumcison, it is a form of battery. Being forcibly stabbed in the genitals is no different than being stabbed in the chest, other than less life-threating, perhaps. Are you next going to go to Boxing and write that "forcibly boxing someone is illegal"? How about Surgery. that's even MORE invasive, and when forced has worse detrimental effects. Are you going to edit that as well? -- Avi 07:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, thanks for having the courtesy of at least talking about your edit. Let us look at the cases I cited. First, the case of a man named Baxter:

Baxter used a hunting knife to slice into his son's foreskin. He called 911 when his son began bleeding profusely.
Rulli said Baxter inflicted not only physical damage to his son, who received stitches, but probably also psychological damage.
On Dec. 7, a jury convicted Baxter of assault of a child in the second degree. <http://www.cirp.org/news/thecolumbian12-16-04/>

I contend that this had everything to do with the fact that Baxter tried to circumcise his son. Of course I agree that it was a form of battery.

Now let's look at another case:

A 77-year-old Turkish national who performed ritual circumcisions on seven boys was convicted Tuesday in Germany of causing dangerous bodily harm and fined 2,100 euros. Prosecutors told the state court in Dusseldorf that circumcision was only allowed in Germany for medical reasons and could only be performed by surgeons. Traditional Turkish Muslims practise circumcision on boys aged 6 to 11 as a manhood initiation ritual. <http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Germany_fines_circumciser_for_initi_10172006.html>

Here again, the man was convicted of causing "dangerous bodily harm". Let's pass over what the prosecutors alleged about the law and note that the police said he used dirty instruments and university scientists said he did not follow the rules of hygiene. Nevertheless, he was prosecuted for performing ritual circumcisions and convicted, and this had everything to do with the fact that he had circumcised the boys.

Now let's look at a third case:

Man sues for circumcision
BRISBANE -- A district court has awarded a man R35 000 for nervous shock after a botched attempt to circumcise him with a broken beer bottle in a drunken attack.
Mr Irwin Brookdale, 34, was drinking with a group of Aborigines on the banks of a river in the far north Queensland state last year when he fell asleep and passed out. A woman with the group, Gladys, felt down his pants and realising he was not circumcised, exhorted the others to make a man out of him.
Mr Bookdale landed up in hospital and had to have a corrective therapeutic circumcision the next day.
Making Australian legal history, the award was made against Ambrose John Neal for unlawful wounding. -- Sapa-AFP <http://www.dispatch.co.za/1997/10/09/page%2015.htm>

Once again, a man was unlawfully wounded. This was when he was assaulted with a broken beer bottle in an attempt to circumcise him. Once again, this battery had everything to do with the fact that his assailants tried to circumcise him against his will.

Pointing out these facts is simply to acknowledge that this kind of thing happens, that it is wrong, and that forcible circumcision is an assault and a battery. I hope that this clarifies the point that I am making. Michael Glass 08:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I don't think anyone disputes your "point" but it is a non-point. It's needlessly specific, just like there's no need to specifically say that stabbing someone in the eye is illegal on Tuesdays, because it's illegal on every day. Excluding surgery, it's illegal to forcibly cut any part of another's body. We don't need to specify particular body parts, or days of the week, because the general rule applies. Jakew 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jake, if thugs were kneecapping people to stop them talking to the police it would still be an assault, but the motivation would be significant. When zealots drove planes into the World Trade Centre, it is suicide and murder, but if we deliberately excluded any mention of what might have motivated this attack, that would be perverse. Similarly, when drunken louts forcibly circumcise a man to make a man of him by circumcising him, their motivation is significant. Suppressing any mention of forced circumcision is quite curious, Michael Glass 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not, unless suppressing information about forced drinking to make a man out of someone or forced raping of a woman to make a man out of the rapist is similar. Forced circumcision is not a crime because of the circumcision, but because it is an example of forcing one persons will on another in a way that causes harm. That has nothing to do with the ACT being performed, any more than stabbing someone has to do with surgery. Michael, your zeal to place anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling. Are you certain you can edit this article neutrally? What are your motivations with this, Michael? -- Avi 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, I look forward to your annotations on the cooking article, noting that cooking and eating your children has been found to be a crime in at least three jurisdictions. Nandesuka 21:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, perhaps it's about time you looked at what you are doing. You give yourself away in this phrase: "anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling". Of course you blame it on my "zeal" but what does it say about you? It reveals your zeal to remove anything that will even tangentially cast circumcision in a poor light. And this is where the trouble lies. I don't mind if there are things that are pro or con circumcision in the article. But you do. You'll fight tooth and nail against anything that is even tangentially "anti circumcision" in your eyes. That is your bias and I can't see how you can edit this article neutrally. What are your motivations, Avi? Michael Glass 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You quoted Avi as saying ""anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling" when what Avi actually said was "Michael, your zeal to place anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling.". By omitting a few choice words one can completely change the meaning of something. Neitherday 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Neitherday. Michael, looking at this conversation, it strikes me as somewhat apparent as to who is allowing their point-of-view to color their editing. No one denies you your right to feel that circumcision is the worst think since mass murder--but you may not edit the article with intent to color it that way, as you have selectively edited my words. Also, that is exactly my problem with CIRP. Do you see what removing, or even not highlighting, a few words can do to an article? Micahel, I seriously suggest rethinking how you edit, and re-reading our NPOV policies. You can add, and have added, a lot to this article, but you have allowed, and are allowing, your point of view to color how you edit, to the point that some things you add (legality) border on the absurd. It makes it very difficult to assume good faith when you ad legality to circumcision, but not to barbering, becuase forced haircutting is a crime too, you know. You are smart and knowledgable, and have the ability to add much to the article, but it must be in accordance with wiki polices and guideline and I am afraid you are failing that at current. Thank you. -- Avi 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I did quote you selectively, and I do regret that this caused needless misunderstanding. Both you and Neitherday missed the fact that I said it was a phrase and that you blame it on my zeal. It wasn't my intention to state or imply that this was your view. However, you did give yourself away when you blamed me for my zeal to place anything that will even tangentially cast circumcision in a poor light. If you can't stand anything in the article that in your view might, even tangentially, reflect poorly on circumcision, what does it say about your bias? What does it say about your bias when you delete even mentioning the fact that some have argued against the legality of infant circumcision? What is absurd about documenting this fact? Even the rules of Wikipedia say that minority views have a place in articles, as long as there isn't undue emphasis.

It seems that forced circumcision is a very sensitive point with you and a couple of others. In fact, it is so sensitive that you are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any mention of this fact. I don't understand why forced circumcisions are so sensitive that you don't even want them mentioned. The arguments you use are strong on rhetoric but weak on logic.

