Talk:Circumcision/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 →

Contents

Example of POV-forking.

Here's an example of the systematic POV-forking going on with this article: [1]. The material is referenced and pertinent to the section. Unfortunately, it casts circumcision negatively and weakens the pro-circumcision arguments in the section. Thus, it is "excess detail for main article" and the author is told to "try a subarticle." Couldn't be more perfect. Blackworm 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my reading of the reference given is that they had no uncircumcised male control group, so I don't think we can conclude much from that study. --Coppertwig 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What are you, an expert conducting original research? It's not your place to criticize a study published in a peer-reviewed journal and deem it unworthy of inclusion based on your criticism. Get your criticism published, and we'll include it also. Blackworm 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems with inclusion of this information from this study. Firstly, it is only relevant to one specific form of circumcision, not circumcision in general. Secondly, the information is too vague: what does 'high incidence' mean? Compared with what? As Coppertwig has noted, it isn't a high incidence as compared to uncircumcised males, since the study did not include them.
Thus, because it is information that is only relevant to a small subset of circumcisions, it is excess detail for the main article. For a summary, you need information with a more general scope. Thus, if useful and clear information can be presented about the study, it is better to put that in the appropriate sub-article. Jakew 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Your first objection could easily be applied to the six-line paragraph under "pain" in which only ritual circumcision is discussed, and conclusions about all circumcision are implied. (Of course, that heavily contested paragraph is pro-circumcision, therefore you support its remaining in the main article.) Second, it is not your place to criticize the study and exclude its conclusions based on your criticism. To do so would be original research. Blackworm 02:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's ok. I've no interest in criticising the study. What I'm criticising is a particular usage of the study. Jakew 11:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah -- its usage in the circumcision article, since it casts circumcision in a negative light. Blackworm 15:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me know when you're willing to assume good faith, and we can continue this discussion. It's somewhat pointless unless you do. Jakew 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still planning (if there continue to be no objections) to implement the changes I suggested in a section above with title like Talk:Circumcision#Changes to leadin. I just have to find the time to find the footnotes for it, which I don't think will be difficult at all. --Coppertwig 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is this discussion pointless unless I do, Jake? The validity of my arguments against your illogical and hypocritical objections to any material presenting any criticism of circumcision is not dependent on my opinion of you. Blackworm 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Blackworm, your comments such as that dated 15:05, 10 September 2007 suggest otherwise. In that comment, for example, you completely ignored arguments that had been made, and instead attacked those which had not. Jakew 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, that comment was in response to your one-line dismissal of the study, with no argument supporting that dismissal. Your arguments were addressed in my previous comment -- for example, the fact that you reject the inclusion of one line of the study's conclusions because it only examined ritual circumcision, yet strongly support the contested six-line paragraph under "pain" despite the fact that it only examines ritual circumcision. You have yet to address this contradiction. Blackworm 19:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, Blackworm, this article is now in summary style. Now, one of the things about writing a summary is that you can't include every detail. If you did, it wouldn't be a summary. So, for every piece of information, you have to ask, "how important, how fundamental, is this to an overview?" And if it isn't sufficiently important, a good summary demands that you leave it out.

Bearing that in mind, let's evaluate the addition which prompted this thread. Is the information generally applicable (broad scope) or highly specific (narrow scope)? The scope is narrow: it only applies to one specific type of circumcision. Is the information actually usable - for example, can we convert it into a precise, neutral statement? Not really, there are no figures on absolute incidence or relative risk, and the study design was not capable of determining such things, as the authors acknowledged ("evaluating the incidence of UTI and its time of occurence in circumcised and uncircumcised populations is impossible in our area"). Indeed, the most that could really be said is that these authors happened to use a particular pair of words, which is a very poor reason for quoting them. Jakew 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed the contradiction. Please remove the contested six-line paragraph which only addressed ritual circumcision under "Pain" or, as you say, "convert it to a precise, neutral statement" on all circumcision. Blackworm 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am still waiting for Jakew to address this contradiction, hopefully before fellow supporter of the contested six-line paragraph Avi moves it into the archives. Blackworm 07:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Blackworm, complaining about perceived hypocrisy on the part of other editors violates WP:NPA's requirement to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". As such, please don't be surprised if your comments are ignored. If you'd like to discuss a change that should, in your view, be made to the article, I suggest you propose it in a new section. Jakew 13:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not made any such complaint in this thread. Unfortunately I believe you are merely again cornered and exposed. Please address the contradiction. You oppose the above suggested edit because it only applies to ritual circumcision. You strongly support a contested six-line paragraph even though it only applies to ritual circumcision. Reconcile this apparent contradiction, or remove the contested six-line paragraph. Simple. Blackworm 14:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess we can infer from the silence that Jakew concedes that his reason for opposing this edit was selectively applied. Since there are no valid arguments against, I suggest we replace the deleted material. Blackworm 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be unwise to make such an inference when the reason for 'silence' has been clearly stated. See my comment above, dated 13:22, 24 September 2007. Again, if you expect input, you should introduce the proposal in a new section, and in a civil manner. Jakew 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The change proposed is Goldman et al. report a high incidence of urinary tract infection after ritual circumcision.[2] -- i.e. the change you reverted which I referenced [3] at the beginning of this section. Blackworm 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment above, dated 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC). In particular, please note that the change would contradict the cited source: the authors stated that "evaluating the incidence of UTI [...] in circumcised and uncircumcised populations is impossible in our area". Jakew 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The comment you quote relates to the difficulty in comparing circumcised and normal infants in Israel, since there are very few of the latter. The direct quote from the abstract is that the researchers "conclude that the high incidence of UTI following a ritual Jewish circumcision, as well as the relative high preponderance of bacteria other than E. coli, may suggest a causal relationship between circumcision and UTI." This quote makes no claim about relative incidence. If you prefer, we can use this quote directly. But you cannot claim that the article contradicts itself, because it does not. Blackworm 05:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. I'm not claiming that the article contradicts itself. I'm stating that the proposed text contradicts the source. The source does not "report a high incidence of UTI following..." - it merely uses the words "high incidence" in such a context. The actual incidence, the authors clearly state, is unknown in their population. Jakew 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop implying that I'm an idiot who can't read. It doesn't fly. You *are* claiming that the article contradicts itself. The sentence I am proposing is: Goldman concluded "that the high incidence of UTI following a ritual Jewish circumcision, as well as the relative high preponderance of bacteria other than E. coli, may suggest a causal relationship between circumcision and UTI." It is a direct quote of the conclusion of researchers published in a peer-reviewed journal. If I were not to assume good faith, I would claim that your documented circumcision advocacy combined with your widespread heavy handed editing of all Wikipedia articles relatied to circumcision is leading you to suppress conclusions of peer-reviewed studies when their conclusions do not fit with your advocacy goals. Blackworm 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your new proposal may be appropriate for the sub-article, if properly balanced and clarified (such as with the sentence I quoted above). However, the level of detail is inappropriate for summary style. Jakew 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that one line sentence is entirely appropriate as-is for the main article. It is relevant, and is well sourced from a peer-reviewed journal. Or do you believe that the detailed, six-line pro-circumcision paragraph under "Pain," sourced from a letter to the editor, forwarding a tiny minority belief, which contains no balancing material and which you vigorously defend, and which refers only to ritual Jewish circumcision, should also be moved to a subarticle? The key word when considering this is, of course, "pro-circumcision." Blackworm 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Blackworm, clearly we cannot include every sentence from every peer-reviewed journal article about circumcision, since the article would eventually become hundreds of megabytes in size. Equally clearly, since we have a general article about circumcision and more specific articles with narrower contexts, some content will belong in one and some in the other. Perhaps you could make an argument that takes these points into account, and makes use of some more practical criteria? Jakew 11:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How about we just continue using your criteria: pro-circumcision = include, anti-circumcision = suppress. Blackworm 15:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Better yet why don't you address what I'm saying and make the case for the six-line tiny fringe pro-circ opinion you vigorously defend in the main article. Meanwhile, I'll say that the one line I propose here merits inclusion because it presents material unreplicated elsewhere in the main article, and balances completely unopposed and uncontradicted claims that circumcision reduces UTI. The reader of the main article is led to believe that the literature is unanimous is believing that circumcision reduces UTI, while this peer-reviewed study contrarily suggests that the opposite may be true. Thus it deserves mention along with the other UTI claims -- exactly in the same way that you search desperately to find an article, or find (or write) a letter to the editor to counter every possible phrase casting circumcision in a negative light in every Wikipedia article remotely related to circumcision. Blackworm 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you re-read the article. They aren't comparing circumcised and uncircumcised boys, and hence aren't suggesting that the "opposite may be true" (that UTI risk in circumcised boys is greater) at all. What they are suggesting, broadly speaking, is that when it does occur in this specific sub-population of circumcised boys, it may be as a result of the procedure itself. Jakew 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation, besides being flawed, is original research. I aim to include this study's conclusion. Blackworm 21:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Far from being original research, it paraphrases the very first sentence, which states: "Circumcision seems to reduce the over all incidence of urinary tract infections (UTI) although a few studies have suggested that ritual circumcision may be a predisposing factor for UTI within the first few weeks following the procedure." (emph added)

