Talk:Circumcision/Archive 27

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 27

Contents

Jewish Circumcision Leaves Sensitive Areas Intact?

I read on a message board that Jewish circumcision leaves sensitive areas intact that hospital circumcision removes and is therefore a superior method. Has anyone come across any source that mentions this?

The passage on forced circumcisions

This is the passage that has generated so much controversy. I want to restore it to the article but I understand that Jayig wants it tagged. I would appreciate it if he would supply the tag about the information needing to appear in another article. As far as I know, four editors, Jake, Avi, Nandesuka and Jayig, have expressed concern. On the other hand, Grace Note and Tsuka and perhaps others have been generally supportive of thhe inclusion of this passage. Would people have a look at it again, and if they have any more comments, concerns or suggestions, please let me know. Michael Glass 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Forced circumcision can be a significant issue [1][2]. Forced circumcisions have occurred in ethnic/religious conflicts [3][4][5][6], as part of forced religious conversions[7][8][9] and in sexual assaults [10].

Hi - I came to this page from the RFC. Circumcision is a fairly narrow category, unlike cooking, so I have difficulty with the comparison to the inclusion of cannibalism in a cooking article. Further, my sense of cannibalism is that is is more about eating members of one's own species rather than cooking them; there might be an argument for including canibalism in an article on food; even more so in an article on ritualistic or cultural food, as I understand that much of human cannibalism has a ritualistic or cultural nature to it. Certainly a mention of eating children would be at home on a page about cannibalism.
But the issue here is circumcision. Should an article on circumcision mention forced circumcision? I think that it should, in the same way that an article on sexual intercourse should (and, I'll also note, does) include mention of rape. In both cases, an act that is generally considered to be peaceful, caring and positive becomes an assault. To fail to include rape on a page on sexual intercourse leaves out an important aspect of human sexual practices.
How much space forced circumcision should be allotted is a different question. Rape has its own article, and is mentioned only briefly on the page on sexual intercourse, because although both acts involve some similar actions, the relationship between the participants, the emotions involved, and the intentions involved are very different. Also, there is enough information about rape that an entire article can be written about it. I think that forced circumcision merits similar treatment: mention it briefly here, but spin most of it into its own article, if there should be enough information to do so. --Badger151 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Badger. Michael Glass 05:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one more comment about the tag. I looked at it and it seemed designed for subjects that already had spin-off articles, so that the main article and the summary article were compatible and did not become a POV fork. As there is no separate article on forced circumcisions at the moment, I don't think it's applicable. Michael Glass 05:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To refresh your memory, Michael, you were initially inserting the text under 'legality,' which does have a spin-off article. When it was pointed out that the text should go into the subarticle first, you then chose a new section. Jakew 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for choosing a new section was that forced circumcisions often occur in situations where the law does not reach, such as in the forced circumcisions in Ambon, Indonesia and in Pakistan. As with Badger151, I think it would be good to have a separate article on forced circumcisions. However, considering all the resistance I have faced and the abuse that I have endured because I touched on this issue in this article, I am not prepared at the moment to go ahead with that task. I believe the issue is important enough to be touched on in the general article and have therefore proposed that the two sentences above be added to this article. Several editors have already spoken in support of mentioning forced circumcisions in this article. I hope that you will give their opinions due consideration. Michael Glass 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also came here from the RfC, and I don't really see a problem with the mention. Forced circumcision is a particularly important, and notable, type of circumcision that can occur. A brief, and as far as I can see, quite fair and neutral mention of this topic is fair, and should probably be included in this article. --Haemo 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A week has now gone by since I asked for more comments on the passage on forced circumcisions. During that time two people have come independently from the RFC page and have supported the inclusion of the passage. Are there any remaining objections to my adding the passage on forced circumcisions to the article? If there are, please state them here. If no-one expresses any objections in the next 48 hours, I will restore the passage to the article under the heading Forced circumcisions. Michael Glass 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you have consensus to include this non-sequiteur-like material. Therefore, I object. Thanks in advance for respecting that. Nandesuka 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how two sentences about forced circumcision is a non-sequitur in an article about circumcision. Michael Glass 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed remaining objections. Those that I stated previously, for example, have not been withdrawn. Jakew 09:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jake, you have previously stated that there are too many footnotes and that the passage may not be neutral. Please explain how the sentences break any rules of neutrality. Please explain how your view on the number of footnotes squares with Wiki policy on documenting sources. If you have any other objections, please explain them, also. Michael Glass 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that more than a week has gone by and neither Nandesuka nor Jake have had the courtesy to reply to my questions. Michael Glass 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jake has responded above and in the archives, if I am not mistaken. -- Avi 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I strongly support the inclusion of the passage, assuming the claims are properly sourced, as it is encyclopedic information not mentioned anywhere else. I believe it may deserve its own subheading, since "Legality" doesn't quite seem to fit; but should not exceed a line or two and a link to a separate article if need be. This article is already way too long. I also believe the first sentence of the passage you suggest above can be omitted. If indeed the second sentence is true, the first sentence is self-evident. Blackworm 14:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Michael Glass, Badger151 and Haemo here. The issue of forced circumcision, is not only an important one, but of significant relevance to the topic of circumcision, and thus this article as well. James xeno 08:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that three weeks have gone by and while six editors support the inclusion of the material, and neither of the two editors who do not (Nandesuka or Jakew) have responded to Michael Glass's requests for clarification of their positions, the status quo remains and the material is being prevented from inclusion. Blackworm 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you review the discussions again. The first paragraph of this section acknowledges that "four editors, Jake, Avi, Nandesuka and Jayig, have expressed concern". Regardless of the exact numbers, it is clear that there is no consensus for the change. Jakew 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that as long as some editors object to a change, the change should not be made? Blackworm 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision is not Surgery

[Late edit: I have conceded this point.] Blackworm 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia entry on Surgery: "Surgery [...] is the medical specialty that treats diseases or injuries by operative manual and instrumental treatment." Since the presence of a foreskin is neither a disease nor an injury, circumcision cannot be described as "surgical." I suggest a re-write using the phrase "invasive bodily modification procedure" or simply "mutilation." Blackworm 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and 2) your personal interpretation of whether circumcision meets the definition is original research. Jakew 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the definition of "surgery" is incorrect or incomplete? Or are you suggesting that a foreskin is a disease or an injury? Blackworm 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Jake, could you please provide a source that does not suggest that this is the correct definition of surgery? This is a very widespread formulation. Do you have sources that suggest having a foreskin is a disease state? Grace Note 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The more relevant question is, why would you even bother trying to defend obvious original research? Also review Begging the question. Jayjg (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Obviously claiming that circumcision is "surgery" is original research. Even more irksome is the statement in the article: "Circumcision is a surgical procedure." This is followed by "Unfortunately, most such complications occur at the hands of inexperienced operators who are neither urologists nor surgeons." Clearly, if circumcisions are routinely performed by non-surgeons, it cannot be described as "surgery" any more than a girl getting her ears pierced is "surgery." The only "surgery" surrounding circumcision is that required to treat its complications, such as re-attaching penises severed by the procedure or infant sex-change operations required as a result of circumcisions. The use of the word "surgery" to describe circumcision is a weasel attempt to assign artificial medical legitimacy to the act, and should be discouraged given that the act does not meet the accepted definition of "surgery." Blackworm 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Circumcision obvious meets the usual english use of the word surgery - compare Plastic Surgery for instances where surgery isn't about health (although circumcision may be in some instances). WilyD 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Plastic surgery is called "surgery" because it is invasive and the patients body is opened by a doctor. Plastic surgery can not be conducted by just anyone. Circumcision is not surgery. Since circumcision is available to non-doctors, it can not be considered surgery. Jtpaladin 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Surgery is "a procedure performed on a living body usually with instruments especially for the repair of damage or the restoration of health" [1]. While circumcision isn't for the "restoration of health." it is clearly a surgical procedure. Exploding Boy 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you believe the part of the definition you quote after the word "especially" does not apply, then the definition in play here boils down to "a procedure performed on a living body usually with intruments." Thus things like getting one's ears pierced, clipping one's nails, washing with a washcloth, and cutting one's hair are all "surgery" according to your definition. Yet I doubt the entry for "haircut" will describe it as "surgery" -- since there is no need to spin artificial medical legitimacy into the concept of haircuts. Note also the double-standard with regard to the equivalent procedure in females: we don't call female circumcision "surgery" because to do so imparts legitimacy to the act. Blackworm 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, please review WP:V and WP:NOR, and remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, the original research here is the unverified claim that circumcision qualifies as "surgery" under the common definition. My claim that it is not is directly verifiable by the multiple dictionary definitions presented here. Thus WP:V for my claim has been met, WP:NOR is being violated by the claim that it is surgery, and the entire article, presenting circumcision of healthy newborns as a normal, legitimate procedure violates WP:SOAP. I propose replacing "Circumcision is a surgical procedure" with "Circumcision is a procedure performed on a living body with instruments" -- which is the dictionary definition suggested by Exploding Boy, excluding the terms after the word "especially" which do not apply. Alternately, "Circumcision can be a surgical procedure" would also be correct. Furthermore, WP:SOAP applies to articles, not discussions. Please review if in doubt. Blackworm 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Every medical organization brought agrees that there exist situations where circumcision is medically necessary; it is unquestionably a surgery. Please restrict soapboxing and fringe-element politicalization to blogs and websites of like-minded organizations. Thank you. -- Avi 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "What is circumcision?: Male circumcision is an elective surgery to remove the foreskin (prepuce), a fold of skin that covers and protects the rounded tip of the penis (glans). This surgery is most commonly done on newborns about 24 hours old." [2]
  • "Circumcision is one of civilization's oldest acts of surgery... Like any surgery, circumcision comes with some risk, albeit slight..." [3]
  • "Circumcision is surgery..." [4]
  • "Circumcision is cutting away part of the foreskin... When this surgery is performed, it is usually done before the baby leaves the hospital... Circumcision is elective surgery..." [5]