You said, " No one denies you your right to feel that circumcision is the worst think since mass murder" Where is your evidence? That is not my view, and I find it hard to assume good faith from a person who assumes that it is. Michael Glass 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside of you creatively editing their statements, Avi has never so much as implied that anything should be left out on the basis that it puts circumcision in a poor light. The point Avi appears to be making is that you use that as a criteria for what should be put in. Neitherday 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. I put material in the article, together with links, that show that forced circumcisions are illegal. Avi deleted it. See the edit record. He then said, and I quote the sentence in full: " Michael, your zeal to place anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling." So he finds potentially troubling anything that even tangentially casts circumcision in a poor light. This is clear evidence of his point of view and his bias. It appears he divides information into two camps: information that is even tangentially in favour of circumcision he has no trouble with; information that even tangentially casts circumcision in a poor light he finds potentially troubling. He is entitled to his point of view, of course, but it is not value free. Maybe that is why he accuses me of believing that circumcision is the worst "think" since mass murder, when I never said nor implied any such nonsense. Michael Glass 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for that edit to the cooking article. Nandesuka 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If all you can do is sneer, don't expect me to take you seriously,Michael Glass 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to introspect here and understand why this addition of yours was absolutely, unquestionably, completely inappropriate. If you can't or won't see that, then I despair of future interaction with you. Nandesuka 02:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, I was using tongue-in-cheek humorous sarcasm when I said "worst thing…". Your edit history here implied to me that you were perceptive enough to understand that and had enough of a sense of humor (remember Furphy?) to crack a smile. I see that I was wrong on both counts. Sorry. It still does not change the fact that what you added has no more bearing in the circumcision article than statutes about cannabalism have in cooking articles, other than, of course, your desire to throw everything negative about circumcision in this article. -- Avi 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Avi, please assume good faith and discuss the content of the article, not your opinion of other editor's motives. -- DanBlackham 06:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am waiting for an answer from Mr. Glass that speaks to the issues and adequately assuages the issues raised by myself, Nandesuka, and Neitherday. Can you think of a valid reason Mr. Glass's edits belong here when he is not tagging cooking with the illegality of cannabalism, surgery with the illegality of slashing, and boxing with the illegality of assault and battery? Remember, good faith is assumed only in the absence of contrary evidence, and I am waiting on Mr. Glass to provide the answers to our questions so that I may continue to assume good faith. For no one would argue that putting information in an article for the express purpose of denigrating, or casting aspersions on said topic, is a violation of WP:NPOV and may be sufficient contrary evidence to look with askance on the user's edits. Maybe you can help us out by finding a valid, wiki-acceptable justification for Mr. Glass in this case. Can you? -- Avi 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, the concern being expressed is not about inclusions that "even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light," but your "zeal" to insert such text. If, hypothetically, you were insistent about inserting text that, equally tangentially, cast circumcision in a good light, the concern would be the same.
There is a real problem with your recent edits, as others have pointed out. Surely you'd agree that an article on cooking does not benefit from discussion of the illegality of cannibalism? If so, then why can't you see that an article on circumcision does not benefit from discussion of the illegality of battery? Jakew 13:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the information Michael is suggesting back into the article in a manner I hope will be seen as less POV. Neitherday 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At last, someone has seen that the material on forced circumcisions that I have drawn to people's attention has some relevance. I notice that the material added has avoided using the term 'forced circumcision' and I am going to wait until I have thought about it thoroughly before suggesting any improvements. As for the other comments, I think it would serve no useful purpose for me to respond to them. Michael Glass 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that you won't, because it reinforces the validity of the questions raised. But, it is your perogative. However, remember that the assumption of good faith is not required where there is contrary evidence. No less than three people have asked for your motivations, Mr. Glass, and your silence does nothing other than act as a tacit admission, I am afraid. Your call. -- Avi 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Glass, please review the WP:NPOV#undue weight section. You have not even answered the questions here, and you resort to adding more tangential information to push your own anti-circumcision agenda. Explain to the rest of the editors why such detail is needed, please. And why we have seen no similar edits to cooking, yet. Thank you. -- Avi 14:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass3/ -- Avi 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I'm glad you found the article interesting. I also found the the WP:NPOV#undue weight section very interesting and instructive. Your comments about me are opinions, not facts. Your argument that my silence implies consent is your opinion. Your argument that I have added "tangential information" is your opinion. My opinion of your biases are the mirror image of your opinion about mine! So let's agree to disagree. When it comes to edits, let's try to put our personal beliefs about each other to one side and, as we say in Australia, play the ball and not the man. Michael Glass 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You state 'Your argument that I have added "tangential information" is your opinion.'
Well, of course it's Avi's opinion (albeit one shared by several others). He can't very well state someone else's, can he? The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page, in large part, is to discuss opinions about the right (and wrong) way to change the article. Perhaps instead of dismissing comments as 'opinion' you could actually address them? The system relies on good faith discussion: if you refuse to do so Wikipedia suffers. Jakew 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jake, as far as I can see, Avi and Nandesuka were up in arms about my introducing material about forced circumcision. They regarded this as attempt to attack circumcision by adding material to the article that would cast circumcision in a poor light. Avi further commented that I have repeatedly edited in a way that does this. I reject these accusations. I've done my best to introduce relevant material to the article and to improve its wording. When I make changes, most of them have been to add information, not to subtract it. When I find information that I find is unsubstantiated I will leave a note that a citation is needed or, in one case, I removed it on the spot, because the information was based on unreliable sources. Many of my edits have been unchallenged. In matters that are contentious to other editors I have tried my best to accommodate the viewpoints of others. i contend that all of my edits are made in good faith, even if I don't always get it right. if other editors still think ill of me, despite my best efforts, so be it. What I want to discuss is the wording of the article. Please see "Information about forced circumcisions" below. Michael Glass 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No possible argument can ever be made to support the cutting away of healthy human tissue away from someone who is not in immediate medical need or who has given permission. Everything rests on this simple statement of fact and law. If we are to ever truly respect human rights, we have to start at the very beginning by not allowing the cutting of healthy human tissue from our children. Everything else is mindless nonsense. Jtpaladin 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. If you have a particular issue with any procedure, by all means, use personal webspace or a blog, or write a letter, or march on Washington. But wikipedia is not meant to be a vehicle to push an agenda. Thank you. -- Avi 02:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

DELETE VIDEO!

Delete the link to the video at the bottom at the site. I tried but it came back. That was torture. A little baby! MEAN... He was shouting as hell. Wikipedia can't link to a video like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jannizz (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

ConsumptionJunction.com - "a sicksitenetwork.com site". "You are one of 12,967 Sick Fucks". Hardly seems encyclopaedic material. Jakew 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I added a circumcision video from intact.ca, a more tasteful source than the previous porn ad laden site. I also added a warning as to its graphic content. Neitherday 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to lead

The following changes have been made on several occasions:

  • Change "Three randomised trials have provided "firm evidence" that a man's risk of acquiring HIV is" to "Three randomised studies indicate that a man's risk of acquiring HIV through vaginal sex is".
    • Problem 1: "randomised studies" is not terribly meaningful. "Randomised trial" (or "randomised controlled trial") describes a very specific methodology which the studies used.
    • Problem 2: "through vaginal sex" is probable but unproven. All sources support the assertion that the risk is reduced. Some suggest this as a mechanism, some just state the known facts.
  • Insertion of "No data is available on whether a woman is more likely to acquire HIV through sex with an HIV-positive circumcised man or an HIV-positive intact man."
    • Problem 1: this is unsourced.
    • Problem 2: even if it were sourced, the best that could be said is that So-and-so reported that it was true on such-and-such a date.
    • Problem 3: it directly contradicts ref 94 ([1]).
    • Problem 4: it uses the ambiguous and POV term 'intact' instead of the neutral term 'uncircumcised'.

Jakew 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How is 'intact' more ambiguous and POV than 'uncircumcised'? Are you sure the former term doesn't just contradict your own POV? Mister 'private researcher'? 87.78.176.207 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not POV. I don't understand the phrasing of "circumcised" as the standard type of penis, with others being "uncircumcised". In nearly all cases, they are not going to be circumcised. It doesn't make sense to use "circumcised" as the reference point, a) circumcision is not the starting point, and b) something like 80% of the men on earth are intact. I would support using "non-circumcised" over "uncircumcised". Joie de Vivre 21:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see previous discussion here. Jakew 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the quotes on "firm evidence". The article is about a controversial topic. If every single sentence anyone disagrees

were on quotes half of the article would be on quotes.Waisberg

Maybe so, but there are NPOV issues with taking such a stand. It's better to make it clear that this is a quote rather than Wikipedia's opinion. Jakew 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to endorse what Jake wrote. Putting those words in quotes managed to quieten down a lot of disagreement. As I see it, it's a win-win for all. For those who agree with the researchers, the words are there; for those who have concerns or reservations, the words are in quotes, so it is clear that it's the researchers' opinion and not Wikipedia's. As a result, its someting we can all live with. Michael Glass 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Glass and Jake on this one. Sometimes, using direct quotes is the best way to go when there is significant controversy. -- Avi 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

information about forced circumcisions

I have tried to add more information about forced circumcisions to this article. This information has been rejected by two other editors, Nandesuka and Avraham who have taken turns to delete my contribution completely. They have alleged that:

  • There is undue weight.
  • I have not responded to their questioning of my motives on the talk page.

If there is undue weight, I invite them to trim the addition. There is no requirement for me to answer their questions about my motives or respond to their acccusations. I believe that what they are doing is against Wikipedia policy and I urge them ro reconsider their actions. Michael Glass 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered our questions above as of yet, Mr. Glass. -- Avi 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on your questions here, it seems some clarification would be helpful. Your edits, especially these most recent, but many over the past few months, have been perceived by a number of different editors to be violations, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle, of wikipedia's policy of the neutral point of view. This last sequence with the "forced circumcision" was of the more vlatant type. You have been asked by at least three editors above to explain your edits in an NPOV way. You have not done so; moreover, you continue to add what sems to be "biased editing" with th eintention to actively push a point of view. There is strong contrary evidence against assuming good faith, not the least of which is your refusal to answer civil questions. Your rights to edit this articleare currently in no way shape or form infringed, but other editors' rights to maintain the article in accordance with wikipedia policy are not infringed either. -- Avi 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I refused to answer your questions because they are put in such an uncivil and hostile way, and they make accusations that I totally reject. You have accused me of not explaining my edits in a NPOV way. You have said that there is strong evidence that I have not acted in good faith. You have accused me of repeatedly and persistently making edits that are either blatantly or subtly NPOV. Then you turn round and accuse me of not responding to your civil questions!