They clearly state that they could not evaluate the incidence of UTI: "Therefore, evaluating the incidence of UTI and its time of occurence in circumcised and uncircumcised populations is impossible in our area."

They also explain their reasoning, which is based upon timing, not relative incidence: "comparing our data and those published by others in Israel 12-14 with studies performed in uncircumcised infants 7,18,19, it seems that UTI develops at a younger age in ritually circumcised infants than in intact ones. [...] The clustering of UTIs in the 2 weeks following the procedure may reflect a causal relationship between UTI and ritual circumcision relative to the non-sterile techniques used during the procedure, and may also be in part due to a pain-induced urine retention occurring immediately following circumcision." Jakew 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Jake. In addition to quoting the conclusion, we should also quote, "comparing our data and those published by others in Israel 12-14 with studies performed in uncircumcised infants 7,18,19, it seems that UTI develops at a younger age in ritually circumcised infants than in intact ones." We should also perhaps mention "The clustering of UTIs in the 2 weeks following the procedure may reflect a causal relationship between UTI and ritual circumcision relative to the non-sterile techniques used during the procedure, and may also be in part due to a pain-induced urine retention occurring immediately following circumcision." This is all excellent info, worthy of mention in the article. But please stop accusing me of being an idiot who can't read. All this excellent extra info should go in, but let's just start with the paper's conclusions for now. Blackworm 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"All this excellent extra info" is in fact the reasoning behind their suggestion that, while the overall incidence is reduced, ritual circumcision may also be a cause of UTI. If properly summarised, the study is suitable for inclusion in the sub-article, but not in the main article. Jakew 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Information supporting the claim that the overall incidence of UTI being reduced by circumcision is already present in the article. Information supporting the claim of a causal relationship between circumcision and UTI is not. Information supporting the claim that UTI occurs earlier in life in circumcised infants in not present. This information should be in the article, for balance against the first claim. Suppressing this information in the main article and relegating it to a subarticle appears like a POV-fork. Your judgment that it is not suitable for the main article is just that -- your personal judgment. Blackworm 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Reduction of UTI is supported by a high standard of evidence, Blackworm, and every medical organisation that discusses the evidence has agreed. In spite of this, only one sentence in the article discusses this evidence. The second sentence discusses possible confounding in some studies, and the third and final sentence discusses the overall risk and number needed to treat. There is no obvious lack of balance. However, addition of a primary source proposing a hypothesis of UTI as a complication of a tiny proportion of circumcisions would introduce imbalance unless there was already a lot of detail about individual studies. Jakew 11:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
In that context, you have still not explained why you support the six-line paragraph (out of a 13-line section) under "pain and pain relief" which refers to this "tiny minority" of circumcisions, and presents an even tinier minority view. Is this not "too much detail" by precisely the same argument, and even more so given the length of the paragraph in comparison to what I am proposing? (This is the last time I will ask, I grow tired.) Blackworm 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Six days gone by with no further comment. Should I assume the answer is "yes" and I should proceed to remove this invalid paragraph? Blackworm 09:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
See my comments dated 13:22, 24 September 2007 and 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC). Jakew 10:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As expected, neither of those statements address this issue. Your arguments are applying to the edits you defend more and more, Jakew; I think this is a sign that perhaps you will lose your ownership of this article quite soon. Maybe at that point we can actually edit the article according to Wikipedia policy rather than your personal fiat. Blackworm 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To quote: "If you'd like to discuss a change that should, in your view, be made to the article, I suggest you propose it in a new section." Jakew 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? The current proposed change is the removal of the paragraph starting, "J.M. Glass, 1999, stated that Jewish ritual circumcision is..." that I referenced multiple times. The argument against it is the argument you use, above, namely that it refers to a tiny minority of circumcisions (the same set as that of my proposed change above), and that it is "too much detail" for the main article (5 lines, sorry, out of a 19-line section). As the author of the argument, you should be in the best position to understand it. Your argument is my argument against it; what is your response? Start a new section with the response, if you insist. Blackworm 07:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you start a new section, you're giving people the opportunity to comment. As it is, people are likely to miss something towards the end of a long and frankly tedious thread. I will be pleased to discuss it with you in a new section. Jakew 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
How about we just imagine in our minds that I propose to remove the paragraph, use your exact argument, then have to listen to your endless babbling and obfuscation for two weeks, then Avi steps in with a tangent, then you expand on that irrelevancy, then I give up. Saves us a lot of trouble, doesn't it? Your years of violating WP:OWN through the use of stalling and illogical arguments have to stop sometime, Jakew. Blackworm 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Jake, we'll talk about the 26.3% of the "Pain [...]" section which strictly discusses Jewish ritual circumcision later. I'll address the last relevant thing you said. I believe we both misunderstood the conclusion of the paper. I will show that the authors of the study are not primarily "proposing a hypothesis," they do have their own logical conclusions. When they say "following ritual circumcision" they are not comparing UTI rates with normal newborns; the words do not mean "as a result of circumcision, compared to the state of being intact." I personally believe the words obviously mean "soon after ritual circumcision," a conclusion strongly reinforced by the fact that this phenomenon is precisely what the paper is studying, with the conclusion derived from and repeated later in the text. Please reread the title of the paper. It says "following ritual circumcision." The conclusion of the paper is valid, relevant, interesting, a counterpoint, information absent from the article, and stated concisely. It also may prove to serve to balance and establish relevant context for the statement that circumcision reduces UTI overall. There is no undue weight issue here; the conclusion of the paper is not a minority view. It is a valid interpretation of raw data they compiled, studied, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. If this article's conclusion has been challenged, please cite. Blackworm 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tips on what to say to get your edits to stick.