Even the anticircumcision websites insist it is surgery. Now, unless you have some reliable sources that specifically state that circumcision is not surgery, please stop wasting our time with your disruptive POV original research. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because some of the medical establishment (which profits greatly from routine infant circumcision) calls it surgery does not make it so. I would again ask, why isn't female circumcision considered "surgery?" The answer clearly lies in the perceived legitimacy of the procedure. If you wish to ignore the dictionary definition of "surgery," and use whatever doublethink you require to fit circumcision into your own definition, that is your prerogative, but encyclopedia articles must adhere to the usual meaning of words. It is not my desire to be disruptive. I invite you to present a logical argument as to how elective circumcision fits the above-quoted dictionary definitions of "surgery" while the other bodily modifications I mention above do not. None of your references specifically address the question of whether circumcision should be called surgery, as I am doing here; they simply misuse the word in the same way this Wikipedia article does. I personally believe this misuse is due to our cultural bias which views male circumcision as legitimate; but then the cause of the misuse is irrelevant here.
Finally, I am not impressed by your hostile tone. I realize, as others here have claimed, that this article is under the complete control of a small group of people who, like most people, mistakenly believe circumcision is harmless, painless, beautiful, normal, and to be promoted as such. I will continue to address the illogic, double-standards and pro-circumcision advocacy inherent in this article, in hopes of truly presenting a neutral point of view and breaking centuries of cultural blindness. Blackworm 06:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words soapboxing, which is againt wikipedia policy and guideline. PLease refrain from doing so here. Thank you. -- Avi 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not characterize what I wrote as soapboxing, but regardless, as I read WP:SOAP, it rightly applies to articles, not discussions. Ironically, I believe the article as it stands contains advocacy, which I am attempting to rectify. Similarly, the guideline regarding disruption seems to refer to malicious editing of articles, not simply statements on discussion pages with which some disagree to the point of getting upset. Regardless, I recognize that upsetting the editors here is counterproductive. It is very difficult for me to assume good faith here, given my negative impression of the article, but I will attempt to work harder at it in the future. I invite you to extend the same courtesy to me. Blackworm 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
SOAP applies to talk pages: "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages." -- WP:TALK Jakew 09:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that is a guideline I wasn't familiar with. WP:TALK is a guideline, and unlike WP:SOAP, not an official policy, which I take to mean that some degree of latitude is expected; but I am still at fault here and I recognize that. I will try to do better. Now, on this topic, I maintain that there is an inconsistency between the accepted definition of surgery and the practice of circumcision as a whole -- that is, not only specific instances of circumcision which may indeed be medically necessary, but also routine infant circumcision, and non-medicalized circumcision performed on older boys in Africa, as examples. Circumcision seems to me to fall under the definition of surgery in a minority of cases, and the blanket statement "circumcision is a surgical procedure" implies that it does in all cases, which I believe is incorrect and misleading. I welcome any further comments regarding that specific objection. Blackworm 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Since any novel interpretation of whether circumcision meets a given definition of surgery is original research, perhaps it would be best if you cited some reliable sources that make this argument. Jakew 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that it is original research to look up a dictionary definition of a noun, and point out that another noun fails to fall under the definition of the first. The onus is on those who would claim the second noun "is" the first, without qualifiers, to show that it properly falls under the first definition in all cases. This is especially true in this case, of a controversial procedure, where use of the word "surgery" clearly evokes legitimacy and benefit, because of modern surgery's generally beneficial contributions. This implied benefit even follows from at least one dictionary's definition of the word, to wit: "especially for the repair of damage or the restoration of health." Thus I claim that the use of the word surgery to broadly describe all circumcision is, in fact, original research and also violates WP:NPOV; this despite the overwhelming common use (or misuse) of the term in that way in certain communities. The only sources I have found directly addressing this question independently come to the same conclusion as I; notably [this one] from a group of medical doctors opposed to circumcision. I would be interested in seeing a source which specifically addresses the use of the word surgery to describe all circumcision, even the kinds I describe above, and makes a case for for that usage, but I have not found any. Blackworm 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg has cited several sources above that describe circumcision as surgery. If you find any that state that it is not, we can certainly consider noting disagreement on the issue (I haven't bothered to check the source you cite, since it is not a reliable source). If you can't find any such sources, then it is pointless to continue with this discussion. Jakew 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I am unclear as to why you do not consider it a reliable source. The author is a medical doctor, and purports to represent a group of medical doctors. Many of the current sources seem to have as their only credential the fact that they are medical doctors. Blackworm 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read the article I provided, you'll see that the author being a medical doctor is not a requirement for a reliable source. Small websites, especially of extremist or partisan organisations (such as this) are generally unreliable sources. For reliable sources, try articles in peer-reviewed journals or books from an academic press. Jakew 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Not every tiny fringe theory, position, or political agenda needs, or should be mentioned. The massive and mainstream medical groups all agree, and disagree with the tiny organization that you bring. You are attempting to push a POV in opposition to mainstream views, and are doing so under at best a misunderstanding of NPOV, or at worst, a deliberate mischaracterization of NPOV. -- Avi 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream views" are themselves a POV, requiring verifiability. Furthermore, WP:V states, "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." If you can find a source specifically addressing all known forms of circumcision and coming to the conclusion that they all properly fall under the definition of surgery, please cite. I am not pushing a POV; I am claiming POV in the article and asking it be removed -- please maintain WP:AGF. Thanks. Blackworm 15:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We have sources that describe circumcision as surgery. If you wish to cite a reliable source that argues that they have not considered all forms of circumcision, please go ahead. Jakew 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be ridiculous to require a source to counter every single use of the word; however you have proven that circumcision is widely regarded as surgery. One more misuse of the word here isn't the end of the world. I concede the point. Blackworm 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Newborn Sensitivity to Pain

[Late edit: I have conceded this point.] Blackworm 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is stated bluntly that 45% of newborn circumcisions are performed with anaesthetic. It is well documented that newborns experience pain. Why is there no attention given to the fact that 55% of routine newborn circumcision results in extreme pain for the infant? I suggest reworking that section to state clearly that 55% of newborn circumcisions are performed without anaesthetic and the baby feels extreme pain. Blackworm 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that, hence we can't. See WP:NOR. Jakew 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Which source are we talking about here, so I can review it? I don't even know what you two are arguing over! Kasreyn 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The source is referenced in the text. It is # ^ Stang, Howard J.; Leonard W. Snellman (June 1998). "Circumcision Practice Patterns in the United States" (PDF). Pediatrics 101 (6): e5–. DOI:10.1542/peds.101.6.e5. ISSN 1098-4275. The source says precisely this: "There is ample evidence that newborns are capable of experiencing pain, and there is a physiologic stress response that anesthesia or analgesia can help ameliorate." The 55% number I get by subtracting 45% from 100% -- but I agree it should say 55% of physicians performing circumcision on newborns do not use anesthesia, not that 55% of circumcisions are done without anesthesia. The same source also says "Thus, performing a circumcision on a newborn without using anesthesia is justified, only if one would be willing to perform a circumcision on an older child or adult without anesthesia." Blackworm 23:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that, Jake. How is simple subtraction original research or synthesis? If you'll reread the relevant section of WP:ATT, you will find the following:
Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.'
This seems to me to indicate that, assuming there are only two possible anaesthesia-states - with (1) and without (0), WP:ATT allows for precisely such a simple act of mathematics in the interests of being informative and easily readable. Because after all, saying "55% without" instead of "45% with" would in this case be merely a cosmetic change, having no real factual impact (unless, of course, there is a third state possible?). So I guess I would ask Blackworm why it's more appropriate in that section to focus on the negative state (without) than the positive (with). As far as I can see, there is no policy barrier to this use of mathematics. Kasreyn 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Naturally, you're right that we can't follow Blackworm's additional suggestion to state that the babies "feel extreme pain", as the source did not say that (they merely said the babies are capable of it). My own personal feelings are of disgust for the source's timidity, but I can understand their reticence at making such an inference. Kasreyn 08:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
ATT (which is policy) is actually more permissive than NOR (which is also policy) in this respect, Kasreyn, which creates a bit of a difficult situation. I tend to 'play safe' and apply the most conservative definition.
Regardless, I agree with most of your comments. In particular your 'PS' reflects my main concerns. Jakew 10:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It is more appropriate to focus on the negative (without anesthetic) for two reasons: (1) It is the more common case, and (2) it is the case which causes pain to infants, and thus a large part of the controversy surrounding this subject. If you talked about a genocide in a country, saying that 20 million people were unaffected instead of giving the actual number of victims, that would seem to give the impression of spin. On the question of feeling pain, I believe it is a simple logical inferrence to deduce that an infant capable of feeling pain (as established in the source) actually does feel pain when the skin on his penis, containing an abundance of nerve endings, is severed. The source makes this deduction explicitly by its statement on the justification of circumcision without anesthetic, which I quoted above. The infant screams you can hear during actual circumcisions are anecdotal support of this position. However, I agree that a primary source claiming that infants feel pain during the mutilation of their bodies would be ideal. Possibly it has never been said plainly by the medical community due to the massive implications of this obvious truth. Blackworm 21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, it would not be difficult to find a primary source which states that infants feel pain during circumcision. Policy, however, would prohibit us from using performing an original synthesis of the sources. Jakew 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the existing source makes that precise claim, which can be inferred from the claim "infants are capable of feeling pain." It is not synthesis, but logical derivation. It is the spin put on the facts (emphasis on the minority of doctors who DO use anesthetic, for example, instead of emphasis on the majority of doctors who do not) which is upsetting here. Blackworm 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"can be inferred" = original synthesis. Sometimes it is rediculous, I agree, but we have to draw a line somewhere, and if we allow 'any OR, we will end up allowing all OR. -- Avi 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant "inferred" in the sense used by logicians -- If A implies B (i.e. in all cases where A is true, B is true), then B can be inferred from A. This is not synthesis, but logical deduction (see WP:ATT: Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.) It does seem though that finding a reliable source that infants undergo pain during circumcision would not be difficult. The question is, what if anything should we include about it? Blackworm 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT is not policy at this time. WP:NOR, however, is, and specifically includes "... an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" Jakew 16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You assume bad faith, but regardless I will concede this point. I do believe the subject of pain and anaesthesia, which is at the centre of controversy surrounding this issue, is woefully ignored by this article. But the vague desire I expressed here has not turned out to be productive. Blackworm 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Authentic bris