However, to return to the latest edit, the only substantial criticism is that it shows undue weight. Your text says:

On rare occasions, circumcisions of adult males have been performed as a form of [[sexual assault]

My proposal says:

On occasion, circumcisions have been performed as a form of sexual assault, [67][68] as part of forced religious conversions[69][70][71]or in ethnic-religious conflicts. [72][73][74][75]

What's the problem? Where does this edit overstep the mark in your opinion? Which information would you like to remove? Please explain. Michael Glass 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the above comment has gone without comment for more than a day. I believe that the text as it stands should be improved. This is where, in my opinion, the present text is problematical (emphasis added):

On rare occasions, circumcisions of adult males have been performed as a form of [[sexual assault]
  • We hope that forced circumcisions rarely happen, but I am not aware of any direct information on numbers or on the frequency of forced circumcisions. Without any such direct information the comment is either unsubstantiated, or is original research. It is therefore preferable to say On occasions... or There have been occasions when... This wording does not imply that forced circumcisions happen frequently, which would be equally problematical, but it makes it clear that there are occasions when such assaults happen. This is in acccordance with the evidence.
  • If we confine our attention to the forced circumcision of adult males, it rules out considering the following forced circumcisions:
A former slave writes of "the rape of girls and boys alike, the forced circumcision of boys and girls, often with them fully conscious and screaming and having to be held down by many people. [[2]]
“In many cases, young Armenian children were spared from deportation by local Turks who took them from their families. The children were coerced into denouncing Christianity and becoming Muslims, and were then given new Turkish names. For Armenian boys the forced conversion meant they each had to endure painful circumcision as required by Islamic custom.” [[3]]
There are appalling cases of the forced circumcision of children as young as six. [[4]]
Circumcision has been forced on hundreds of Christians, including children and pregnant women, in a campaign by extremists to spread Islam through the war-ravaged Maluku islands. [[5]]
As women and children are also involved in these instances of forced circumcision, the wording of the article needs to accommodate this fact.
  • Many forced circumcisions are undoubtedly a form of [[sexual assault] However, this cannot be established in all cases of forced circumcisions. Some seem to result from religious zealotry; others result from forced religious conversions or in ethnic-religious conflicts. I have therefore proposed the following wording:
On occasion, circumcisions have been performed as a form of sexual assault, [1][2] as part of forced religious conversions[3][4][5]or in ethnic-religious conflicts. [6][7][8][9]

If there is any problem with this please let me know in detail where the problem is and please suggest how you would fix it. Michael Glass 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the primary issue is that this has nothing to do with circumcision any more than cannablism has to do with cooking and surgery has to do with slashing. We all agree that forcible surgery of any kind is illegal. What in heavens name is special about circumcision any more than forcible tatooing? -- Avi 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, cannibalism has nothing to do with your cooking, but if you were the one in the cooking pot, and the cannibals were cooking you, I am sure you would feel that cannibalism had everything to do with cooking. I am glad you raised the question of tattooing. This is what Wikipedia says about forced tattoing.

People have also been forcibly tattooed for a various reasons. The best known is the ka-tzetnik identification system for Jews in part of the concentration camps during the Holocaust. [[6]]

If the article on tattooing can mention forced tattoing then the article on circumcision can mention forced circumcisions. Michael Glass 03:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once sentence, which we already have here, which is under "legality", where it belongs. So, you should be happy with how it is. WHat is your ratinale for the rather significant expansion you are proposing here? -- Avi 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I am glad you recognise that forced circumcisions should be mentioned. However, there are problems with the text which I have commented on in detail above. Please read what I have written about the problems I have with the text as it presently stands. You describe the change as a rather significant expansion I would draw attention to the fact that the first sentence is 14 words and my suggested revision is 22 words, an addition of just 8 words. There are 7 extra footnotes, all with links, to attest to those extra words. Of course, if you looked at the summary of the changes, it looks quite substantial, but if you look at the actual text, as presented, it doesn't look so heavy. Do you have any other comments or suggestions? Michael Glass 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, more than 24 hours have passed since I posted the last message (above). I have responded in detail to your concerns. I have also thought about how to trim the wording, as this seems to be a problem for you. Here is another way of recasting the sentence:

Forced circumcisions have occurred in ethnic-religious conflicts [10][11][12][13], as part of forced religious conversions[14][15][16]and in sexual assaults, [17][18]

This 18 word sentence puts the emphasis where it should be, on forced circumcision in ethno-relgious conflicts rather than on the sexual aspect that is evident in some cases. Also, the language could be described as less sensationalist. In response to your concern about length, I have also trimmed the quotations in two of the footnotes.

Please note the following:

  • I have read carefully what you have written and have endeavoured to address the concern you expressed about length.
  • I have explained in detail what changes I propose to make to the wording and why I want to make them.
  • I am treating you in a civil and polite manner.
  • I expect similar treatment in return, as per Wikipedia policies concerning civility and assuming good faith.

Michael Glass 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Forced circumcisions have occurred in ethnic-religious conflicts, as part of forced religious conversions, and in sexual assaults," is reasonable. I'd like to hear other comment if we can use one example for each, instead of 4/2/2, but the text is NPOV and informative. Thank you. (sorry about the delay, but I have a project due Friday and I'm up to my eyeballs in work). -- Avi 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Avi. I join with you in inviting other editors to comment on this proposed change. I understand from your comment that you have no problem with the text but you do believe that the number of references should be cut. I know it looks much neater to have just one or two references for each point. However, in this case, the very idea of forced circumcisions is so repugnant that many readers may hope that it rarely happens. The extra references help to show that this problem is not just a one-off. I plan to leave my proposal on the talk page to give other editors the chance to give their feedback. By early next week we may be in a better position to consider this proposed change. Michael Glass 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, shouldn't the term be "ethno-religious"? -- Avi 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Avi. I have used both ethno-religious and ethnic-religious conflicts. I think that the latter is clearer. Perhaps we could consider ethnic/religious as the two things can be quite inextricably mixed, as in the Armenian genocide. Michael Glass 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be repugnant, but we're supposed to be NPOV, so that should not guide the editing. I think one ref for each will be plenty. If we have a source indicating the frequency of such events, then let's use it. Otherwise, let's not attempt OR-by-implication. Jakew 11:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jake, thanks for your input. If we put just one reference to, each issue, this could be taken as implying that this is a one-off occurrence. A range of references shows that this kind of thing has happened more than once. Of course, there is another way of dealing with the issue, and that is referring very briefly to these instances. For example, a reference to forced circumcisions in connection with ethnic/religious conflicts could go something like this:

Forced circumcisions have occurred in ethnic-religious conflicts in Darfur (ref), Ambon, Indonesia (ref), the Armenian genocide (ref), the anti-Greek riots in Istanbul, Turkey, in 1955 (ref).

Another sentence could then be used to refer to forced circumcisions in connection with religious persecution and another sentence for cases that could be more fairly described as sexual assaults. For an increase in the article by just two sentences we would gain a better coverage of this issue. Michael Glass 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I doubt very much that anyone would expect us to document each and every case, since that is not the role of an encyclopaedia article. Therefore I don't think there's much danger of anyone thinking that there had been only a single occurrence.
Although I appreciate that it is not a 'one-off' event, one must consider that in each of these 9 reports the event was deemed sufficiently newsworthy (ie unusual) to be reported. Even if we assume that each of these reports represent 100 cases, that's still only 900 of the 1,000,000,000 (a guess for illustration) circumcised men alive today, or 0.00009%. It therefore seems to me that any coverage is out of proportion, and irrelevant to the hugely overwhelming majority of circumcisions.
So far I've yet to see a compelling case (grounded in NPOV argument) for inclusion of this at all. If we must include any text, it must be brief and should not dedicate more references than absolutely necessary. One seems fine, three is just about tolerable. To dedicate nine of 166 refs (5%) seems absolutely ridiculous. Jakew 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jake, please see my detailed answer in Response to Jake on proposed edits to the section on forced circumcisions Michael Glass 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorrell et al

I have added some information from the BJU International on a new article on penile sensitivity. I realise that this is a sensitive issue, so I think the best thing to do is to direct people to the link [[7]] I have quoted the conclusions in full, and the P value of the findings. I hope I have managed to do this within the NPOV guidelines. Michael Glass 07:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it on grounds of undue weight. NOCIRC's study is just one of several to have investigated penile sensitivity, and these are documented in the main article. We cannot include this one but not the others finding no difference. Jakew 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The text mentions Masters & Johnson and Boyle so the argument about undue weight is not consistent with the present content. I think we need to consider a consistent policy here. Michael Glass 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read that section, Michael, you'll see that we exclusively cite secondary sources. The text mentions M&J because that is part of a quotation from a literature review by a mainstream organisation. We also mention Boyle's literature review because that represents an alternative point of view. Thus, the main viewpoints are summarised, and readers can consult the main article for detailed discussion. Jakew 11:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake, I take your point. The Masters and Johnson study was quoted by the summary. You will notice that I added the date of publication of the various articles and reintroduced a very brief reference to Sorrells (with a link). I think this is appropriate because it's the very latest finding and the dates help readers to determine who said what and when. Michael Glass 12:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC). I can't understand why you consider such a brief reference to the latest study is "undue weight". Michael Glass 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I can think of about nine or ten primary sources that have assessed addressed this topic. Citing one but not the others places undue weight on its findings. To achieve neutral coverage, it must be presented alongside other findings, as is done in the main article. And incidentally, the date of publication is of relatively limited interest for a primary source (human anatomy is basically stable over time).
Consider a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that half a dozen studies had found no association between heart disease and circumcision. Now one study is published finding a protective effect. It is undue weight to discuss only this study, but not the others. Jakew 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Jake, which other studies measured the sensitivity of the part of the penis that is cut off by circumcision in addition to the parts of the penis that are not cut off by circumcision? -- DanBlackham 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Bleustein et al (2005) springs to mind, Dan. Jakew 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Bleustein et al measured the sensitivity of the glans, not the sensitivity of the foreskin. -- DanBlackham 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The first part of your sentence is correct, the second incorrect, as you will see if you read the full text of the study. Jakew 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Bleustein et al measured the sensitivity of the glans and the outer foreskin, but not the sensitivity of the inner foreskin. The fact that Sorrells et al measured the sensitivity of the inner foreskin is noteworthy. -- DanBlackham 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the sexual effects on circumcision says:

Bleustein et al tested the sensitivity of the glans penis, and found no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men,[8] confirming an earlier study by Masters and Johnson.[9] Bleustein later followed up with a larger study, with the same finding.[10] [[11]]

Bleustein commented on the sensitivity of the glans rather than the sensitivity of the foreskin itself. It would appear that Sorrells ed al may be breaking new ground in actually testing the sensitivity of the foreskin. Because of this, I believe that readers of this article would find this study of interest, and a link would be appropriate. The Boyle quotation says,

Boyle et al. (2002) argued that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with "heightened erogenous sensitivity," stating "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings--many of which are lost to circumcision."[19] The authors conclude: "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well."