A study in 1987 found that the prominent reasons for parents choosing circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[4] Begging the question, what were the prominent reasons for parents choosing against circumcision? Answer: we don't care -- anyone against circumcision is wrong. The views of those who oppose circumcision or choose against it are the irrelevant views of a tiny majority. A 2005 study speculated that increased recognition of the potential benefits may be responsible for an observed increase in the rate of neonatal circumcision in the USA between 1988 and 2000. That same study speculated that this may result in increase surgical complications. Do we care? No, surgical complications from circumcision make circumcision look bad. Finally -- we choose to highlight and expose any study claiming that circumcision rates are on the rise (becuase officially, according to Wikipedia, circumcision is GOOD and GETTING BETTER). Any study claiming that worldwide circumcision is on the decline, or that circumcision anywhere is on the decline, that stuff all belongs under "prevalence." Any information claiming an increase in prevalance may be scattered around the article, in order to give the impression of a rising trend. Any information about anyone being opposed to circumcision may be mentioned briefly if absolutely necessary -- but make sure not to present any supporting reasons or facts, even if attributed to those opposed. They is too long. The sources are not "the best sources." That info belongs in a subarticle. Actually, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, since we are NPOV and that means only pro-circumcision arguments are to be explored fully. Thanks for reading these tips on getting your edits past the controllers of this article! Blackworm 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackworm, but I have long-since given up trying to get any edits past the owners of this article. It's a shame, but there it is. Well done to you for still trying. --Nigelj 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
One would think that if enough people came forward at the same time to push for balance in this disgraceful article, progress could be made. Unfortunately I suspect that all reasonable editors who come in are immediately alienated by the pro-circumcision owners, frustrated by their edits being reverted, and end up leaving in disgust. What would it take, specifically, to destroy this fraudulent farce? Three of the four owners are Wikipedia administrators with specific watchdog-like editing agendas motivated by their particular cultural points of view. They e-mail each other to discuss strategy, which is why they are rarely seen responding to each other in discussion. They never (never) oppose each other in any discussion. They will not allow this article to reveal that circumcision is controversial. They will not present both sides of the controversy. They enforce a state of lacking NPOV. They furthermore conceal the dispute by systematically removing any "disputed" tags on the article -- when it would be obvious to anyone glancing at the talk page that the neutrality of the article is completely and fully disputed. When anyone is bold enough to stand up to them, the administrators in the group make administrative threats. What to do in the face of such a blatant fraud? Blackworm 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Meatal stenosis etc.