Tip, that was a paraphrase of a quote from Pediatrics having nothing to do with anasthesia. Please follow the ref before you make such changes. Thank you. -- Avi 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Avr, anesthesia is a key issue in circumcision today, and you are the one who brought up the issue of relative pain. Leaving anesthesia out of a procedure claiming less pain is dishonest.
Your reference is questionable ... you "paraphrase" was from a simple letter to editors written by a doctor and a mohel ... it's simply their personal experience. The editors DO NOT COMMENT on the letter (adding weight).TipPt 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the quotation, it only discusses pain associated with crushing tissue, not pain in toto. It helps to read and understand before jumping to conclusions. Thank you. -- Avi 02:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did read the quotation. I'll add some citation stating that "authentic" (authentic would be milah without periah!) circs don't (actually can't, lacking a med lic) use anesthesia.TipPt 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your adding other information is original syntheis. The Pediatrics entry only refers to the "pain associated with crushing tissue" and the non-use of clamps. Your adding anaesthesia issues is a violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP. -- 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi wrote: "If you would read the quotation, it only discusses pain associated with crushing tissue, not pain in toto." The quotation could indeed be read that way, but the referenced source for that quotation, by the same author, makes it clear he is referring to overall pain: "Furthermore, since there is no crushing of tissue, the pain is not as severe as with the other techniques." (Letters to Editor, JAMA 1998;279(15):1169-71.). It is that specific claim which is used to draw the conclusion that the authentic bris is "more humane." Sorry. Also, the "other techniques" compared against the authentic bris indeed all involve anaesthesia, so I am quite perplexed by your emphatic negative reaction to the provably true assertion that the Pediatrics letter (which references the JAMA letter) has at least something to do with anaesthesia. Blackworm 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, it seems like an exercise in doublethink to assert that authentic bris is more humane because it does not use local anaesthesia, and simultaneously assert that we cannot draw conclusions about any anaesthesia use in authentic bris (or risk, as you are fond of pointing out, several WP::ACRONYMS). Blackworm 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is quoting the source mentioned. The JAMA letter is not being quoted. And if it were, as JAMA is a reliable source by anyone's standards, a direct quote of the letter, properly attributed, would be valid here. Thirdly, other than your own mind, which constitutes original research, what evidence have you for "It is that specific claim which is used to draw the conclusion that the authentic bris is ‘more humane.’"? None. Your own preconceptions and predispositions, as valid as they may be, do not belong in wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 03:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It makes me laugh that you are unwilling to concede the point, when the referenced source clearly invalidates your claim, which was based on your misinterpretation of the quotation. He was indeed referring to pain "in toto," as the original source proves. My evidence for my claim that it is used to draw the conclusion? Here is the relevant part of the article:
Furthermore, since there is no crushing of tissue, the pain is not as severe as with the other techniques. Therefore, with the authentic traditional Jewish technique, it is actually more humane to not subject the infant to local anesthesia. (All emphasis mine.)
Note the use of the word "therefore" which tends to indicate drawing a conclusion from a premise. Blackworm 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I can be of service supplying you with humor, but that does not change how wikipedia's policies and guidelines need to be applied, whether you find them humorous, inconsistent, frustrating, or rediculous. When you have your own website, you may do as you please; here, we need to follow certain rules. -- Avi 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Now, do you have something relevant to add? Blackworm 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, for the record, the passage in question reads:
Unlike the others, clamps or hemostats are not permitted, so the infant does not suffer from the pain associated with crushing tissue...With the authentic, traditional, bris, it is more humane not to subject the infant to a local anesthetic.
Now, it seems clear to me that it's clear from the paragraph, and the context it provides, that the author is definitely relating the lack of clamping damage to resulting lack of local anesthetic. There's really no other way to read that paragraph without treating it as a series of disconnected lines - which would be a terrifically ridiculous idea. I think the current revision of the article treats this source accurately, and properly, though. --Haemo 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The passage your ar quoting is from the referenced source, and apparently confused Avi into believing that a claim of less total pain was not being made. The source that that source is referencing, with at least one author in common, is the one I quoted, where both the claim of less total pain and the conclusion drawn from it are clear. I agree that the revision treats its source accurately -- I disagree that the source is reliable. Making surprising claims about infant pain during circumcision and extolling the benefits of "authentic bris" in an encyclopedia require medical studies, not the unsourced assertions of one mohel and one doctor. Blackworm 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Read the text again. The only claim we make is that T&S make these statements, which is easily verifiable. Jakew 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That is absolutely true, but avoids the point, which is whether these authors claims are relevant and encyclopedic. The claim that it is "more humane" not to use local anaesthesia seems quite exceptional and counterintuitive, and calls for the reliability of the authors to be subject to the utmost scrutiny. Blackworm 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous

What mess. I can't believe the infighting and controversy continues after all these years. I made a few small changes today in an effort to improve readability, and they were reverted wholesale along with some user's inappropriate edits; I'm not going to bother to try to fix them, but the article needs major editing for length, clarity, readability and flow, and somebody needs to come up with some guidelines for editing it which should be posted here on the talk page. The current style of citation used in the article makes editing very difficult as well, since there are multiple citations for every point, and the sources are very long. Exploding Boy 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the wholsesale revert. I'll try and pick out your edits. Regarding the length, because there is such strong opinionon either side, this article must be extremely careful to source every statement, so that there are no improper claims or violations in it. Eventually the idea is ti spin off the medical section and replace most of the current one with what is here, but I am doubting we will ever get there. -- Avi 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is NPOV taken to a ridiculous extreme, however. If it's really so controversial, and if all the positions are equally commonly held or important, then steps need to be taken to ensure that all the positions are given equal weight without overwhelming the article itself. This could be acheived by giving each position a small summary in this article, and creating separate articles for the various claims (or something similar -- that may not be the best option, but there has to be some way of decluttering this article and making it easier to read and to edit). Exploding Boy 04:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is ridiculus is that there are fights over this subject. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that something is very wrong in this article. What are the implications: Will a "Mohel" use Wikipedia to learn how to do his job ? No.
Wikipedia is used by high school and college students. Articles like this one serve absolutly no purpose for them. Zeq 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Foreskin-related topics are definitely encyclopaedic, but the infighting and squabbling over them is mind-boggling, and I note that some of the same people have been involved for years. Exploding Boy 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Four editors with strong personal or religious prejudice control this Topic. Please drop by periodically and revert back your preferred writing ... send other editors ... break this cabel!!!TipPt 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Jayjg, please do not violate WP:CIVIL with personal attacks such as calling someone or their edits "disingenuous". I strongly urge editors to WP:AGF. Jtpaladin 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayig, are you saying that you and Avi and Jake and Nandesuka don't work together? Or, are you just saying that it is uncivil and assuming bad faith to suggest it? Which is your meaning? Michael Glass 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Michael, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. The point is that we all (in the broad sense of the word 'all') work together. That's made easier if we assume good faith and are civil to one another, and more difficult if we assume bad faith and accuse other editors (or groups of editors) of prejudice and conspiracy. Jakew 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Jake. Now, could you reply to my question here? Michael Glass 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll mostly repeat the topic heading "This article is ridiculous."
  • I find it very difficult when they delete or bury agreed upon and highly relevant information.
  • A new outline and complete reconstruction is in progress. Please see the preview, and revert back is you like (it will be quickly removed by the Cabel). I say reconstruction because I reorganized agreed text from history.
  • So to the group mentioned above ... make it the more extreme! For now, here's a preview. Poof gone, but at least insist on a POV tag.TipPt 15:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ABUSE template