It seems quite perverse to quote this but deliberately not refer to a new study that might back up these claims. Michael Glass 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No more perverse than not referring to studies backing up other claims. We do not, for example, mention either of Bleustein's glans findings even though they 'back up' the med. org. statements. We are quoting or summarising literature reviews, and there is no need to try to prove or disprove the content. Jakew 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not then provide a number of links to articles giving a range of findings? This way, the interested reader will be able to link directly to a range of views, and it would also address your concern about undue weight.That would be a win-win for all concerned, and also for the article. Michael Glass 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what is done in the main article, Michael. Jakew 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the information should be in the main article. However, the main article is the general article on circumcision. Other, more specialised articles are subsidiary. This article is the first one that people are likely to turn to about circumcision and it is therefore vital that all important points should be covered even if not in as much depth as in the more specialised articles. This is not a matter of pushing one point of view or another, only in giving the general reader direct access to the studies, Sorrells included, if they should be so inclined. Michael Glass 10:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I don't know exactly what you're suggesting, but it sounds as though you want this article to contain a link to every study referenced in all subarticles. Wikipedia isn't a link farm. It's an encyclopaedia, and where there is a detailed article we should include only a summary. If the general reader is capable of clicking on a link to a study (s)he is surely capable of clicking on the link to the detailed article. Jakew 11:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jake, in a little while I'll do a draft of what I have in mind. That may help to allay your concerns. Michael Glass 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested revision - discussion

The present passage quotes the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians and then quotes Boyle et al who give a contrary opinion. While this might seem superficially fair, Boyle et al hardly carry as much weight as two medical academies, one of which announced its findings five years after Boyle published his paper. On a quick reading, the Boyle paper is partly concerned with the effect of circumcision without pain relief, and the possible damage this causes to the infant whereas the Academies, as quoted, were concentrating on penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction. So Boyle was at least partly at cross purposes with the two academies.

A better approach would be to keep the quotations from the academies, but to balance them with a very brief summary of findings from a range of sensitivity studies. I will try to prepare a draft a little later. Michael Glass 14:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, Boyle's paper is entitled "Male circumcision: pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae" (emph added). The quotations are mostly from the section entitled "Circumcision and sexuality", to which 4 of Boyle's 15 pages are dedicated. Jakew 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jake on proposed edits to the section on forced circumcisions

Jake, from what you have written, you have agreed that forced circumcisions can be briefly mentioned in the text. I note that you have raised no objection to the proposed sentence, nor have you raised any objection to the content of the links. Your only issue, it would seem, is the number of links. You have stated a preference for just one link but would stretch to three. I have proposed to add seven links, and you have claimed that this is excessive, suggesting that it implies original research.

In response, I feel it necessary to state the following:

  • Wikipedia policy says: “Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia..” The material I wish to insert into the article is source based research, and the links show this to be the case. Leaving out the links undermines this fact.
  • Suppressing links is suppressing information. Those suppressing information should have to justify their actions. I have seen no substantial argument for limiting the links and therefore the information available to readers. The argument about the number or proportion of footnotes, I would suggest, is specious.
  • Wikipedia is right in arguing that excessive space should not be given to minority views. However, this does not apply in this case as everyone concerned in this debate has declared that the force involved in forced circumcision is wrong.
  • Limiting the links to just 3 overall (one to each point made) invites the interested reader to assume that forced circumcisions are less of a problem than the evidence suggests. It also invites readers to consider that the text may be an unjustified generalisation from an isolated instance. It therefore undermines the text. In all conscience I cannot be involved in an action that undermines the text in this way.
  • To establish the occurrence of forced circumcision in some sexual assaults, the present text quotes two references. You haven’t produced any argument that would justify removing one or other of these two references. Have you checked the links? I don’t think you have.

I am hopeful that we can reach agreement that accommodates your view about the number of links and my view that the links supplied are essential to show that the text is not making an unjustified generalisation on the basis of one or two isolated instances. One way to accommodate both our views is to incorporate several links in one reference. In that way, the general reader will see just one link in the text. However, those who click on the note will find it leads to several links.

A second way is for interested readers to go through the links that have been supplied, and if they have any concerns, bring them here. We may be able to come to some agreement. It is also possible that other editors will bring other evidence to light that we should consider.

A final possibility is that we agree to disagree. In that case I will put up the text with the links, and if others cut the text, then it is on their heads.

I will challenge anyone who, without prior discussion and good cause, removes links to the following information about forced circumcision connected to religious persecution and ethnic religious conflicts. Please note that the quotations are only part of the detail that is supplied in the actual texts, which I hope people will check out for themselves.

< http://www.cirp.org/news/frontpage11-25-03/>A former slave writes of "the rape of girls and boys alike, the forced circumcision of boys and girls, often with them fully conscious and screaming and having to be held down by many people. Sodomy and sadistic torture are common. Living hell."
<http://www.maroc.nl/nieuws/forums/showthread.php?s=1aa2bac3abd3c4348317d476564349c2&threadid=144865> The pogromists were instructed not to kill, but about 13 Greeks, including a bishop, died from the severe beatings. Dozens of Greek women and some young men were raped. A number of men, mainly priests, were subjected to circumcision by frenzied members of the mob, according to the account of Turkish writer Aziz Nesin. An Armenian priest died after the procedure.
<http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/zoroaster_zoroastrians_in_iran.php> All these pressures, humiliation at the time of paying jizya, deliberate destruction of temples and forced conversions resulted in massive conversions. There are accounts of Muslim rulers forcing mass circumcision on the newly converted males to make sure they had truly become Muslims.
<http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians>. “In many cases, young Armenian children were spared from deportation by local Turks who took them from their families. The children were coerced into denouncing Christianity and becoming Muslims, and were then given new Turkish names. For Armenian boys the forced conversion meant they each had to endure painful circumcision as required by Islamic custom.”
<http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1583> The Justice and Peace Commission of Lahor has spoken out against cases of forced conversions: “Young non-Muslim men have been forced to convert and circumcised against their will,” reports Peter Jacob, Commission secretary.
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010425/debtext/10425-26.htm> “The forced religious conversions are still taking place. There are appalling cases of the forced circumcision of children as young as six. People are forced to change their names and married couples are forced to (25 Apr 2001 : Column 398) undertake a different marriage service to change their religion. All that, I am told, sometimes takes place with the Indonesian army watching and, on occasion, handing out medicine to those who have undergone forced circumcision.”
<http://www.cirp.org/news/morningherald01-27-01/> I could not escape," he said. "One of them held up my foreskin between pieces of wood while another cut me with a razor ... the third man held my head back, ready to pour water down my throat if I screamed. "But I couldn't help but scream and he poured the water. I kept screaming aloud and vomited. I couldn't stand the pain."

Furthermore, I will challenge anyone who removes this link, already in the text, to this information about a sexual assault involving a forced circumcision.

<http://www.dispatch.co.za/1997/10/09/page%2015.htm> Mr Irwin Brookdale, 34, was drinking with a group of Aborigines on the banks of a river in the far north Queensland state last year when he fell asleep and passed out. A woman with the group, Gladys, felt down his pants and realising he was not circumcised, exhorted the others to make a man out of him.

In the case of the second link, I believe it is valuable evidence, but it is misplaced. It is not a case of sexual involvement in forced circumcision. However, it does show that forced circumcision is a significant problem in Kenya. My verdict on this text is that it is important, but it should be relocated.


http://www.timesnews.co.ke/18aug06/nwsstory/news5.html “Busia police boss, Simon Kipkeu, said the arrest of the suspect brings to seven the number of those arrested in connection with the forceful circumcision of the elderly men.”
“We are now looking for the main circumcisers who are still at large. We appeal to members of the public to give us information on their whereabouts,” he said.
He assured the members of the public who do not practice circumcision that no one will be allowed to harass them.
Kipkeu revealed that police were on high alert to deal with such youths and appealed to members of the public to report such people immediately.

Once again I urge people to consider this matter. We have agreed on the wording. All that remains is to agree on the links. Michael Glass 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples of multiple footnotes in articles about circumcision

1 The traditional belief that the foreskin is sexually sensitive, being controversial, is exhaustively documented here. (10 footnotes)

There is a traditional belief that the foreskin is sexually sensitive [12][13] [14] and this belief has been documented by opponents of circumcision [15] [16] [17]. Some recent researchers have also asserted that the foreskin may be sexually responsive [18] [19] [20] [21].