In this edit, Jakew reverted apparent good-faith edits without explanation. Please provide an explanation. --Coppertwig 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I, too, wondered how that reversion did not simply remove a small amount of valuable work on the article. --Nigelj 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The edits introduced a level of detail that was more appropriate for the sub-article (and which is already present in that article). Other problems included introduction of claims that were not directly supported by the sources cited, unexplained removal of 'adult circumcisions...', and introduction of POV in changing "...may be a common..." to "...is a common...". Hope that helps. Jakew 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And as always, every single change moves the POV of the article to being more positive toward circumcision. Any fragment of text which casts circumcision negatively is "more appropriate for a subarticle," while Jakew sees nothing wrong with adding large sections that cast circumcision positively. (Note also the misleading edit summary.) The jig is up. Stop the POV pushing. This article has become a shameful propaganda device due to your longstanding influence and heavy handed WP:OWN violation. You have no consensus for this change. Revert it immediately or others will. Blackworm 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, Blackworm. You might also care to check your facts before making accusations. Jakew 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Been checking facts for months. When you run out of arguments, rather than resort to citing policies made irrelevant by the current atmosphere of distrust and AGF violations on both sides, I suggest you review WP:OWN. Blackworm 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you should check facts more rigorously. For example, rather than claiming that the edit summary ("rv to last by jakew, add brief treatment of stenosis in kaplan list") was misleading, you could have examined the diff against that version. Then you would have found that it was in fact precisely as described.
Of course, as a result of checking this diff, you'd have seen the claim of 'mov[ing] the POV of the article to being more positive toward circumcision' was completely unsupportable. A more accurate description might have been 'reversing an edit that introduced unverifiable, POV original research and fit poorly with WP:SUMMARY'.
Going a little further, had you not dismissed core conduct policies as 'irrelevant', you might have actually read my explanation above, taken the time to look at the text that was removed, and examined the sources. Perhaps you might have seen my point. Who knows? Jakew 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It is absolutely fascinating to me that you would stoop so low as to post a false diff of your changes. Your edit summary implied that the only significant change was the addition of meatal stenosis to the Kaplan list. The diff you post above reinforces that disinformation. HERE is the REAL DIFF [[5]] of your change. You combined your unexplained reversion to your own edit with one tiny change, then implied that the tiny change was the ONLY change you made. You did not explain WHY you reverted the article. You had no consensus for the reversion of the other parts, which are, as I said, all shifting POV toward circumcision in a positive light. Your arguments against the edits could easily be applied to edits you support. Finally, WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy. I also suggest you read WP:AAGF and stop pulling out AGF when you're cornered and exposed. Blackworm 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, Blackworm, the words "rv to last by jakew" make it clear that this revert was performed. And as the diff I gave against that version (specified in the edit summary) clearly showed, it was indeed a revert to that version plus the specified secondary change. Jakew 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I must wonder if your obtuseness is calculated to upset. You said: "Of course, as a result of checking this diff,[i.e. the diff YOU posted -bw] you'd have seen the claim of 'mov[ing] the POV of the article to being more positive toward circumcision' was completely unsupportable. The claim was that your ENTIRE change moved the POV. Not the tiny addition you made after your reversion. Blackworm 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this may be an error in communication. You seem to be viewing a revert as an isolated change, while I'm viewing it not as a change per se, but as a reversal of another change. Because a revert cannot exist without a change to reverse, I view the two as an inseparable pair, and look at net differences. To my mind, thinking of it as a change that 'moves POV' is like viewing a dam as causing a stream to flow backwards. Jakew 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
By damming every edit which you see as shifting POV, you become in essence the unilateral arbiter of NPOV, assuming good faith. You are simply displaying reversion of anything shifting POV in the direction you don't like, combined with endless, illogical objections to the removal of any obviously POV material you support. This is a violation of Wikipedia's article ownership policies. I can understand that given the time you have alloted to improving the article, you may feel a responsibility to keep it to your liking. Can you understand why someone might fail to assume good faith, as you are fond of claiming I do, given that you do this sort of thing on every article remotely related to circumcision, and are a documented circumcision advocate? What can you do to allay these fears? I appeal to your sanity. Blackworm 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) I think there may be a simple misunderstanding going on. Jakew's edit summary is in abbreviated speech, not a full sentence, as is quite common for edit summaries. The comma can be interpreted to mean "and", as in "reverted, and also added meatal stenosis to kaplan's list," which is accurate. Blackworm may be interpreting it as if it were a colon like "revert: adding meatal stenosis" meaning "reverted by adding meatal stenosis", which would be inaccurate. I assume Jakew had no intent to mislead. I encourage everyone to make edit summaries as clear and useful as reasonably possible. I see nothing wrong with someone making all their edits in the direction of a particular POV if they honestly believe that the article is biassed the other way and that their edits are moving it closer to a neutral stance -- although the occasional edit the other way helps establish a more cooperative feeling among editors, for example when Jakew supported changing a statement that had claimed that all bleeding could be quickly stopped. --Coppertwig 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been 'off-topic' here for a while in response to Jakew citing the wrong diff (although, of course, we all, "assume [he] had no intent to mislead"). Now, what about the items he did revert. Using this diff, we have:
  1. 'For some, but not all, sects of Judasim...' removed by reversion.
  2. 'immediate surgical risks of' removed by reversion and replaced by 'risk in'
  3. 'Recent publications give a frequency of occurrence between 0.9% in Iran,[78] and 9% to 10% in the United States.[79]' removed by reversion.
  4. 'Adult circumcisions are often performed without clamps, and require 4 to 6 weeks of abstinence from masturbation or intercourse after the operation to allow the wound to heal.<ref name="aafpadult" />' added by reversion.
You'll have to view the diff to see sense of these changes. My original point was that, the reversion "simply remove[d] a small amount of valuable work on the article" and I still think this is so. People who have worked on an article in the past cannot expect it to remain preserved in their favourite form for posterity. Do we need further to discuss these good-faith edits? Can we get a consensus here to put them all back in and let the article continue to evolve by the usual teamwork process? --Nigelj 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Nigel, I outlined some problems with the edits in my post of 18:07, 16 September 2007. Would you care to address these problems? Jakew 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you seemed to be talking about something else at that time ('changing "...may be a common..." to "...is a common..."', etc). But, once again, with your obfuscation of the issues and dogged determination to your cause, you have once again worn my interest to engage with you over this down to a sliver. It clearly is still your article. --Nigelj 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not just obfuscation of the issues, it's like a kind of strange idea that if you simply keep responding with illogic and invalid arguments, while engaging in heavy handed POV pushing with respect to every edit made, your opponent will give up in frustration -- and the discussion pass into "the archives" (i.e. electronic oblivion). Perhaps Jakew could teach us something about how Wikipedia articles are made -- it would be a fascinating case study which would be pounced upon by the growing tide of people claiming Wikipedia to be a farce and a disgrace. Blackworm 07:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

International consensus statements

I think based on WP:NOR policy, you would need a reliable source that discusses the relationship between those statements and circumcision in particular. There may also be issues about the length of this page and whether material should go in a subpage. --Coppertwig 15:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If reliable source(s) interpret these statements in the context of circumcision, then such interpretions could be cited in a sub-article. Since the statements themselves do not even mention circumcision, however, they should not be included. The very idea that they are "international consensus statements" with respect to circumcision appears to be pure OR. Jakew 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kind of like the idea, claimed as fact without citation in the main article, that circumcision is traditionally presumed legal, or is a "traditional right" for parents. But that kind of pro-circ OR stays in the main article under heavy guard. Blackworm 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with accuracy?

When I replaced a broad generalisation with more accurate figures about penile cancer, they were removed almost immediately. What is the problem with accurate figures of the incidence of penile cancer?

Here's what I wrote: Penile cancer affects 0.82 per 100,000 in Demnark and 10.5 per 100,000 men per year in parts of India and 0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the United States.

Here's a slight change of wording that gives the broad overview without sacrificing accuracy:

Penile cancer affects from 0.82 per 100,000 in Demnark to 10.5 per 100,000 men per year in parts of India (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the United States).