It may be good to add {{abuse}} template on top of the article, because article about analogous female procedure (female genital cutting) have it on top, both of them can be and are used to harm person in similar way, and there should be some gender equality. The article is currently locked for anonymous editing. --193.198.16.211 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing so would imply that Wikipedia considered circumcision to be a form of abuse. This would violate WP:NPOV. Jakew 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • we easily find experts who claim that circumcision can be a form of abuse. It is not NPOVTipPt 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt that some people regard it as abuse. However, endorsing that point of view would violate NPOV. Jakew 16:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Then it should be removed from female genital cutting. // Liftarn
Yes, it should be either on both of them, or on none of them. Being on only one of them is clearly a NPOV violation. --193.198.16.211 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree, Liftarn. Jakew 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For concenting adults it's not abuse (neither FGM nor MGM). // Liftarn

Someone, somewhere, probably disagrees with you there. Image:Smile.png Jakew 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN violation

It seems that some pro-circumcision users own this article and fight against every nonprocirc edits (note:nonprocirc≠anticirc). This is also violation of WP:NPOV. --83.131.22.78 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision does not "treat" penile cancer

The sentence: Circumcision may be used to treat chronic inflammation of the penis and penile cancer is not supported by its reference. Nowhere does the phrase "chronic inflammation" appear in the referenced source, nor does the source claim that circumcision is ever used as treatment for penile cancer. I am removing this sentence. If someone believes that the prevention (not treatment) of penile cancer the author of the source claims is associated with circumcision is relevant, I invite them to write a new sentence asserting that Edgar J Schoen of Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, California claims that circumcision effectively prevents penile cancer. (Why this one person's opinion piece, labeled at the top of the page with the word "Controversy," is referenced as a reliable source multiple times is beyond me.) Also, I suggest if a source can illustrate the point without requiring registration in order to read it, that source be used instead. Blackworm 09:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, circumcision is frequently used to treat penile cancer, since the foreskin is often the site of the cancerous growth. I've restored the phrase with a supporting citation for both assertions. Jakew 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Your first sentence above appears to be original research, but I welcome it since this is the discussion page, not the article. More importantly, however, your source does not support the assertion that circumcision treats penile cancer. Nowhere is the word "cancer" found in your source article. It does contain the word "neoplasm" -- which you inexplicably link to from the phrase "penile cancer" instead of the existing Wikipedia entry for penile cancer. They do not seem to be synonymous. The Wiki article on "neoplasm" claims that a neoplasm may be malignant, or benign (i.e. not cancer). Your source does not claim that preputial neoplasms are malignant, nor that their removal is an effective treatment for penile cancer. It fact it says nothing about them other than circumcision is used to treat them. I suggest you find another source to back up this claim. Even if you do, and it turns out to be true that some (or all) preputial neoplasms fall under "penile cancer," I'd propose adding the phrase "some forms of (penile cancer)" unless all forms of penile cancer are preputial neoplasms. Blackworm 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As a footnote, the word "carcinoma" does appear in your source. To quote: "There are no specific contraindications to adult circumcision in the literature; however, patients with (...) possible squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (...) should be referred for a urologic consultation." This seems to imply that circumcision is specifically contraindicated in at least some cases of penile cancer, rather than used as a treatment. Blackworm 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have changed it again, without comment here, this time referencing a study where less than 10% of the cases of penile cancer were treated with circumcision (the more common "treatment" was partial or total amputation of the penis). To say "circumcision may be used to treat ... penile cancer" implies that circumcision is a effective remedy for penile cancer, which is not analyzed nor claimed by the source. To see what I mean, compare the statement "leeches may be used to treat headaches." I'd suggest the words "has been" in place of "may" at the very least. Blackworm 10:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you make such an inference, but the text only states that it may be used to treat penile cancer, which is undeniably true. Jakew 11:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It is also undeniably misleading. Actually, "has been used" is more accurate, and factual, and doesn't carry the implication, so I must ask why you seem to object to the change. Blackworm 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I provided a source stating that circumcision may be used to treat neoplasms, and you protest that it may mean non-malignant neoplasms. I provide a source directly documenting the use of circumcision to treat penile cancer, and you demand use of the past tense. Why do you have such a problem with the assertion? Jakew 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it's inexplicably giving wildly undue weight to the benefits and beneficial uses of circumcision. It's used in ten percent of cases of a disease which occurs in 2 in 100,000 men, and it gets a glowing mention in the first section of the article, before the table of contents? Blackworm 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What's "glowing" about the phrase "circumcision may be used to treat penile cancer" with an appropriate citation? Was there a revision of the article I missed that said "Circumcision — which completely fucking rocks — may be used to fabulously and superbly treat penile cancer"? Blackworm, I think you're reading things that simply aren't there. Nandesuka 14:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, compare "leeches may be used to treat headaches." Absolutely true. Also absolutely misleading. And a glowing statement about leeches, in my opinion. Blackworm 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The other source of my annoyance with this statement is that the article carefully steers clear of mentioning that the foreskin is a part of the penis, implying that the penis is one thing, the foreskin another thing attached to but not part of the penis. For example, the definition is given as "[cutting] the foreskin from the penis," not, "cutting away the foreskin of the penis." However, in cases of cancer, suddenly the foreskin is the penis! Cancer of the foreskin is penile cancer. So if you get cancer of the foreskin, and get circumcised, you've been cured of penile cancer. It is misleading. Blackworm 15:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Policies of various national medical associations

Has become a total joke. Those statements do not represent an honest synthesis of the policies. For example the AAP primary quote for policy is (was for a long time):

{{quotation|Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

Right now it says:

  • The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parental decisions on elective circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking physiological, cultural, ethnic, and religious factors into account.

Junk. It's POV.TipPt 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is paraphrased from the policy itself: "To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision." Jakew 10:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's doesn't seem like paraphrasing, but more like cherry-picking. The policy of the AAP is that the "data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" -- which is a quote from the first sentence of the abstract and the thrust of the AAP policy. What you have done is focussed on the AAP's respect for cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions (all of which are mainly pro-circumcision reasons, and outside the AAP's professional field of expertise), while inexplicably synthesising the neutral word "physiological" and adding that. Assuming you wish to maintain a neutral point of view, why is this better than what was there before? Blackworm 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the policy of the AAP includes the entire text, not just the text you quoted above and not just the text I quoted above. Let's not pretend otherwise, nor pretend to know the "thrust" of the policy.
Given that the article already remarks that "[the AMA] states that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns", it is redundant to repeat the text referring to routine circumcision. What is of interest is what they have to say that is not covered by the more general statement: what do they say about non-routine (ie elective) circumcision?
Contrary to your apparent belief, I did not make this particular change personally, but I think it was a wise decision. Jakew 09:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The thrust of the policy is the AMA's AAP's stance as a medical association, not an religious, ethnic, or cultural one. They don't hide it, they state it plainly as the first sentence in the abstract. The "paraphrasing" without re-iterating this fact obscures the policy rather that elucidates. Let's not pretend otherwise. Since you approve of the change, again, I ask, why is it better than what was there before?
Also, your quote above does not claim the AMA AAP does not recommend the procedure, only that the AMA asserts that some nebulous medical associations located in three places do. I suggest adding the words "(including the AMA itself)" in the above part you quote, after the words "in the US," since otherwise it is unclear that the AMA itself is one of those nebulous medical associations which has that policy. Otherwise, suggest we add "The AMA AAP does not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns" before the existing sentence under Policy: AMA. AAP. As it stands, the article does not state the AMA's AAP's position. Let's rectify this. Blackworm 10:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, the text is an improvement because instead of pointless repetition it states a fact not previously stated. Whether you feel that they are qualified to make such a comment is, I'm sorry to say, irrelevant.
As for the AMA quote, for whatever reason the source does not say "(including ourselves)", and it is not our place to amend their policy for them. Jakew 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no repetition, because, as I have stated quite clearly above, the current article does not state AMA's AAP's lack of recommendation for the procedure. The previous, deleted text does correctly state this. Also, I made no claim about the qualifications of the AMA AAP to state their position on cultural, religious, and ethnic matters. I do not object to the current text, I object to the removal of the previous text, which along with actually stating the AMA's AAP's recommendation (or in this case, lack thereof), is more relevant to the section, less ambiguous, and more within the AMA's AAP's field. Also -- you seem to be engaging in doublethink. You object to the inclusion of the actual policy statement of the AMA because of "repetition," but object to making the AMA's lack of recommendation clear in the place where is it supposedly said first (but in reality, is not). Blackworm 11:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Amendment: I was clearly confused in the above between the AAP and AMA. All occurences of "AMA" in the paragraph directly above should be read as "AAP." My apologies. Obviously writing "(including the AMA itself)" is not called for. Perhaps "(including the AAP)" would fit that purpose. Otherwise, what is called for is the statement that the AAP does not recommend the procedure, since it is new information not found anywhere else in the article. Blackworm 12:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you must have meant the AMA in at least one instance. Perhaps you could strikethrough and rewrite your remarks? Jakew 12:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have done so, and realized that my confusion went further than I thought. I also struck through an entire section that does not make sense given that confusion. Here is a fresh take if you don't care to reread that mess: I believe that the AAP's policy is better represented by the previous version, and that there is no repetition given that the previous statement of the AMA, which you quoted, does not mention any specific medical associations. Thus the old version contained valuable information not duplicated anywhere else, and should be restored. Again, my apologies for the confusion. Blackworm 12:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Tannenbaum and Shechet: not a reliable source

I strongly object to this being present in the article:

According to Tannenbaum and Shechet, an “authentic, traditional bris performed by a mohel does not use clamps, so there is no pain associated with crushing tissue.” They further write that due to the speed of the procedure and rarity of complication, it is “more humane not to subject the infant to a local anesthetic.”