2 Penile cancer statements are exhaustively documented. 6 footnotes demonstrate the veracity of one short sentence[[22]]:

Childhood circumcision has been associated with a reduced incidence of penile cancer in numerous studies. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

3 Langerhans cells are carefully documented. One sentence, 4 footnotes: [29]

Langerhans cells are part of the human immune system. Three studies identified high concentrations of Langerhans and other "HIV target" cells in the foreskin[20][21][22] and Szabo and Short suggested that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin may provide an entry point for viral infection.[23]

In view of this i can see no justification in limiting the number of footnotes in any writing about forced circumcisions. Proper documentation is Wikipedia policy; counting footnotes is not. Michael Glass 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, you seem to miss the point that the amount of text (and footnotes) should bear some relationship to the notability and relevance to the wider subject. Jakew 12:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jake, forced circumcision is a crime and a human rights abuse. On that ground alone, this is a notable issue. On the question of relevance, I can understand the concern of pro-circumcision activists to distance themselves from this obvious abuse. However, in this case I believe this cause is best served by an open acknowledgement of the problem. Only then can it be addressed. Michael Glass 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Michael, cooking and eating children is doubtless also a crime and human rights abuse. However, it isn't notable from the viewpoint of the cooking article. That argument, then, fails. I'm afraid that the interests of pro- and anti-circumcision activism are not of interest nor relevant to decisions regarding the content of articles. Please see WP:NOT. Jakew 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with you here, Jake, but a strong counterpoint could be made that the vast majority of circumcisions are performed upon youngsters below the age of consent, and are therefore by some definitions (including, I assure you only coincidentally, my own), forced or coerced. Thus, from this POV, the vast majority of circumcisions are forced; by contrast, only a vanishingly small minority of cooked dishes are children. Kasreyn 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
However, the sources in question, if I'm not mistaken, refer to "forced circumcision" only for older individuals, and, as such, are exceedingly rare. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's hope that forced circumcisions of older individuals are rare occurrences. However, we must have evidence to state such an opinion as fact. What we do have is evidence that forced circumcisions happen. Not only that, but there are occasions when the forced circumcision of men, women and children become a clear pattern of abuse. I have detailed such occasions above. However, I think it would be useful if I quoted more extensively from an article from Uganda:
Daniel Sifuna, 25, was arrested at Khwirale village in Nambale division after the public tipped the police on his whereabouts.
Busia police boss, Simon Kipkeu, said the arrest of the suspect brings to seven the number of those arrested in connection with the forceful circumcision of the elderly men.
“We are now looking for the main circumcisers who are still at large. We appeal to members of the public to give us information on their whereabouts,” he said.
He assured the members of the public who do not practice circumcision that no one will be allowed to harass them. [30]
The fact that the police chief had to make such an assurance shows that forced circumcision of people was a social problem of significance at that place and that time. Michael Glass 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who remain to be convinced about the prevalence of forced circumcision in some communities, please read the following article from the Voice of America. [31]

During each so-called “male”, or even-numbered year, the elders come together and hunt down those trying to avoid circumcision by hiding in cities.
Masava, a Mugishu elder, says:The majority of police personnel in Kampala are non Bagishu who mistakenly view this ritual as some kind of human rights abuse. Consequently, this makes it extremely difficult to carry out our cultural duty of apprehending and circumcising Bagishu men hiding in Kampala."
When a boy is caught, he is stripped naked amidst the crowd and forcefully circumcised, which the non Bagishu consider a human rights abuse.
The director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Livingstone Ssewanyana, tells the aggrieved Bagishu to approach the constitutional court and seek legal redress. He says to circumcise members of their tribe is acceptable as long as it’s not coercive. He says the constitution does not allow members of the Bagishu to feel that they are being coerced and that it's being done without their consent. He says, "They are entitled as aggrieved parties to go before the constitutional court to seek a declaration."
Among the Bagishu, uncircumcised men are treated with contempt; they are not allowed in society and in most cases they are seen as failing to get local women for marriage. This is supported by all the Bagishu including women who often report uncircumcised men to tribal elders. It's considered traditional that no male is to escape the ritual regardless of where he lives, what he does or what kind of security he has.
A Mugishu elder defends the practice by saying: "If a man in our tribe remains uncircumcised beyond the age of 18 he is hunted down wherever he may be and forcefully circumcised. In 1992 we ambushed and successfully circumcised a high ranking government official...We who carry out this ritual carry out our cultural duties without fear or favour just like a surgeon in hospital will operate on any one who requires his services"
The practice is still being debated as a human rights issue among those not affiliated with the Bagishu in Uganda.

I'm considering adding a link to this article to the sentences on forced circumcision. Michael Glass 07:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft passage on forced circumcisions

In this draft I have taken into account the issue of forced circumcisions in Kenya which became such a problem that the authorities had to make a general announcement that it would not be tolerated.

Forced circumcision can be a significant issue [24]. Forced circumcisions have occurred in ethnic/religious conflicts [25][26][27][28], as part of forced religious conversions[29][30][31] and in sexual assaults [32].

The total passage is just 25 words. Please let me know if there are any further comments or concerns. If there is, I am happy to discuss them further; if not, I will add this passage to the article in place of the present sentence on forced circumcisions. Michael Glass 05:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now added the passage to the article. Thanks to all who gave their input. Michael Glass 10:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, you need to add material in the main article first, then consider whether it should be summarized in this article; see Wikipedia:Summary_style#Keeping_summary_articles_and_detailed_articles_synchronised. Next, you haven't brought anything that shows it is a major legal issue, just that people have forced circumcision on adults for various reasons. Is assault a "legal issue"? No, it's a crime. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayig, please follow Wikipedia policy. If you are fair dinkum about this information not being in the legal article, the right course of action would be to follow the Wiki policy that you referred to: "These problems may be tagged with {{Sync}}." [Wikipedia:Summary_style#Keeping_summary_articles_and_detailed_articles_synchronised] Instead, you simply toss out fully referenced information. As for your statement about "not a major legal issue," I think you would be singing a different tune if you were the one who suffered as Kostantinus Idi did:

"I could not escape," he said. "One of them held up my foreskin between pieces of wood while another cut me with a razor ... the third man held my head back, ready to pour water down my throat if I screamed. "But I couldn't help but scream and he poured the water. I kept screaming aloud and vomited. I couldn't stand the pain."
Idi said one of the clerics urinated on his wound, saying it would stop infection.
"All of the men at the house were cut using the same razor," he said. "That night they circumcised about 60 men. I was bleeding all over and had nothing to cover my wound. I was told to take a bath but it kept bleeding until the next day. I could not imagine any greater pain. One of my friends got infected and was taken to hospital when we arrived in Ambon." [32]

But you might have a point that it's not a legal issue. In many, though not all, of the cases cited, there is no prospect of the perpetrators ever being brought to justice. This is therefore an argument to place the passage under another heading.

A third complaint was that the passage was original research. No evidence is given to back up this charge, so I fail to see what the problem is. Everything is backed up by the sources that are quoted, so how could it be original research?

I'll put the passage back under its own heading. If that does not answer your concern, then please take your concern to the talk page.Michael Glass 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that you do not have consensus for these changes, Michael. Instead of endlessly repeating quotes, perhaps you could try to address the issues raised. Jakew 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, as Jakew points out, there was no consensus for this insertion. You keep insisting that a few isolated cases of forced circumcision have made it a "significant legal issue", and most recently, a "significant issue". According to whom is it a significant issue? According to Michael Glass, anti-circumcision activist? I'm sure Kostantinus Idi also views it seriously, but the appeal to emotion you made above is simply a logical fallacy. Is cannibalism a "significant issue" that should be discussed on the vegetarianism page? Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to drop the cannabilism thing, Jay. It's not really as clever as you boys think. Here's why. Forced circumcision is the forced version of the procedure we are discussing. The correct analogue would be forced vegetarianism. Feel free to insert examples of that into the vegetarianism page. As for cookery, the correct analogue would be forced cookery. If you know of people who are forced to cook, please do insert correctly sourced material into the cookery page. However, what you are doing is characterising "forced circumcision" as "a bad thing in some way connected with circumcision" so that you can compare it with "cannibalism" as "a bad thing in some way connected with cooking" and, hilariously, "a bad thing in some way connected with what people eat".
Jay, can I ask you to stop the ad hominem discussion here? You get very angry when personally characterised, so one should expect that you would treat others as you wish to be treated. Can I also ask you to stop removing sourced edits simply because you don't agree with them? Consensus is not an outcome of articles' having gatekeepers that prevent contrary views' being included. You need to figure out a way satisfactory to all involved to include material on forced circumcision. Grace Note 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Asault and battery on the surgery page was also listed, Grace, if you check the archives. The example is secondary, it is the concept that is important. -- Avi 02:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to the above

First, according to the policy that Jayig quoted, passages that should be treated in more detail elsewhere should be tagged. Why did Jayig not follow this procedure? Why did he delete the passage instead?