If that's any problem, please discuss it here. Michael Glass 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, there is nothing wrong with accurate figures about the incidence of penile cancer, and I encourage such an addition to the penile cancer article. Similarly, I would applaud the addition of information on mortality rates, treatment, etc. to that article. However, the subject of this article is circumcision, and the purpose of the relevant section is to provide an overview of penile cancer as it relates to circumcision. The incidence of penile cancer in Denmark may belong somewhere in Wikipedia, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article.
If the approximations concern you, then change "1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000 men" to "0.82 to 10.5 in 100,000 men", but why replace seventeen words with twenty-nine that give the reader no more information about circumcision itself? Jakew 13:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in unnecessary words, but giving incidence figures without mentioning where those figures come from is potentially misleading. The orgiinal sentence reads: "Penile cancer affects approximately 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000 men per year, varying by region." But what regions? United States? rural vs urban? rich vs poor? We simply do not know. Add just 12 more words and the reader knows that the rate is low in Denmark and the United States and high in parts of India. So for the cost of 12 words we get a significant gain in clarity. I hope that this answers your concerns, Jake. Michael Glass 14:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the reader is reading an article about circumcision, not global distribution of penile cancer. Is it not reasonable to presume that the reader wants to know about circumcision, and would prefer information with such a focus? If (s)he wants to know about the incidence of penile cancer in India, Denmark, or the United States, then (s)he is unlikely to be reading this article in the first place. Perhaps we could clarify 'region' by substituting the word 'country'? Jakew 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Or we could say "penile cancer affects 1 in 3 men in some parts of the world," then just claim we were talking about "the parts of the world that contain 1 man with penile cancer and two without." Jakew would love to add that, I'm sure. Nah, I'd rather use Michael's wording, lest someone believe that penile cancer isn't ridiculously rare in industrialized countries, and circumcise their children for fear of it (that couldn't be Jakew's motivation to suppress this information, could it?). Blackworm 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, Blackworm, not a soapbox. Concerns that parents might a) circumcise or b) not circumcise should not influence the presentation of information. Jakew 21:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough -- but the fact remains that the information at present is misleading, or at best, incomplete. When you are talking about a disease that is ten times more prevalent in developing countries versus industrialized countries, it behooves us to present this information, rather than suppress it and obfuscate it. Blackworm 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual wording, I agree that country is better than region. However, the reader is still left in the dark about which countries may have high and low rates of penile cancer. Jake is quite right in saying that great details about the incidence and causes of penile cancer are most appropriate in the penile cancer article, but when we focus on circumcision and penile cancer, it is important not to exaggerate nor minimise the efffect of circumcision, and that we avoid wording that could be misleading or tendentious. Michael Glass 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok Michael. Why don't we change the text to "0.82 to 10.5 in 100,000 men, varying by country"? Jakew 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you missed the word "important" in Michael's response. How about "1 in 10000 in developing countries, and 1 in 100000 in industrialized nations?" Let's get across the extremely important information that the incidence of penile cancer in the West is 1 in 100000, period. Not 1-10 in 100000. ONE in one hundred thousand. We should also mention the average age of first diagnosis of penile cancer, which I believe is in the 70's. We wouldn't want to mislead the reader in presenting the significance of the protection circumcision gives against penile cancer, would we? The medical associations make these numbers clear in their presentation of the benefits and harms of circumcision. Let's do the same, lest we become propagandists for circumcision. Blackworm 12:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a source stating that it is 1 in 10,000 in developing countries and 1 in 100,000 in developed nations, please cite it. Jakew 12:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The information we used gave the rates of penile cancer in Denmark, the United States and parts of India, so let's go with that. Of course, if there are other reliable sources that give other information, then let's consider it here. Michael Glass 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As you acknowledge, Michael, such details are most appropriate in another article. Does my suggestion above seem reasonable to you? Jakew 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "great details". I also wrote that we should write something that was not misleading nor tendentious in this article. I do not regard the addition of 12 extra words as going into too much detail. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the best place to go into great detail about this subject is in the article on penile cancer.I hope that this clarifies my meaning. Michael Glass 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Consent

re: JakeW - (rv. excess & one-sided detail for summary, insufficiently neutral. please review WP:NPOV.)

In my view the previous version of this section oversimplified the differing views related to consent to the point of not reflecting them as intelligibly or as evenly as it could. I see that my initial edit might have been perceived as insufficiently neutral so I have tried to correct this.

+ Re: "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits...." makes more sense than "Somerville agrues..." as Somerville is not the only individual within the medical/science/bioethics community that holds this view. > "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision" < is a common reason why many doctors no longer perform the procedure - the view that proxy consent based on parental preference alone does not provide sufficient ethical grounds for performing a circumcision a minor. I think that this is self evident, but if a citation is needed I will find one, and I don't see how this can be attributed solely to Somerville. + I added "Another argument contends that the removal of healthy genital tissue is inherently harmful and that without an individual being capable of providing consent, when he will have this capacity at a later date, and in the absence of any medical need - circumcision is a violation of an individuals right to security of the person."

This is another aspect of consent related to infant circumcision that wasn't presented in the earlier version. - The view that there is a degree of inherent harm associated with removing healthy genital tissue (whether its perceived as loss of sexual tissue or simply unnecessary pain and trauma inflicted on an infant.) Also, to be put in proper context of the section, it should address the issue of the lack of need for proxy consent to be obtained, and how this can be perceived as weakening the validity of said consent. - in light of the fact that proxy consent in the context of surgery and removal of anatomy is almost exclusively limited to situations where there exists a anatomical deformity or medical need, and the patient is incapable of providing consent. (which I did not include to avoid any 'excess +one sided detail) I don't see this as POV pushing, it is simply covering an aspect of the consent issue. I think that the fact that it says " "It has also been argued that the removal of healthy genital tissue is..." as opposed to " The removal of healthy genital tissue is..." makes this clear.

+ "Others believe neonatal circumcision to be a permissible practice, suitably subject to parental discretion. Arguing that circumcision can be beneficial to a male before he would be able to otherwise provide consent; that there is no convincing evidence of sexual or emotional harm; and that there are greater monetary and psychological costs in circumcising later rather than in infancy should the need arise.[3]"

I added another element to the argument that parental consent is sufficient -the surgery may be beneficial to a male before he would be able to provide his own consent. And I added "should the need arise." The escence of the argument is that there is not enough evidence that it is harmful, that some males will benefit by avoiding the greater costs of a later circumcision. But it reads as though this argument carries with it the irrational view that to not circumcise during infancy is simply delaying th einnevitable - which I don't think was intended, but I think it reads better this way.