The reference gives the impression this is published in Pediatrics under peer review. It is not. Is it from a letter to the editor. Commonly, the word "Letter" appears in the reference before the publication name when the material is a letter to the editor and not necessarily endorsed by the publication's editors. Schechet is not even a medical doctor, but a mohel, which makes these unsubstantiated and non-peer-reviewed claims even more suspect. Also, both are clearly not neutral reporters but indeed are circumcision advocates, since they present a "case series" where 480 men request circumcision, a majority of them having medical issues normally treated by circumcision (as assessed by the authors), then use the frequency of medical issues in this particular group to recommend routine infant circumcision! This is an obvious fallacy; i.e. that using a specific group of men who seek surgery to address medical problems to imply that the same or even close to the same frequency of medical problems occurs in the general population. This signals a bias strong enough to warrant them being considered entirely unreasonable and unreliable, and this along with the lone voice of their claims make them not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Blackworm 10:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. "The reference gives the impression this is published in Pediatrics under peer review." - how so?
  2. "Schechet is not even a medical doctor, but a mohel, which makes these unsubstantiated and non-peer-reviewed claims even more suspect" - what's your source for this analysis?
  3. "Also, both are clearly not neutral reporters but indeed are circumcision advocates" - what's your source for this analysis, and why is it relevant?
  4. "This is an obvious fallacy" - what's your source?
  5. "This signals a bias" - according to whom? Jakew 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Because references in Wikipedia are supposed to be from reliable sources. "Pediatrics" is a peer-reviewed journal, and listing the reference as "Pediatrics" and not "Letter. Pediatrics" (as it should be listed) gives that impression. I was surprised to find it was in a letter to the editor, and would never have known had I not actually investigated the reference.
  2. It's not an analysis, it's a further observation which is unclear without investigating the reference, which calls into question the reliability of the source. The source is a medical peer-reviewed journal, and this person has no apparent medical qualifications nor are his and his associate's statements peer-reviewed.
  3. The fact they are advocates is clear from the source -- in the same way you claimed that my source was an advocate a few days ago. I could have easily bombarded you with uncivil questions then, but I accepted your analysis of my source as unreliable. Why are you objecting so vehemently now, when this source is also, clearly, unreliable?
  4. The source for the fallacy is clear from my analysis. It is a point of evidence against the source's reliability.
  5. According to me, or, in my opinion, any neutral observer with no axe to grind. Again, I could ask you the same questions when you dismiss a source as being unreliable -- and next time, I will. Blackworm 11:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To quote you, Jakew: "For reliable sources, try articles in peer-reviewed journals or books from an academic press." This unreliable source is neither an article in a peer-reviewed journal nor a book from an academic press. Blackworm 11:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the reference is cited as Shechet, Jacob; Barton Tanenbaum (2000). "Circumcision---The Debates Goes On" (PDF). Pediatrics 105 (3): 682–683. This is completely misleading -- they did not write any article with that title. That title is a subheading to "Letters to the Editor" which appears at the top of the page and which is clearly the true title to be cited, if indeed it should be cited at all. Blackworm 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read "article" as "paper or letter". To address each point:
  1. Standard citations do not specify whether it is a letter or not. See the PubMed citation
  2. OR.
  3. Your source was not published in a scholarly source, which was the objection. If a source is published appropriately, the position of the author is not usually an issue.
  4. OR again.
  5. OR again. Jakew 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Wrong -- you make my point for me. The PubMed citation is, in full:

Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3 Pt 1):682-3; author reply 685. (Emphasis mine.)

The PubMed page goes on to say, as a reference: Comment on: Pediatrics. 1999 Mar;103(3):686-93. See the part after the words "Comment on?" That's the citation for a peer-reviewed article. The reference as it stands makes it look like Tannenbaum et al. wrote the article, which is false. Regardless, I disagree with you that any published letter to the editor in a peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. WP:RS clearly states: What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. There is no evidence of the latter here. Blackworm 12:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're reading the wrong parts of the page. If you go here and enter the PubMed ID 10733394, you will see that the correct parts are extracted. Jakew 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I did so, and the result included author reply 685 which was mysteriously excluded from the reference here. I also still claim this is not a reliable source. Blackworm 13:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to T&S, we are bringing Pediatrics as a source. Letters to the editor in a peer-reviewed journal are considered reliable sources. It is not like a letter to the editor of a tabloid or a post on a fringe website. The source is there, it is verifiable (follow the link) and it is reliable (Pediatrics, not Ilovecircumcision.com) so it is eminently proper in the article, and the reader can decide as to the bona fides of the author's themselves. -- Avi 14:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Author reply 685 is left out as we are not citing the author's reply in that sentence Your question would be as valid if you had asked why did we leave out the Encyclopædia Britannica from the reference; either way, completely irrelevant. Further, if you actually would have looked at page 685, you would see the "author" (in this case, Carole M. Lannon, MD, MPH Chair, AAP Task Force on Circumcision) did not address Tannenbaum and Schechet. Making any argument to add the pg 685 reference is irrelevant, misleading, and inexplicable. -- Avi 15:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please address: WP:RS clearly states: What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Nowhere is there any evidence that either of these statements apply to these authors. There are several other letters from that source which are vehemently anti-circumcision, instead of vehemently pro-circumcision like the currently sourced one. I will count on your strong support for me in the edits I will soon make sourcing them. Thanks. Blackworm 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please provide evidence for your statement: "Letters to the editor in a peer-reviewed journal are considered reliable sources." This makes no sense to me, as the letters themselves are not peer-reviewed. Thus the question of whether the journal is peer-reviewed or not becomes completely immaterial. Blackworm 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The source is Pediatrics; that is reliable. Please review WP:RS#Scholarly and non-scholarly sources where it states "particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals." Further, adding letters which are "vehemently anti-circumcision" for the sake of making a WP:POINT is against wiki policy, which you well know. Also, please review WP:SOAP. Thank you. -- Avi 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Inherent in the phrase "material published by peer-reviewed journals" is the assumption that the material in question is peer-reviewed. Do you agree, or disagree? If you disagree, I will put this question to the discussion page at WP:RS and see what the folks over there believe. Blackworm 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If the letter wasn't published by a peer-reviewed journal, then who do you suppose did publish it?
I can see that one can argue that a letter is, in general, less reliable than a paper (with some exceptions: Letters to the Editor are, after all, the appropriate place for pointing out errors in papers), but to argue that it isn't published by the journal seems absurd. Jakew 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did I argue that it wasn't published by the journal in question? It is indeed absurd. I'm arguing that since not everything published by a "peer-reviewed journal" is peer-reviewed -- for example, letters to the editor -- the fact of a given source's publication in a "peer-reviewed journal" is irrelevant as far as WP:RS is concerned unless the source is, in fact, peer-reviewed. I really don't see how I can put it any clearer than that. Blackworm 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Question for you. Would you expect to find the same type of material in letters to a tabloid newspaper and to an academic journal? Or would you expect that the journal would wish to maintain its reputation by holding a relatively high bar to publication? Please don't answer in terms of specific journals (or indeed letters), just tell me your general expectations. Jakew 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of answering my questions before responding with your own. Your question invites me to give original research, which is confusing considering your past objections. Let's just stick to the point at hand rather than these irrelevant tangents. Thanks. Blackworm 21:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research is forbidden in articles. Not in polite conversation on a talk page. Are you seriously making the claim that you generally expect a letter in The New York Daily News and a letter in Pediatrics to be of roughly the same quality? That's what your refusal to answer Jakew's polite (and relevant) question implies. Nandesuka 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are apparently wrong about that, as Jakew specifically pointed out to me in his multiple accusations of original research on my part (where you did not jump to defend me): what applies in articles applies to discussion pages. Ask Jakew or review WP:TALK if in doubt. As to the question, why must I answer his polite questions when he refuses to answer mine and instead seemingly attempts to divert the discussion? I am waiting on an answer from anyone to this: Inherent in the phrase "material published by peer-reviewed journals" is the assumption that the material in question is peer-reviewed. Do you agree, or disagree? Blackworm 02:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Jakew, but, no, I don't find that assumption to be at all inherent. I think you're reading a very simple statement ("material published in peer-review journals") and tacking on to it a qualifier that simply isn't in our standards ("material that has been peer reviewed"). What you might be missing —- or misunderstanding — is that Wikipedia is, at its core, a tertiary sourced encyclopedia. The relevant question here is whether Pediatrics (or whatever journal is at issue in whatever debate) is a reliable source. Peer reviewed journals have a higher standard of care than does the Daily Mail. If I, as a layman, wrote a letter to Pediatrics claiming that I have indisputable proof that otitis media is caused by microscopic leprauchauns living in the ears of toddlers, they would not publish it. It is true that letters are not peer reviewed. Peer review is not the only standard for inclusion: if you think that it is, then you have once again read words that are not written.
In summary, your claim that a letter published in Pediatrics is not a reliable source simply beggars the imagination. This is not a credible line of argument. I urge you to abandon it. Nandesuka 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
At least it's better than the "Circumcision is not surgery" OR. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayig: please don't make irrelevant and non-productive personal attacks. Nandesuka: No, I think it's completely credible and logical. I am also quite happy with how I presented the issue, both here and on the WP:RS talk page. Your having to make an extreme example (a straw man) further vindicates me. I am not claiming the all-importance of peer-review. I am claiming that you cannot equate the reliability of a peer-reviewed article and a non-peer-reviewed letter to the editor in a journal with peer-reviewed articles, as Avi has attempted to do. Blackworm 04:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But the issue is not one of comparitive importance, but minimum standards, for which I have yet to hear a valid argument against the letter's inclusion, and perhaps, a valid argument for the inclusion of the three websites brought above. -- Avi 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that minimum standards is the issue. I have addressed your statements regarding this on Talk:WP:RS. The three websites you mention are not at issue here; if you wish to discuss them, please start a new section. Blackworm 00:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right - letters to the editor in a peer-reviewed journal are not themselves peer-reviewed and should not be presented as such. I'm not sure what has been breached in this case, but the result is certainly unencyclopaedic. PalestineRemembered 20:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Forced circimcision section