Secondly, "Michael Glass, anti-circumcision activist" is an ad hominem' attack, it is uncivil and it does not assume good faith. In three ways it falls short of Wikipedia standards. I have a right to expect better from any member of Wikipedia, especially from an administrator.

Now for the other points:

  • No consensus. Jake, I repeatedly asked for comments and suggestions. When they stopped coming in, I put the passage back with extra information to show that forced circumcision could be a significant problem on occasion. For evidence of this, there was the link to [an account from Kenya]. You left my contribution to the article undisturbed for 30 hours and it wasn't until Jayig deleted it that you spoke up. I tried to get consensus. Now I'll try again.
  • Repeated quotes. When I link to evidence. It is passed over or ignored. When I quote the evidence, it's still ignored. If I repeat myself, I'm accused of repeating myself endlessly. If the evidence is disturbingly graphic, I'm accused of appealing to emotions. Hello? Isn't this called 'shooting the messenger'?
  • 'A few isolated cases.' (1) In a few isolated cases, babies die as a result of circumcision. This is mentioned in the article. If information about circumcision fatalities is included but not forced circumcisions why is there this double standard?
  • 'A few isolated cases.' (2) The passage neither says nor implies that forced circumcision is common, so this is a straw man argument, a logical fallacy. I asserted that forced circumcisions happen and I produced the evidence. Others claim that forced circumcision is exceedingly rare. Their evidence? Zilch.
  • 'A few isolated cases.' (3) There is evidence to show that forced circumcisions can be a problem in several countries. Why is this evidence ignored?
  • According to whom is it a significant issue? The forced circumcision of Christians in Ambon was big news in the Sydney Morning Herald in January 2002 [33]. The question of forced circumcision in one area of Kenya was serious enough for the local police 'boss' to issue a general statement that uncircumcised men would be protected [34]. The forced circumcision of Christians in Pakistan was a serious enough issue for the Catholic Commission of Justice and Peace to protest [35]. If significant is not an appropriate word, suggest a different word to describe the situation, but please don't suppress the evidence.
  • Appeal to emotions. Forced circumcision is an emotional subject. Am I to refrain from passing on this account because it might appeal to people's emotions? Or this or this [36]] or this [[37]? All I ask people do do is to consider the evidence about forced circumcisions. The only time that cannibalism has anything to do with forced circumcision is in a case like this.

Michael Glass 03:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that forced circumcision is definitely relevant to the broader topic of circumcision, because whether it is the norm somewhere or it happens as isolated incidents, it speaks of a mentality bred by that particular culture. Of course, it is not relevant to technical descriptions of the procedure, but it is a cultural consequence. It is an issue, however tangental, and as such does have relevance.
I disagree, however, with your last point. While it is clearly an emotional issue for both sides, we should not be using Wiki as a propaganda machine for either cause. We are only human and can't help but letting our biases show, but researchers should nevertheless strive for objectivity and emotional detachment. I have myself been accused of being a Holocaust denier for criticizing people's lack of objectivity - though I cannot claim absolute and callous objectivity myself, either.
Tsuka 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsuka, I'm glad you see the relevance of mentioning forced circumcisions. However, I'm not sure what you mean by your last point. Tsuka, if you disapprove of appealing to people's emotions instead of their brains, you have a legitimate point. However, if you mean we should suppress evidence that could upset people, then I would have to disagree. Sometimes evidence of abuse is upsetting; that, however, is not a legitimate reason to suppress this evidence. Michael Glass 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I definitely meant the former, not the latter. To censor information because it might be upsetting is itself an act of emotional concern. However, adding specific examples - no matter how factually accurate - simply to provoke a certain type of emotion is just as bad. You could provide dozens of horrible examples from case A, but it would unbalance the scale if you did not in equal measure provide horror examples from case B. So while we should not censor information, it is sometimes best to leave certain examples out if they would create an unfair bias. The purpose of either including or excluding material should not be emotional, and should always be relevant. In a court of law, for instance, elaborating on how vile a crime was is absolutely irrelevant to determining guilt, and may cause the jury to focus on the wrong thing. I guess I'm rambling, but bottom line is: information should not be excluded out of concern for people's sensitivities, unless the information was included to provoke an emotional response in the first place. Tsuka 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As all evidence of forced circumcisions - and all the links - have been removed, your concern is hardly at issue. The question at issue is whether the article will mention forced circumcisions, or will all evidence of this human rights abuse be deleted? At the moment, the only substantial argument i have seen against including information about forced circumcisions in the Circumcision article is that it should have been put in another article first. I regard that as a good reason for putting a notice saying that information should be put in another article; I regard it as a very poor reason for deleting the information itself. Michael Glass 04:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with opening statements

The sentence, "Three randomised trials have provided "firm evidence" that a man's risk of acquiring HIV is halved if he is circumcised." appears to be either original research, or pseudoscience. Can we look further into this? 74.242.99.247 10:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not original research - it is directly supported by the cited sources. See paragraph 5 of ref 12: "Thus three randomised trials now provide firm evidence that the risk of acquiring HIV is halved by male circumcision."[38]
As for pseudoscience, here is the assessment of the World Health Organisation:
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.
(Emphasis added.) [39] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakew (talk • contribs) 12:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm trying to research these matters further, but you need to provide sources that don't require registration. If indeed this research is well-supported, then this shouldn't be a problem. 74.242.99.181

Articles in academic journals are sometimes tricky to obtain, I'm afraid. At least registration is free. Just be grateful that I'm not sending you to a medical library. Image:Smile.png Jakew 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Problem with the HIV study assumptions

I tried to edit it in the opening of this article but apparently someone didn't like that. The main problem with this study is that it is not (and cannot) say that ALL men's risks of getting HIV are halved if they are circumcised. To do so would be a grave mistake. These studies were done on African men living in Africa and the assumptions about them, therefore, can only be restricted to African men living in these parts of Africa. Also, it's hard to determine the causality of the cases as well because circumcision is such a cultural thing that the cultural practices could also come into play (the highest proportion of men circumcised in these parts were probably Muslim and their practices and lifestyle could dramatically change from other men living in Africa). The main problem is that we have to be extremely careful about doing a study one place and then trying to interpret its findings on another priority population, especially when this population is so unique and in such an extreme circumstance like Africa when it comes to AIDS. It is irresponsible for both news websites and the WHO to imply that this applies to all men because it cannot. For example, if a program like this was to be implemented in the Netherlands then extensive studies would have to be done in the Netherlands before since various genetic, SES, and cultural factors can come into play. Also, the WHO has stated that circumcisions used in HIV health promotion programs should only be used in places were AIDS are high and male circumcisions are low... the Netherlands has low circumcision but also low HIV+ rates. I wonder, then, what one should do about a place like the USA where male circumcision rates are high and HIV rates (at least for the first world) are also high. The WHO are desperate for anything to help with the crisis in Africa and we have to be careful about how much these studies really say about this topic. It would be premature (at this time) to apply these findings anywhere outside of the countries these studies were done in. (JFerreira 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Your interpretation is original research. We must instead state the interpretations given in reliable sources. Jakew 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying is not orginal research, it is fact that you cannot do a study in one place and then state that the whole world would benefit. The conclusions made in the study were in the context of the study; however, merely stateing that circumcision helps prevent AIDS for everyone would be incorrect and this statement needs to state that all the randomised controlled trials were done in Africa in 3rd world countries so any bold statements such as that need to be put into context. (JFerreira)
I am not going to get into an editing war here but this needs to be changed because it is not a correct statement and needs to be put into context. (JFerreira)
The World Health Organization didn't feel any need to put it into that "context". It is only your original research that asserts your interpretation and spin is meaningful. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On the recent World Health Organization study citations

I'm interested to learn more about this, but nowhere can I find a truly in-depth reference. Specifically, I'm interested to learn whether, in the study, anyone bothered to cross-check intercourse frequency before and after circumcision. This is the angle which is never mentioned at all in the widespread newspaper accounts of the studies, which puzzles me, since it's the exact sort of thing a layman would ask first. I would certainly look askance on any study that didn't take compare pre- and post-circumcision intercourse rates and compare this to HIV infection rates. Of particular importance is the duration of these tests; ie., for how long after circumcision were these men studied? Jake, if you know anything or have any links, this would be a great way to improve the article. Kasreyn 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what I can find over the next few days. I'll probably add it to medical analysis, though, since it is too detailed for the main article. Jakew 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What is even more fascinating is that the researchers found the risk of HIV to go UP among those studied who had sexual intercourse within six months of the circumcision! The claim was that some of the men did not allow enough time for their mutilated penises to heal before engaging in intercourse. But then, obviously if your penis is multilated, in pain, bloody, and deformed from the norm in your culture, and you refrain from intercourse to let it heal, you will have a lesser risk of acquiring HIV. This is what the studies rest on. The massive campaign to find a reason to cut up men's penises in still running in full force since the time in the late 1800's when circumcision was billed as the answer to masturbation. We were fooled then, and are being fooled now. Blackworm 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. From Auvert et al.: "When reducing the M1–M3 period by 42 d in the intervention group, the RR was RR = 0.43 (0.26–0.73), p = 0.0016, a value close to the RR obtained in the intention-to-treat analysis. This indicates that the 6-wk period of abstinence plays a minor role in explaining the effect of the intervention during the period M1–M21." (emph added) Jakew 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't believe I am mistaken. In fact, I believe you make my point for me. If the "6-wk period of abstinence" plays any role in explaining the effect, then surely all abstinence plays a role. Were all subjects forced to have intercourse after exactly six weeks? Was the frequency of sexual activity and number of partners the same in the mutilated and unmutilated groups after the so-called "6-wk period of abstinence?" Were the female partners in the same social groups before and after the mutilation? Was the 6-wk period of abstinence forced and strictly monitored? (Obviously not, judging by the reports of women being infected by HIV by men who did not abstain from sex after having their foreskins and frenulums amputated (http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/4898).) Is it possible the "period of abstinence" went much longer, owing to pain, embarrassment, lack of interest, and feeling different from the other men in the culture? Given that there has been a worldwide movement to cut up penises for hundreds and thousands of years, almost always based on either superstition or morality (e.g. as an anti-masturbation measure), don't you think we should really ask the hard questions this time before being fooled again? Blackworm 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of this original research. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
sadly, since those article are new, we have to wait a lot before a review article is published, finally showing that these 3 studies are methodologically flawed. --BMF81 09:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The disclaimer in the SEE ALSO section