+ "In a cultural/religious context, some argue that circumcision is of significant enough importance that parental consent is sufficient and that any possible misgivings surrounding the issue of consent are not significant enough to limit the exercise of infant/childhood circumcision as a cultural practice or religious rite."

This was not included and it seems to make sense to include this as it plays a significant role in how issues of consent are perceived.


And this part....

Re: "Another argument questions why the genital cutting of males is allowed while the genital cutting of females is prohibited." in the first section

This is an argument much more related to the legality so I'll move it there. And I do not think a brief one sentence explanation of how the two can be perceived as analogous is unreasonable given that the term FGM/FGC encompasses a much broader set of practices. Without some elaboration it seems the reader might be left scratching their head. And regarding NPOV, to say the view that male circumcision should be prohibited because FGM is prohibited, implies by omission that this argument holds the two as equatable; which inaccurately reflects the argument. And framing it in this fashion is actually a very common tactic of those pushing their own POV by oversimplifying this argument to the point of creating a bias against it.

The term FGM or FGC (which encompasses everything from a pinprick to the removal of vitually all the external genitalia of a female; and which is a term most commonly asscociated with the more common severe forms -ie removal of the clitoris) represents a spectrum of practices, whereas male circumcision is a specific procedure. The crux of this viewpoint questions why more analogous forms of FGC( such as the removal of clitoral hood) or lesser forms (such as a pin prick) are prohibited while male circumcision is not; the argument being that equal degrees of what could be perceived as violations of an individuals bodily rights are not given equal status under the law. By ommiting this it implies that the argument holds that all forms of FGC are analogous to male circumcision which is a distortion.


So there you go, I did my best to provide 'equal airtime' to differing POVs and perceptions around consent - without going into excess & one-sided detail. I don't see any excess detail in this revision, and I think it provides a fairly balanced, accurate and slightly more intelligable summary of the issue of consent as it relates to childhood circumcision than what was here before. A small paragraph of equal length for each respective hemisphere of the consent spectrum without any unecessary elaboration.

Fair? Gainstrue 10:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gainstrue. Thanks for the above explanation, and for attempting to address my concerns.
My concern about excess detail relates to the "Main article: Bioethics of neonatal circumcision" link at the start of the relevant section. This link occurs because the article is written in WP:SUMMARY style, with a brief overview in the main article (ie this article), and more detailed explanation in the sub-article. I am concerned that a considerable amount of detail has been added to the article, which is more appropriate for the in-depth article instead.
Another concern is the replacement of "Somerville argues that" with "Some argue that". Per WP:WEASEL, we should cite specific authors.
Another concern, relating to the general concern about excess detail, is the addition of Hill's argument. First, is Hill's argument significant enough to be cited in an overview (as opposed to the in-depth article)? I see no evidence that it is (indeed, while letters can constitute evidence of disagreement on an issue, an electronic letter is a weak source for introducing an argument (see WP:RS)). However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is, the summary would need to be shortened. It also badly violates WP:NPOV in the present form, since it claims that "circumcision is a violation of an individuals right to security of the person", rather than properly attributing this belief.
Finally, regarding the FGC analogy (which, strictly speaking, is not a legal issue but a meta-legal issue concerning what some believe ought to be illegal), you have cited only a private website -- MGMBill.org -- which does not constitute a reliable source. Even if it could be reliably sourced, detailed discussion of this issue (along with rebuttals such as para 18 here belongs in the in-depth article. Jakew 13:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jake, I see your points,

Re: the viewpoint attributed to Hill. I think including this in the summary seems appropriate in the overview as it is does not represent an extreme position of one man's electronic letter; the idea of circumcision as being perceived as damaging has been around throughout the ages (ie the texts of Moses Maimonides "For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened", or as perceived by the ancient Greeks, or the aversion that many cultures have towards it.... " Perhaps an additional citation : The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision by J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor" would constitue a more credible reference. "circumcision is a violation of an individuals right to security of the person." was meant to link it to Hill's argument by way of the dash, but perhaps this is unnecessary and the way it appeared on the page could be ssen as statement of fact however unintened. I see no proble with letting that part go.


Per WP:WEASEL Fair enough, I suppose that in staying true to this : "Benatar & Benatar believe neonatal to be a permissable practice ...." as opposed to "Others..." Although, I wonder if the idea of "Follow the spirit, not the letter - As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text" should apply here.

This section was meant to provide a summary of the ideas around consent in relation to childhood circumcision and by briefly traversing the spectrum of viewpoints I don't see how it sways the POV either way. As I mentionned, the idea that, say, "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision." is a widely held view within the medical profession in many countries. "It would be impossible to say A,B,C, D & E all the way down to Z and then some argue that ..." and likewise for the argument attributed to Benatar and Benatar, their argument is another widely held view within the medical profession. Likewise about the religious view. I realize one must be careful about weasel words but in this case, given no POV is being given undue weight, is it not the most logical, and readable, way to provide a summary of the issues surrounding consent?

For example if an article was summarizing the ethicacy of animals for human consumption.. Would it not be reasonable to say : some people believe it is wrong in all cases, others believe that under certain conditions.. survival etc it's ok, another argument is that... and so on and so on? As long as it is a spectrum of views being presented and some references were given or am I wrong?


I believe that what amounts to two small paragraphs does represent brief overview in the main article (ie this article), and could be elaborated on in more detail in the sub-article.

for example:

brief summary: "Some argue that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision. Somerville states that the removal of healthy genital tissue from a minor should not be subject to parental discretion and that physicians who perform the procedure are not acting in accordance with their ethical duties to the patient.[43] Another argument contends that the removal of healthy genital tissue is inherently harmful and that without an individual being capable of providing consent, when he will have this capacity at a later date, and in the absence of any medical need"

more detailed description : brief summary + More detailed description of the potential medical problems that may arise, and example of less invasive treatments. Specific ethical duties of doctors that may not be seen as being followed. Inherent harm A B and C. Issues of condiotions required in order to validate proxy consent and how the circumcision of children does or does not meet these conditions etc.

brief summary: "Others believe neonatal circumcision to be a permissible practice, suitably subject to parental discretion. Arguing that circumcision can be beneficial to a male before he would be able to otherwise provide consent; that there is no convincing evidence of sexual or emotional harm; and that there are greater monetary and psychological costs in circumcising later rather than in infancy should the need arise.[46] In a cultural or religious context, some argue that circumcision is of significant enough importance that parental consent is sufficient and that any possible misgivings surrounding the issue of consent are not significant enough to limit the exercise of infant/childhood circumcision as a cultural practice or religious rite."

more detailed description: brief summary + Health situations specific to children, where circumcision may have afforded protection, perhaps their frequency, what excatly are the greater costs, Eloboration on why religious circumcision can be seen as having significant enough importance etc.