It might be good idea to create forced circumcision section. Thank you. --193.198.16.211 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop soapboxing the gential cutting and mutilation articles. Secondly, see Circumcision and law. -- Avi 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm just giving a suggestion, third I'm not going. Ah, nevermind... --193.198.16.211 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems odd that forced circumcision would appear under Circumcision and Law. It is not even clear that forced circumcision of the kind described is legal or illegal in the places it occured. The definition of "forced circumcision" is not given, and since it could be argued that neonatal circumcision is "forced circumcision," the fact that forced circumcision is relegated to its tiny corner omitting mention of neonatal circumcision seems to be POV-pushing. In essence, by omitting neonatal circumcision from "forced circumcision," Wikipedia is claiming that neonatal circumcisions are not forced upon the infant. POV. Put another way, at what specific age does being strapped down and circumcised against one's will become a "forced circumcision?" One year? Three? Five? Ten? Twenty? What age? Blackworm 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some original research and soapboxing that you can discuss on your own website, blog, or discussion group. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -- Avi 20:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also some bizarre reasoning. Whenever Wikipedia does not state something, it simply does not state it. No more, no less. We do not discuss pineapples in this article, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is claiming that pineapples are unrelated to circumcision, and there are no POV or sourcing issues involved. Absence of statement != statement of absence. Jakew 20:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't see any original research or soapboxing here, but there is doubtlessly presence of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN violation by "opposite party". --193.198.16.211 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Avi: It's extremely tiresome to hear you trot out unsubstantiated WP:SOAP and WP:NOR accusations rather than address what I'm saying. I am discussing Wikipedia. You seem to not be discussing anything, but only dodging questions and attempting to shut down discussion. I respectfully submit that it would be more productive if you addressed my latest response to our dispute above regarding WP:RS above by answering the question I put forth. Thanks. Blackworm 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought you said you were bringing it up on WT:RS? As it stands now, you have no argument; Pediatrics is unquestionably a reliable source. Your rather obvious WP:POV pushing is having you try and delete information that happens to repudiate your position. Sorry, it does not work like that. If reliable sources are truly a concern of yours, why don't you look into these sources, which are of much inferior quality, in the article:

-- Avi 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi: Actually, I said I would share the question with the talk page of WP:RS after you answered the question in the negative. You never answered. I put the question there anyway, but this does not resolve our ongoing dispute regarding the reliability of this source. Now, again I ask you please stop failing to assume good faith. I am making an effort to do so and remain civil; please do the same. Thanks. Blackworm 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Jakew: Your argument is easily dispelled -- obviously removing all information either pro- or anti-circumcision in the article would make it POV due to the absence of the material. Creating a heading "forced circumcisions," then including details of a few specific actions under that heading, imply that other forms do not fall under that heading. That is classic POV. If I created a section entitled "beneficial circumcisions" and listed one or two cases, I'm sure you'd object on similar grounds. Blackworm 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This also describes their actions on male genital mutilation very well. --193.198.16.211 21:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put some material on forced circumcisions in the Circumcision and Law article because several editors were determined not to have it mentioned in this article. Michael Glass 23:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I read that discussion, and I'm forced to agree with others that it seems like a violation of WP:OWN used to serve a violation of WP:NPOV. Regardless, I think the heading "forced circumcisions" is prejudicial and very likely original research. I would prefer it be entitled "Specific cases of non-infant forced circumcisions" although that sounds bulky and could likely be improved. In any case, we need an acceptable, non-POV definition of "forced circumcisions" before any progress can be made on that particular subject. Blackworm 02:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tannenbaum and Shechet "authentic" is much worse than unreliable

What's really wrong with this letter to the editor by (without editor comment) is the fact that infant circumcision pain has been found in three primary procedures.

1. When the foreskin and the glans are separated with a blunt probe ... compared to ripping off your fingernail.

2. Gross manipulation of the foreskin, including crushing.

3. Frenectomy.

So these authors ignore two of three sources of extreme pain.

The "authentic" bris CANNOT INCLUDE anesthesia. The reader is mislead to think "authentic" is better.TipPt 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Jakew 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You know I can cite the statements above, but I'm not wasting time.TipPt 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Waste time just to find agreement violated, or pick a better version?

Please see this sandbox. [[6]]

The Topic is all material we all found OK at one point, save one sentence in Sexual Effects. It's honest.

Please see the introduction, Association policies, and Procedures sections for specific comparisons.

Please revert to this version if you find it better.TipPt 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the "diff" between this and the current revision? Otherwise I can't see how it can properly be discussed. Blackworm 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Best way (I know) is for you to copy and paste, then save the sandbox version into Wiki. Make it the current version. You can then go to history and "compare selected versions." I've recently done that here... [[7]]
That's kind of hard to understand, so below in Talk I'll show the two versions of introduction, sexual effects, and Policies.TipPt

BMA's position is watered down

The section on the British Medical Association is watered down and misrepresents their position. It also makes the grave error of containing the phrase "the decision to have non-clinical circumcision performed is generally the right of the parents to decide" which is not a reasonable interpretation of the source, which repeatedly emphasizes competant children's choice in the matter and the requirement of both parents to give consent. The sentence on medical circumcision also inexplicably waters down the source, which explicitly uses the strong words "unethical" and "inappropriate." Here is my suggested rewrite:

As of June 2006, in contrast with the AMA in the US, the British Medical Association defines "non-therapeutic" circumcision as that which is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need, including for religious reasons. In such cases, they state, "there is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether it is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself." However, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices on how best to promote their children's interests, within societally-accepted limits. For medical purposes, the BMA's position is that performing circumcision is "unethical and inappropriate" in cases where techniques proven to be equally effective and less invasive exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackworm (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

There was much discussion about how much of the quote to bring a few months ago, to the point that someone spun off an entire article just about the positions of the major groups; which was deleted by consensus. The compromise was to quote the sections in the footnots. As such, if I am not mistaken, what you want is already in the article. Please check footnote #154. Thanks. -- Avi 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes in tiny text are not read by most people. The section as it stands misrepresents the BMA's views, which is my objection. My suggested edit is not much longer, and I believe presents a more balanced paraphrasing of the BMA's position, for the reasons I gave above. Also, the footnote is several times longer than my suggested edit, and still does not address all the points made (notably, about medical circumcision). I do welcome ideas on how to improve the section, of course. Blackworm 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I support Blackworm's suggested addition to the text. However, I would modify it as follows:
In June 2006, the British Medical Association defined circumcision as "non-therapeutic" when it is performed for any reason, including religious reasons, other than physical clinical need. In such cases, they state, "there is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether it is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself." However, the BMA states that parents should be entitled to make choices on how best to promote their children's interests, within societally-accepted limits. The BMA's position is that performing circumcision for medical reasons is "unethical and inappropriate" in cases where other techniques are equally effective and less invasive.
I don't suggest this is the last word on the subject. Others might also be able to suggest other improvements to the suggested text. Michael Glass 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer your version, Michael; it's less wordy and less potentially confusing. Thank you. It seems a bit long, still. Perhaps the quote should be ended immediately after the phrase "...neutral or harmful procedure?" The article in general is way too long and I hate to be responsible for making it longer. I would have personally been on the side of separating the entire "policies" section into a new article. Blackworm 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As Avi has noted, the consensus is to have the quotations in footnotes. There seems little reason to change the present text. Jakew 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We went through this at length a few months ago, including WP:AfD's and all. It may not be the best solution, but it is the compromise that works for now. The text in footnotes is small for space purposes. It still is on the page, it is readable, and we do link to the original for anyone with the desire to learn more. Please check the archives for more info. -- Avi 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're missing the point Avi, the current Topic text is dishonest.TipPt 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also not only factually incorrect, but grammatically incorrect. What does this sentence fragment even mean? and that the decision to have non-clinical circumcision performed is generally the right of the parents to decide on how to best promote their childrens’ interests? It's not grammatically correct; it isn't clear what is the parents' right: "the decision..." or "how to best promote..." (which is what the source says). The phrase "the decision to have non-clinical circumcision performed is the right of parents" does not appear in the text and is clear original research. It's clearly an attempt to warp what the source says into an overall pro-circumcision policy statement which the BMA does not make. (This is similar to the other associations' statements which all focus on the arguably pro-circumcision bent of parental choice, rather than the arguably anti-circumcision bent of overall non-recommendation of the procedure -- one of which was recently edited by Jakew to conform to the pro-circumcision point of view without valid explanation.) Blackworm 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Grammar corrected and direct BMA quote used. It cannot be watered down if it is their own words. Now, if someone thinks the BMA itself provided a "watered-down" statement, that is fine; but unacceptable in the article. Thanks for the grammar heads-up, by the way. -- Avi 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this synthesis is a misrepresentation: "The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision”". This is not true. Their policy is clearly stated and multi-faceted, and includes requiring both parents' consent as well as the consent of the competant child. That is their issued policy. Also, no one has claimed the BMA itself provided a watered-down statement; you are making a straw man argument. Blackworm 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Also, you cannot re-use the phrase "non-therapeutic," after having presented the AMA's definition, without making clear that the BMA's definition differs. To do so is dishonest and misleading. Blackworm 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues.