The disclaimer reads, "Many of the referenced articles are only available on-line, on the Circumcision Information and Resource Page’s (CIRP) library and/or The Circumcision Reference Library (CIRCS). CIRP is opposed to circumcision while CIRCS articles are chosen from a pro circumcision point of view. CIRP often highlights evidence that supports its point of view while not highlighting contrary evidence. Nevertheless, links to both are provided for completeness."

Emphasis mine. I do agree that CIRP is selective about its contents, but I cannot see how pro-circumcision sites are any less subjective, some with the same degree of cherrypicking. What this disclaimer does is to single out CIRP as a site one should be wary of, and I find this a bit dishonest. Also, wouldn't this disclaimer be more appropriately placed directly below the links section?

Tsuka 01:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The disclaimer does point out that CIRPS articles are chosen from a pro-circumcision point of view. Originally, this disclaimer only applied to CIRP until the more even-handed version was agreed on. The sentence about the highlighting came later. If you think the disclaimer could be improved, please say how. Michael Glass 06:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like this to replace the highlighted text: "One should bear in mind that biased sources will always be incomplete with respects to the opposition's point of view, and so links to both are provided for completeness." Or something like that. Tsuka 09:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to miss the point. We don't link to entire sites: we only link to specific articles. As such, we are not concerned with what articles each site does or does not include, only with whether each individual article is a true, unaltered copy of the original. If parts of an article have been highlighted, that violates WP:RS#Convenience links, and that is the problem. Jakew 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There IS a link to CIRP in the links section, and my other point was that the disclaimer be moved to that section, as it would be more appropriate. As it stands now, it's an ominous disclaimer underneath a bunch of wiki-articles, for which the disclaimer is irrelevant. In any case, my main point was that CIRP is singled out for extra scrutiny, and that, as I said, is academically dishonest. Tsuka 10:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
External links and sources (references) are treated differently by Wikipedia policy. As a source, the expectation (and policy) is that any link given is a true, unaltered copy of the original. Unfortunately some of the CIRP links do not meet these criteria, as I have already mentioned. Hence, there is a difficult choice between removing the links and including the disclaimer. Jakew 10:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So what you are telling me is that there used to be CIRP links there, which have since been removed? In any case the disclaimer appears in an odd place, IMO. Edit: I think I see what you mean now: the disclaimer is meant to be in context of the references section. But it does not appear to be. It would be more appropriate to place it immediately below the references, rather than above. Unless, of course, one has the intention of discrediting said references by cautioning against them first. This usually happens when one presents a reference for the sole purpose of discrediting it, eg. "this is how NOT to do it". Tsuka 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't confuse links with references. The latter are true sources used for the article. The former are provided, where possible, for the convenience of the reader but they are not our sources. If the link is in any way different to the true source (for example, if parts have been highlighted or editorial notes have been added) then it is our duty to inform the reader. The purpose is not to discredit the source but to advise of differences from the source. Jakew 10:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed my edit. I have never confused the links of convenience with references. But the disclaimer is placed so awkwardly that it does not appear to be connected to the references at all, it just pops out of nowhere for no reason. Place it under the references section if you think it's relevant to that. Place it under the links section if you think it's relevant to that (it is relevant to both, as CIRP appears in both sections). If it's not relevant to either, it shouldn't be there at all. Whatever your preferences, it does not belong in the SEE ALSO section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsuka (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

CIRP uses HTML to literally highlight certain passages, even if other passages in the same article are not anti-circumcision. No other site that I know of does that. -- Avi 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The belief that one is a crusader against injustice can make fools of even the best and brightest. Since CIRP makes no bones about its advocacy, I don't see why anyone would be surprised that they use every trick in the book to attempt to persuade. My only concern with using them as a source is that readers should be made fully aware that CIRP is a strongly anti-circ advocacy site before they click the link. With that knowledge in hand, the reader can use their own judgment to decide how much salt they should take CIRP's viewpoint with. Kasreyn 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just browsing quickly through a couple of CIRP articles, I couldn't find the sort of highlighting you were talking about, Avi. Could you give me an example? Anyway, I absolutely agree with what you are saying, Kasreyn, but my problem is that when a specific source is singled out, it tells the prospective reader that only CIRP references are suspect; that he can swallow the others more or less whole. The impression I got from the disclaimer was, "we don't really want to refer to CIRP, but do so as a matter of form." Basically telling me not to take them seriously. It could definitely use a rewrite. Tsuka 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example.
Again, please distinguish between sources and convenience links. There are no CIRP references. There are, however, some references for which online copies may be found at CIRP (with or without additions). Your impression is thus spot on: in an ideal world, all references would be available in full at the journal's website. Unfortunately this is not an ideal world, and we sometimes link to copies elsewhere instead. We would prefer not to do this when the source has additions such as highlighting. We're not saying 'don't take this seriously,' but we are saying 'be warned, this is not quite identical to the original.' Jakew 11:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK here are a few
I can give you more if you wish, but you getthe idea. CIRP does not even pretend to be impartial, and using them as a convenience link is, in my opinion, borderline inappropriate since they refactor/redisplay the data to fit their opinions: completely against what we are trying to accomplish here. -- Avi 13:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, now I know what you mean, thank you. Come to think of it, I have noticed this kind of emphasis in CIRP articles before. About them not even pretending to be impartial - is that not true of the other links as well? I mean, that is why they are neatly divided into pro- and anti-circumcision links, is it not? And I do see cherrypicking of information in all of those links, and as far as I can tell, the bias is merely visible in different ways. If you are pro-circumcision, you are going to be disgusted with the one-sidedness of the anti-links. And if you are anti-circumcision, you are going to be disgusted with the one-sidedness of the pro-links. On topics where people might have strong emotions, there is simply no way to please everybody. Those who feel strongly about something tend to seek out authority they can agree with, anyway - I honestly don't know what the optimal solution would be for Wiki. Tsuka 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, a different policy applies to the section entitled 'external links.' In that case, it's ok (depending upon context) to link to sites with a particular viewpoint, but policy advises us: "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." By labelling sites as pro- or anti-circumcision, we do this.
We're talking about convenience links to sources, which are not the same thing. As Avi points out, linking to altered articles is highly questionable. Personally, I'd be quite happy to remove all convenience links to sites other than the original publisher and PubMed. Jakew 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This I agree with. Tsuka 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I was passing through here and removed the highlighting comment because it seems to be irrelevant. My change was reverted with the explanation that we need to reproduce sources exactly as they're given. I fail to see what bearing this has on a disclaimer box. If a particular quote in the article has bolding/emphasis, the proper manner by which to indicate that is to follow the emphasized section with something like (emphasis in original) or something to that extent. I fail to see how mentioning that one group highlights things in their own articles is something that should be disclaimed. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Because it is not standard emphasis, but cherry-picking by a secondary party out of the original text which may have had a different thrust and/or conclusion. -- Avi 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issue is not our reproduction of sources but those of a third party. Let me give an example to illustrate. In the article we cite a peer-reviewed article by Bloggs and Bloggs (1972), which appeared in the Journal of Urology. The Journal of Urology do not include this study on their website, but a third-party website includes a copy of the text. In that copy, however, highlighting has been added that is not in the original text.
Policy requires that convenience links are "a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes." In this case, the third party website has made alterations, and as a result the text is not a true copy. The question is whether to link with a disclaimer or not to link at all.
If it were a case of a source adding emphasis to their own text, I would completely agree with you: "emphasis in original" would be fine. But in this case it would be dishonest, because the emphasis is not in the original. And so we should advise readers that what they may find there is not absolutely identical to what is in the original.
I apologise for any confusion. Jakew 18:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is actually more accurate to describe what CIRP does to modify the original sources. Negativity is in the eyes of the beholder, V. But if you feel that way, then wouldn't you agree it is better not to use them as a convenience link whenever possible? I am sure that it is the partial and biased presentation of the data that is the most worrisome to someone interested in an impartial representation of data. -- Avi 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Another one of my edits have been reverted it seems. I rephrased the CIRP notification to not sound negative. In this case, I don't believe this negativity is relative. You see, when it's phrased as: "CIRP often uses HTML coding to highlight evidence that supports its point of view while not highlighting contrary evidence." it makes several assumptions.