Basically, to me it just reads "Views differ on whether limits should be placed on caregivers having a child circumcised... The basic gist of these views are A B C D E and F." Without too much detail and no POV either way that I can see. In fact I think it might be more NPOV to not include these views or to abbreviate them to the point that the issues of consent are merely hinted at, as opposed to presented. The idea being that by presenting them in such a vague manner presents the issues surrounding consent as, well, vague; when they are not.

And re: the FGC concern. I can see your point there, I probably would not have taken it upon myself to insert it , but it was sitting there in the "Consent" area and seemed more appropriate. Perhaps it deserves some mention in the "Circumcision and law" article if it is not already there?

What do you think?


Gainstrue


Correction : In fact I think it might be more POV to not include these views or to abbreviate them to the point that the issues of consent are merely hinted at, as opposed to presented.

Hi Gainstrue. You may wish to read the section "How to get your edits past the owners of this article," above, and also the section where the complete absence of any anti-circumcision arguments in the article is discussed, and how it is not presented as a controversial subject. This article is maintained in this state for specific advocacy reasons -- and covertly so (any "POV" or similar tags will be promptly removed without discussion). The entire page should be blanked pending review by a truly neutral party. Blackworm 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Blackworm,

So I see, and it is not surprising, that there is some headbutting going on within these pages. To my knowledge nobody 'owns' a wikipedia article, I'd have to make time to go through the history of the article to completely understand what you are getting at. All I can say is that when dealing with a controversial topic, everyone's coming from an angle. But diplomacy seems to be the best approach to any content disputes... I'm not sure that this page should be blanked pending review, whatever problems that exist hopefully can be solved in a less drastic and positive way.

I haven't had time to look through the whole recent history here but I can agree with you about a statement, listed under ethics :"Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault." This seems to be an obvious instance of POV pushing - Taking the most extreme viewpoint that goes much beyond what the majority of those opposing circumcision (who have a rational understanding of context) supposedly 'assert' - For instance, within the Animal Rights article it is written : "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of a moral community." yet if given the spin that was applied to the presentation of what 'those opposing circumcision' assert it would read: "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, and that meat is murder." an obvious case of spin doctoring. So I don't know maybe that can be corrected, and without going into excess elaboration.

And I see your point, about NPOV being perhaps over being aggressively applied in some cases in a very POV fashion. But, this is tricky territory.

For instance, Jake, the bit about the FGC/male circumcision legal question, did not become an issue to you until it was clarified... Yet it sat within the article, in its original slightly distorted state, in a less appropriate place without being challenged by you. So as long as it was spun in way that gives it an air of baselessness, it was ok? I don't know if it was intended? But maybe this is an example of POV bias in the name of NPOV. Or, "Another concern is the replacement of "Somerville argues that" with "Some argue that". Per WP:WEASEL, we should cite specific authors." yet, the argument attributed to Benatar and Benatar flew under your radar per WP:WEASEL. Anyways, as mentioned, I think that when presenting a basic overview of the general views around consent, it would be unnecessary, and of detriment to the readability of the section to attribute each area on the spectrum to a specific author. And of no detriment to the accuracy or neutrality of the article.

I tried to reword the argument that was originally attributed to Hill in a way as to address some of your concerns. In my view issues of consent and medical ethics are complex by their very nature and I don't see how even just a basic summary can be condensed anymore, without rendering this section slightly unintelligeable and vague to a point of inaccuracy. To my thinking, it seems to provides a fairly short, to the point and concise summary of the consent in the context of circumcision. But, regarding your concerns relating to the general concern about excess detail, maybe we can figure out a way to address this if this is still an issue.

Gainstrue —Preceding comment was added at 08:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Re: Ethical issues

changed from: Opponents of circumcision question the legality of removing genital tissue, arguing that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault.

to more NPOV and accurate wording:

"Opponents of circumcision question the ethical validity of removing genital tissue form a minor, arguing that infant circumcision infringes upon individual autonomy and represents a human rights violation."

[User:Gainstrue|Gainstrue]] —Preceding comment was added at 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the earlier discussion about this entry, this is a more NPOV and accurate than the previous entry , at the expense of 5 extra words, how this can be reasonably considered excessive I do not know, so I hope this doesn't become an 'issue'. But I am all ears.

ex: "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of a moral community." vs. "Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, and that meat is murder."

Rhetorical question: Which version contains more spin?

Gainstrue—Preceding comment was added at 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In doing a little background on the Whos Whats and Whys re: the evolution of this article I happened to notice something your page, Jake: A star given to you by a user, "In gratitude for all the thankless work you do around here - especially for dealing with the onslaught by anti-circumcision activists who would have others tearing their hair out" I don't know how much this is a reflection of what kind of biases you bring to the table on this issue. But maybe something to consider.

Gainstrue—Preceding comment was added at 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In this pair of edits I've addressed some of the remaining concerns. There is still too much detail, in my view, but I believe this represents a reasonable compromise. Jakew 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, On my end I'll see if I can think up something that might address your concerns about too much detail.

Gainstrue 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Avraham, my mistake, if that was my doing I didn't intend to, not sure what happened, someone reverted the whole article back with no reason given so I tried to refresh it back to where things were left off.

Gainstrue 14:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Hey Jake, what about something along the lines of this? and going into more detail in the bioethics page as you mentionned.

Views differ on whether limits should be placed on caregivers having a child circumcised.

There has been discourse surrounding the acceptability of proxy consent in the context of infant circumcision given that many cultural and medical factors come into play.(citing: https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum) Contributing to the differing views surrounding proxy consent are cultural beliefs{citation}, issues of parental choice{citation}, principles of individual autonomy{citation}, issues of public health, human rights considerations, the perceived harmful{citation}, benign(citation) or beneficial(citation) nature of the surgery when performed on a healthy child, the validity of proxy consent when a male with have the capacity to consent at a later date {citation}vs. the argument that in some cases the surgery will be of benefit to a child before he would otherwise have been able to consent. {citation}

Gainstrue —Preceding comment was added at 15:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

no idea of what un/circumsized looks like.