– The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors - BMA

--Avi 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Association has no policy on these issues." In other words, they do not have any policy on whether is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. They do have certain policies on non-therapeutic circumcision. Also, please address the re-use of "non-therapeutic" under a different definition than that previously given in the article. Blackworm 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your time

My experience has been we eventually find agreement (with the cabels jakew, avi, nand, and jayg), but then they soon violate the agreed text. Replace it with their own biased text. They mostly wear you down, so keep your talk short. None of the current Assoc policy paragraphs are honest. Remember their primary position is to not recommend. That primary position is totally lost in Jakew's current version.

Note the contradiction ... Avi and Jakew insist on long and detailed benefits texts, although benefits roughly equal harm. Then they suppress Assoc statements that generally say "not recommend" as too long.TipPt 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Geocities

In general, anything posted on geocities is usually not considered a reliable source for the purposes of wikipedia, since you or I can just go and post anything we want on geocities. I will be removing that reference again, but if you can find a suitable source for it, please re-add it, properly attributed. Thanks. -- Avi 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Outline comparisions

 1 The procedures of circumcision  2 Cultures and religions  2.1 Judaism  2.2 Christianity  2.3 Islam  2.4 Other faiths and traditions  3 Ethical issues  3.1 Consent  3.2 Emotional consequences  3.3 Legality  4 Sexual Effects  5 Medical aspects  5.1 Risks of circumcision  5.2 HIV  5.2.1 Langerhans cells and HIV transmission  5.3 HPV  5.4 Hygiene  5.5 Infectious and chronic conditions  5.5.1 Balanitis  5.6 Penile cancer  5.7 Phimosis and paraphimosis  5.8 Urinary tract infections  5.9 Policies of various national medical associations  5.9.1 United States  5.9.2 Canada  5.9.3 United Kingdom  5.9.4 Australasia (Australia, New Zealand and nearby islands)  6 History of circumcision  6.1 Circumcision in the ancient world  6.2 Medical circumcision in the 19th century and early 20th century  6.3 Circumcision since 1950  7 Prevalence of circumcision  7.1 Australia  7.2 Denmark  7.3 South Korea  7.4 United Kingdom  7.5 United States  8 See also  9 References  10 External links  10.1 Circumcision opposition  10.2 Circumcision promotion  10.3 Circumcision techniques  11 Further reading

1 The procedures of circumcision 2 Medical aspects  2.1 Risks of circumcision 3 Sexual Effects 4 History of circumcision  4.1 Circumcision in the ancient world  4.2 Medical circumcision in the 19th century and early 20th century  4.3 Circumcision since 1950  4.4 Judaism  4.5 Christianity  4.6 Islam  4.7 Other faiths and traditions 5 Ethical issues  5.1 Consent  5.2 Emotional consequences  5.3 Legality 6 Policies of various national medical associations  6.1 United States  6.2 Canada  6.3 United Kingdom 7 Prevalence of circumcision  7.1 Australia  7.2 Denmark  7.3 South Korea  7.4 United Kingdom  7.5 United States 8 See also 9 References 10 External links  10.1 Circumcision opposition  10.2 Circumcision promotion  10.3 Circumcision techniques 11 Further readingTipPt 17:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Current outline vastly superior. Thanks for asking, though. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Procedures comparison with bold diff

The procedures of circumcision

thumb|right|250px|Circumcised penis, flaccid (left) and erect (right) Circumcision removes the foreskin from the penis. For infant circumcision, clamps, such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen are often used.[12] These clamps are meant to protect the glans while they cut the blood supply to the foreskin and prevent any bleeding. With the Plastibell clamp, the foreskin and the clamp come away in three to seven days. Before a Gomco clamp is used, a section of skin is crushed with a hemostat then slit with scissors. The foreskin is drawn over the bell shaped portion of the clamp and inserted through a hole in the base of the clamp. The clamp is then tightened, "crushing the foreskin between the bell and the base plate." The crushing limits the bleeding (provides the hemostasis). With the flared bottom of the bell fit tightly against the hole of the base plate, the foreskin is cut away with a scalpel from above the base plate, while the bell covers the glans to prevent it being reached by the scalpel.[13]

With a Mogen clamp, the foreskin and the glans are separated with a blunt probe and/or curved hemostat (as with the first part of the Gomco and Plastibell procedure). The foreskin is then grabbed dorsally with a straight hemostat, and lifted up. The Mogen clamp is then slid between the glans and hemostat, following the angle of the corona to "avoid removing excess skin ventrally and to obtain a superior cosmetic result," compared with Gomco or Plastibell circumcisions. The clamp is locked shut, and a scalpel is used to cut the foreskin from the flat (upper) side of the clamp.[14][15]

The frenulum is cut if frenular chordee is evident.[16][17]

According to a 1998 study, 45% of physicians used anaesthesia for infant circumcisions. Dorsal penile nerve block was the most commonly used form. Obstetricians had a significantly lower rate of anaesthesia use (25%) than pediatricians (71%) or family practitioners (56%).[18]

According to Tannenbaum and Shechet, an “authentic, traditional bris performed by a mohel does not use clamps, so there is no pain associated with crushing tissue.”[17] They further write that due to the speed of the procedure and rarity of complication, it is “more humane not to subject the infant to a local anesthetic.”[17] (removed because ritual circs are painful)

The procedures of circumcision

Circumcision removes the foreskin from the penis. For infant circumcision, clamps, such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen are often used.[19] These clamps are meant to protect the glans while they cut the blood supply to the foreskin and prevent any bleeding. With the Plastibell clamp, the foreskin and the clamp come away in three to seven days. Before a Gomco clamp is used, a section of skin is crushed with a hemostat then slit with scissors. The foreskin is drawn over the bell shaped portion of the clamp and inserted through a hole in the base of the clamp. The clamp is then tightened, "crushing the foreskin between the bell and the base plate." The crushing limits the bleeding (provides the hemostasis). With the flared bottom of the bell fit tightly against the hole of the base plate, the foreskin is cut away with a scalpel from above the base plate, while the bell covers the glans to prevent it being reached by the scalpel.[20]

With a Mogen clamp, the foreskin and the glans are separated with a blunt probe and/or curved hemostat (as with the first part of the Gomco and Plastibell procedure). The foreskin is then grabbed dorsally with a straight hemostat, and lifted up. The Mogen clamp is then slid between the glans and hemostat, following the angle of the corona to "avoid removing excess skin ventrally and to obtain a superior cosmetic result," compared with Gomco or Plastibell circumcisions. The clamp is locked shut, and a scalpel is used to cut the foreskin from the flat (upper) side of the clamp.[14][15] Taeusch et al report that as compared with the Plastibell, Mogen circumcisions are quicker, less painful, and preferred by trainees.[8] Kurtis et al report that it is quicker and less painful than circumcisions using the Gomco clamp.[9]The World Health Organization reports that the Mogen clamp "compares favourably, because it is easy to use and has no parts to assemble. In the literature, the fewest complications with this method have been reported in the context of circumcision in 8 day old babies."[10] (don't you think the reader needs to know the safest, least painful, and quicker procedure?)

The frenulum is cut if frenular chordee is evident.[21][17]

According to a 1998 study, 45% of physicians used anaesthesia for infant circumcisions. Dorsal penile nerve block was the most commonly used form. Obstetricians had a significantly lower rate of anaesthesia use (25%) than pediatricians (71%) or family practitioners (56%).[18]TipPt 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Effects comparision with bold to note added to current version

Sexual Effects

Main article: Sexual effects of circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."[11] In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[22]

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."[23] The authors conclude: "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well."

Sexual Effects

Main article: Sexual effects of circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."[11] In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[22]

Boyle et al. (2002) argued that "although the frenulum was reported as an area of heightened erogenous sensitivity, in the typical circumcised male, either no frenulum remains or only a small severely damaged remnant exists. The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well-documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings--many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males.[24] The authors conclude: “Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well."

Taves argued that the foreskin may have an intromission function, facilitating penetration,[11] or that circumcision may decrease vaginal wetness and orgasm in female partners.[12] Sadovsky, noting a preliminary study that found decreased erectile function and penile sensitivity but increased satisfaction after adult circumcision, argued that research on adult circumcision, sexual function, and satisfaction should not be generalized to neonatal circumcision. [13]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TipPt (talk • contribs).

Avi's Tannenbaum and Shechet "authentic" bris without anesthesia!!