1. By saying "While not highlighting contrary evidence", it makes the assumption that contrary evidence exists in the article and that the CIRP is ignoring it, presumably due to bias. For all I know, it may. However, because this is an external link, it seems inappropriate to poison the well in this manner. It's akin to saying: "This organization often uses rhetoric to highlight their own evidence while discarding others." That could example could apply to any number of organizations, but it's not commonly phrased that way.

2. The inclusion of such a warning makes the CIRP sound as if they're deliberately being misleading by highlighting only one side of a debate. Now, obviously, both organizations have viewpoints, but to be recommending extra caution when visiting one side's page is giving an undue bias.

3. Because the disclaimer box is making an allegation of "cherry-picking", that kind of thing really should have some kind of cite. Just because it's in a disclaimer box doesn't give us free reign to make whatever comments we want about the publication.

As a result, I think it should read: Articles reprinted by the CIRP may contain highlighting and emphasis that was not present in the original document. That way, it explains why the highlighting is an issue; the current phraseology doesn't. In fact, the current phraseology doesn't even say that the CIRP is reprinting anything. Secondly, it doesn't imply that CIRP has more of a bias than the other organization listed. Third, it makes it very clear to the reader that the highlighting in those articles may not be the highlighting of the original source.

Why, exactly, was my change not sufficient for these purposes? .V. [Talk|Email] 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have followed this debate with great interest and I believe that V, Tsuka and Kasrean have a valid point about NPOV. There is also the question of undue emphasis, which is also against Wiki policy. As four editors have expressed concern about the wording I think that this should carrry some weight with those who support the older wording. I have reworked the passage and I hope that this revision will be more generally acceptable. Michael Glass 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Since only CIRP fail to conform to the 'convenience links' requirements, it is hard to see how the emphasis can be undue.
Perhaps the solution is simply to remove all non-original, non-PubMed convenience links. Jakew 09:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that when material is available on PubMed, that should be the source rather than CIRP or CIRCS. Similarly, if the original study is available elsewhere, that should be the source quoted. However, if the material is not freely available elsewhere but is available on CIRP or CIRCS, then that should be the source. If the material is available on both CIRP and CIRCS I see no harm in giving both links. As for the notes that CIRP adds to the text, I can understand that someone with a very pro-circumcision point of view would object. However, this situation is, I believe, sufficiently covered by the present disclaimer. I believe that it is better to have a link to a text with highlighting and annotations rather than having no link at all. Michael Glass 11:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I somehow doubt that the editors who wrote and agreed upon the section of WP:RS that covers convenience links were all "very pro-circumcision," Michael. Indeed, I strongly suspect that many, if not most, of those couldn't care less about circumcision, but have strong views on encyclopaedic quality, reliability of sources, and the need to avoid misleading readers through pointing them towards modified copies of sources. Jakew 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jake, remember that whenever an article is reproduced on CIRP, CIRCS, PubMed or whatever, it will probably have links and other reader aids. These are modifications of the original text. However, the policy itself says we should apply it with common sense, and I think that this gives us enough room to use these sources when necessary. I understand and respect your concern about the highlighting and other comments on some, but not all, articles reproduced on CIRP. However, when a significant text is reproduced in CIRP, I believe it is in order to link to it if another electronic link is not available. When, as occasionally happens, texts are available on both CIRP and CIRCS, I think it would be good to give links to both versions. The reason: both reproductions will have hotlinks to different articles, and by including both sources we make it possible for the interested reader to trace a wider range of supporting studies, and not just the ones reproduced by CIRP or CIRCS. Michael Glass 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, entries in the PubMed database are supplied by the publisher of the study itself. Thus it is arguably a part of the publishing process, and there should be no reason to doubt the authenticity. PubMed is not a problem.
If we expect the reader to comb through references and collate POV selection(s) of hyperlinks to studies then we have clearly failed to be an NPOV encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Our task is not to collect links. It is to summarise - and cite - a representative selection of the literature. Let's concentrate on that, and rely on Google to satisfy those who crave links. Jakew 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jake, it's not a matter of expecting anyone to do anything. What I am saying is that in the few cases where a text has been published by both CIRP and CIRCS, why not provide links to both? Really, it's not a big deal because as far as I know, it arises so rarely. Michael Glass 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? How about "because that's utterly insane?" Nandesuka 13:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a civil comment. I have noted it and I would thank you not to be uncivil again. Now, to respond. There are several reasons for giving two links in the case when there is no link to the original and there are copies on both CIRP and CIRCS.

  • It shows even-handedness to link to both a pro-circumcision and an anti-circumcision site.
  • The two reprints will have links to other articles. However, the links on CIRCS and CIRP are almost certain to be different. Providing links to both copies would therefore provide a range of views to those who may choose to read further.
  • It won't be a big deal, because it will rarely happen, so it won't turn the article into a link farm.

Michael Glass 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

CIRP is the only site that actually modifies the appearance of the text to highlight their point of view. As such, there is no undue weight pointing out their procedure. Personally, I think that CIRP should not be linked as a convenience at all due to their modifications of text; unlike any other site. Regardless, their uniqueness in "warping" the display, as it were, must be mentioned. -- Avi 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The main question here seems to be whether we should a) apply the convenience links section of WP:RS, or b) include a disclaimer. Is there a consensus for the latter? Jakew 13:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In the specific case of CIRP, I would agree with having some mention (preferably sourced to avoid the appearance of OR) of the site's POV and advocacy stance. But I worry about setting ourselves a standard we might not be able to maintain. It would seem to be a bad idea to get ourselves into the business of testing each source for bias and then deciding (by vote?) whether to apply a disclaimer. Not only would this add a great deal of work for us, but it would also put us in the dubious position of arbiters of what is or isn't "biased enough" to merit a disclaimer. In the given situation, in which links to CIRP are such a thorny issue amongst editors, it seems like a workable compromise, but such disclaimers should probably only be used in special cases. Kasreyn 06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Kasreyn, I don't think that bias is the issue, and doesn't itself warrant a disclaimer (with, as you point out, OR implications). My concern is with whether the document is an unaltered copy of the original. If it has highlighting or comments added, then the perceived meaning of the document may be different from the original. That's the last thing we want, because it risks confusion. This is the point of the 'convenience links' requirements. Jakew 10:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable addition to lead

Various editors have repeatedly added the following to the lead:

  • However, "80% of the world does not undertake routine neo-natal circumcision" and the practice is "a falling trend internationally".

The main problem here is NPOV/undue weight. However confidently such 'facts' may be asserted (and I have not read the full text), these are estimates. Other estimates have appeared in other peer-reviewed journals. For example, Kravetz states "In fact, it is estimated that the worldwide circumcision rate is between 30% and 40%." We cannot assert that any individual estimate is factual without violating WP:NPOV.

We can add this estimate to the others that are already present in the 'circumcision prevalence' section. But instead of stating it is true, we must state that the author asserts it to be so (a subtle but important distinction). And we must not give undue weight to this or any other figure by including it alone in the lead. Jakew 09:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved that source to the "Prevalence of Circumision" section, where it belongs. Also, the 80%figure is unnecessary as that means 20%, or 1/5, circumcised which is between the 1/6 and 2/3 numbers quoted. I have left the "falling trend" quote. -- Avi 16:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I changed 'study' to 'author,' since the source appears to be an authors' reply rather than a study per se. Also, the study which it concerned was about Western Australia, not international rates.
I also added an article indicating increasing demand for circumcision. Jakew 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PDF vs. HTML

Originally, I thought that linking to PDF versions, where available, was preferable, as it more accurately reflects the printed text. Now I am thinking that as these are convenience links, and not the sources themselves, perhaps the HTML version is better as it allows more widespread access and easier linkouts. Thoughts? -- Avi 14:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about, for example, pages at the BMJ website, then I would think that either is fine. I would, however, have a slight preference for pdf links, if only because they make it blatantly obvious that this is not Yet Another Website but, in fact, something rather more substantial: a peer-reviewed academic paper. Jakew 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that anyone can produce a PDF document... The OpenOffice.org suite, for example, has this functionality built in. Anyway, I think PDFs are better as they more accurately represent the original text. You can also download and store them easier than an HTML file. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[Getting a little off-topic] True, but the quality of such pdfs tends to be fairly poor in comparison to those from journals. The latter have been typeset by professionals using high-end DTP software, and this is usually apparent. Jakew 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that... I'd hate to sound like an advocate but OpenOffice.org can do all those things without being a high end DTP product. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But the pdf's from Pediatrics and other journals are pretty identifiable, and they are linked to the website of the journal -- Avi 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please follow the references. Everything I brought in the text is either a direct quote or a direct paraphrase of the sources listed. There is no original synthesis on my part. -- Avi 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)