What's really wrong with this letter to the editor by (without editor comment) is the fact that infant circumcision pain has been found in three primary procedures.

1. When the foreskin and the glans are separated with a blunt probe ... compared to ripping off your fingernail.

2. Gross manipulation of the foreskin, including crushing.

3. Frenectomy.

So these authors ignore two of three sources of extreme pain.

The "authentic" bris CANNOT INCLUDE anesthesia. The reader is mislead to think "authentic" is better.TipPt 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Jakew 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a good enough cite to remove Avi's "authentic" sentence [[14]]
  • "Rabbi Ariel Asa has performed hundreds of circumcisions. When families request it, he says he puts an anesthetic on the skin, in an effort to reduce some of the pain. But he admits it's not very effective. Due to the fact that moyels (the people who do the procedure) do it very quickly and the pain that the baby experiences is minimal, I don't think that the overall benefits are gained," he says. But the researchers found that while topical anesthetics may help initially, they are woefully inadequate during foreskin separation and incision. They concluded that if circumcision must be performed, it should be preceded by an injected anesthetic. In fact, they found the results so compelling that they took the unusual step of stopping the study before it was scheduled to end rather than subjecting any more babies to circumcision without anesthesia."TipPt 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't even find Tannenbaum and Shechet mentioned, Tip. Jakew 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ritual circs are extremely painful. That finding makes Avi's sentence/Tannenbaum and Shechet dishonest.TipPt 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This (avi's) sentence is ridiculous: "They further write that due to the speed of the procedure and rarity of complication, it is “more humane not to subject the infant to a local anesthetic."TipPt 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The sentence is perfectly honest. T&S wrote exactly what the sentence says they wrote. If you think the source is dishonest, and you have a source that explicitly states that to be so, then that source could be added. But your own interpretation is irrelevant. Jakew 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Jakew and Avi take a mohel and a rabbi's opinion and support it, though it contradicts published research. The reader is grossly mislead. Your position is dishonest. I bet the greater media will love these examples of Wikipedia gone dangerously wrong.TipPt 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down Tip, don't hyperventilate. Too much bold makes it seem as if you are SHOUTING. T&S is published just as CNN is. The reader is not misled at all, as the reader can follow the links just as you do. -- Avi 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tip's choice of words ("support it") suggest that he may be confused about what we're discussing. Neither Avi nor I are claiming that T&S are correct - this isn't the place to argue about whether they're right or wrong. What I am saying, however (and I think Avi will agree), is that any Wikipedia editor's disagreement with T&S is insufficient grounds to exclude their view, or argue against it. If, however, there is a source that explicitly argues that they are incorrect, then we can by all means include that.
The point is that Wikipedia cites and summarises existing published arguments. It does not create or synthesise new ones, nor does it try to evaluate whether sources are correct or not. Jakew 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If what T&S say is at odds with the mainstream medical community, and it seems to be, then at the very least that fact should be pointed out with an appropriate source. That doesn't mean they have to specifically address T&S, and it is intellectually dishonest of Jakew to claim so. More likely, though, it qualifies under WP:RS's section on "exceptional claims," which require multiple reliable sources. Whether T&S itself is a reliable source is disputed -- certainly there are not multiple reliable sources for the completely amazing, exceptional, counterintuitive claim that it is ever more humane not to use local anaesthesia for any procedure involving cutting the human body -- a claim which has not been shown to be duplicated anywhere in the medical community or has ever undergone peer review, but is merely the unsupported assertion of one mohel and one doctor. Please remove it. It is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, Avi, CNN as a news organization is fact-checked, which is why they stand behind the assertions made in their articles. Peer-reviewed journals do not "stand behind" the assertions made in the letters they receieve and publish. This is a case of one source making an arguably fringe claim unsupported by any medical evidence, and, unsurprisingly, you and Jakew are standing behind it as if the AMA has signed off on it itself. Blackworm 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"That doesn't mean they have to specifically address T&S." Really? How, then, are we to know that T&S are indeed "at odds with the mainstream medical community" Because Wikipedia says so? That's WP:NOR by definition. Unless you have a source that explicitly states this "fact", then you cannot state it.
As for exceptional claims, the article does not make any. It only claims that T&S state what they state - a fact that even you do not dispute. We do not state that it is more humane; only that T&S say it is. That only requires one source (it would be challenging to provide multiple sources for this or any other direct quotation). Jakew 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous line of argument. We are to know that T&S are at odds with the mainstream medical community if their claims run counter to the community. If person A makes some claim "X is true," and persons B, C, D, E, and F make the claim "there is no evidence of X" under peer review, there is no reason to include A's claims as notable, nor any requirement for the others to specifically mention A. Please review Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. Blackworm 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The mere fact of including quotes from T&S gives weight to their claims, because Wikipedia is supposed to use reliable sources. Who are T&S? Are they generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand? Is there any evidence of this? Blackworm 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is circular; "we know T&S are at odd with the mainstream medical community because they are at odds with the mainstream medical community". Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't misquote me please. As one example, take the AAP's recommendation: "The recent policy revision by the American Academy of Pediatrics also states that analgesia (anesthesia) should be provided for the procedure."[15] That runs counter to T&S's extraordinary and bizarre claim that it could ever be "more humane" not to use anaesthesia. Is this so difficult to see? Would you and the other owners of this article be defending an anti-circumcision fringe statement so? Blackworm 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't misquoted you. You made a circular argument, and I pointed it out. In any event, I'm not going to respond to comments that are clearly a violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
By using quotes (") and implying the words are mine, you misquote me. If anyone is violating WP:CIVIL here, it is you. Blackworm 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense; those are purely rhetorical, and no-one would honestly think they were intended to represent a literal quotation. It will be very hard to get any agreement on this page if you don't use it honestly. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not continue to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If anyone is being dishonest here, it is you. Your quote attributed to me is a misrepresentation of what I said -- compare for example, your word "because" to the actual word I used, "if," and my subsequent clarification. Even after I further explained my position to you, you still miscategorized my words as a circular argument, which it is not. I do not appreciate this lack of civility and wish to return to the point now, please. Blackworm 04:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I clearly didn't attribute a quote to you, so you're still being dishonest. Please desist, as dishonesty regarding another editor's actions is itself a violation of WP:CIVIL - in fact, considered one of the more serious examples. Instead, why don't you try to craft a logical explanation of your views, citing appropriate sources; that would be a welcome change. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You still continue to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please cease and desist. If you have a real counterargument, I invite you to present it rather than using rhetoric and putting words in my mouth. Thanks. Blackworm 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've just encouraged you to stop violating WP:CIVIL; newspeak and rhetoric doesn't help the Talk: page, so please cease and desist. As for "counterarguments", there would have to be an argument to counter in the first place, and you still haven't made one. Please let me know if you do. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You continue to violate WP:CIVIL. Please cease and desist. Indeed, rhetoric doesn't help the Talk: page, which is why your use of a quote attributed to me which you yourself defended as "rhetorical" (here, I am quoting you directly) was inappropriate. Blackworm 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You continue to violate WP:CIVIL. Please cease and desist. Pretending a paraphrase was intended as a direct quote is dishonest. You are not using the Talk: page for its intended purpose. Please refrain from this, and engage in honest dialogue. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You have made clear you did not intend it as a direct quote, but instead as "rhetorical." It was still a quote, and it was still attributed to me; therefore it is not dishonest of me to claim as much. I again invite you to reformulate your objection without rhetoric and without misrepresenting my position. Thanks. Blackworm 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I bold because we all write too much. Waste of time. Blackworm ... save your energy. They just want to wear you down. You may seem to reach agreement, but when you leave they revert. Avi is orthodox Jew, and Jakew had himself circ'd with frenectomy as an adult ... they collude to force their propaganda on Wiki (with Jayg and Nand).

In a few edits Avi adds misinformation (that "authentic" is better ... the opinion of two circumcisers). FYI Avi, the CNN article cited Edmonton researchers, whose study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Avi forces Wiki to include pro-bris propaganda, and also deletes published research showing the mogen safer, faster, and less painful. The reader may suffer horribly.

Here's what Avi and Jakew deleted:

  • Taeusch et al report that as compared with the Plastibell, Mogen circumcisions are quicker, less painful, and preferred by trainees.[16] Kurtis et al report that it is quicker and less painful than circumcisions using the Gomco clamp.[17]The World Health Organization reports that the Mogen clamp "compares favourably, because it is easy to use and has no parts to assemble. In the literature, the fewest complications with this method have been reported in the context of circumcision in 8 day old babies."[18].TipPt 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have grouped several sentences about pain and pain relief and put them in their own section. I have put the information in chronological order. Perhaps the above information could be added to this section.Michael Glass 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not. There exists an article on the Gomco clamp already; information such as the one above belongs in an article for the Mogen clamp. Since that does't exist yet, Tip, here is an opportunity to add constructive information to wikipedia--write an article on the Mogen clamp. -- Avi 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the sandbox version

It's honest and all text was agreed ... at one point ... by all, including Jakew, Avi, Nand, and Jayg (hard to say the last two, actually since all they do is revert ... sometimes).

Please see this sandbox. [[19]].TipPt 23:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the User:TipPt version; naturally it reflects your personal views, not scientific consensus, never mind Wikipedian consensus. It's also unbalanced and poorly written. The current consensus version is vastly better. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)