Mention that circumsized males often have no idea what uncircumsized males look like, and visa versa. Nor do they understand if there is a variation of what the other group is supposed to look like, and what the norms are. (Nor does Wikipedia present them with a concise page to help. E.g., list percentiles on how many look like Image:Foreskin2.jpg). Jidanni 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're proposing. If you wish to mention something, find a reliable source claiming something, and present it and reference it in the article or on this talk page. Blackworm 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Description of edits

Please describe edits accurately. Michael Glass 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is circumcision always surgery?

I would contend that circumcision is usually surgery. However, in cases where it is part of a violent assault [6] describing what happens as "surgery" is euphemistic nonsense. Michael Glass 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The lead is not supposed to reflect the 1-in-1,000,000 case. -- Avi 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Avraham,

  • Please supply documentary evidence to demonstrate your contention that forced circumcisions are 1 in a million.
  • Since when was telling the whole truth a case of "undue weight"?
  • A Yiddish proverb says: "A half truth is a whole lie," [7]. Why should the article perpetuate a half truth?

Michael Glass 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

    • How many circumcisions are there per annum which are part of a violent assault?
    • Since the definition. Please read WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
    • Since when have Yiddish proverbs become Wikipedia policy? The article needs to follow wikipedia policy. There are other places to publish items, even facts, that do not conform to wiki guidelines. -- Avi 03:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Avi 03:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Avraham,

  • No-one knows how many violent assaults happen per annum, so your claim of one in a million is simply a stab in the dark. What we do know, however, is that these assaults happen. We also know that they are documented in the Journal of Medical Ethics and other reliable sources.
  • How can shortening the article by one word be construed as giving undue weight to anything?
  • Are you saying that Wiki policy is to deny facts?
  • I'm not asking that forced circumcisions be mentioned at this point. All I am asking is that the definition reads either procedure or surgical or other. Remember that the other could include ritual circumcisions as well as assaults.
  • If you have any problems with this proposed wording, please state it here.

Michael Glass 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead defines circumcision. Circumcision is defined as a "surgical procedure" only in medical texts ("when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"), and second rate encyclopedias. That is because it is not, necessarily, surgery. It is defined as a "ritual procedure" in other sources, but that casts it in a perhaps more negative light, so it is omitted. Female genital cutting is being medicalized today, yet we don't call FGC "surgery" on the FGC page, and we won't ever call FGC "surgery" -- even if it gets to the point that 1 in 1,000,000 FGC procedures are not surgically done in a hospital. The best texts define circumcision as a "surgical or ritual" procedure, covering the vast majority of cases, as well as a possible origin of the procedure. However, Michael, don't fall into the trap of believing in "forced circumcisions." When they rape children by force, as opposed to statutory rape where the child consents (if not legally, then in word and deed), they call it "forcible rape." Why don't they call circumcising children "forced circumcision?" The term "forced circumcision" is original research, in the absence of evidence of the use of the term or definition anywhere. It is blatantly misused here in Wikipedia, since it omits mention of its most common form; infant or child circumcision, which is forced upon the infant or child. Blackworm 08:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, please read the documented evidence of forced circumcisions that may be found here: [8]. Forced circumcisions have been happening since at least the time of the Maccabees. (See Maccabees 2:46). I am not pushing for this term to be used in the article. However, I want a wording that is broad enough to accommodate the fact that some circumcisions are not surgery but are best described as assaults. Examples can be found here [9] and here [10] and here [11]. The simplest way of doing this would be to use the term procedure; another way is to use the phrase surgical or other procedure. In other words, I am asking for the elimination of one word or the addition of two words to deal with the fact that not all circumcisions can fairly be described as surgery. I don't think that this is too much to ask. Michael Glass 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt the evidence you present. What I object to is the hijacking of the phrase "forced circumcision." Your phrase "best described as assaults" is POV. Some people believe circumcision of infants is an assault. Without defining "forced circumcision," and restricting your examples to a particular subset *you* regard as "forced," you wrongly imply that infant circumcisions are not forced upon the infant, or child circumcisions are not forced upon the child.
I agree with you that that is evidence enough that not all circumcisions are surgery. I support either of your wordings. Blackworm 07:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, I note your objection to using the phrase forced circumcision to apply when an adult or older child is forcibly circumcised. Also you're right that describing these forced circumcision as assaults is a point of view rather than a fact. However, as you have seen, that is not at issue here. The question is whether the opening sentence should be either shortened by one word or lengthened by two words to account for the fact that circumcisions in some contexts can hardly be described as surgery. Here are examples where the description surgery is questionable, and may even be somewhat misleading:

  • forcible circumcision of adults or children by unqualified operators
  • many ritual or traditional circumcisions, where the operator has no medical training, as in an example from southern Thailand, published in the Bangkok Post on 18 March 2006, where a rural doctor won an award for his work in reducing circumcision-related injuries among the Muslim men in that area.
  • ritual circumcisions, where the motivation is religious rather than medical

There are two simple ways of acccounting for this. One is to define circumcision as a procedure. This implies a medical procedure, but the wording is wide enough to encompass non-medical circumcisions as well. The other way is to define circumcision as a medical or other procedure. The addition of just two words accounts for non-medical circumcisions without labouring the point or going into too much detail. Michael Glass 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with you that not all circumcisions are surgical. You've made your point here without question, and I'm sorry if I derailed the discussion. How about "procedure," with no mention of it being "surgical" -- we shouldn't have things that are usually true in the lead sentence, nor should we bias the definition and frame circumcision strictly as being the domain of the practice of improving health (i.e. medicine), when it clearly is not. Circumcision is the cutting off of the foreskin. Period. That is something everyone can agree on (except perhaps Jakew, who insists that it isn't necessarily cut, but has not made his case). Whether it is "surgical" or "ritual" or "a mutilation" or "painful" or "beneficial" or "controversial" should be up to the reader, based on the information to follow. (It's bad enough that the powers that be have decided that "circumcision" is always done to males, which is also unclear; but that battle, it seems, is lost.) Again, Michael, I support your proposed edits. Blackworm 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Per numerous sources, circumcision is a surgical procedure. Whether cutting is required depends upon the method used: consider some of the 'clamp and wear' devices intended for use in the field. Jakew 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Per numerous sources, it is a ritual procedure. Per numerous sources, it is a controversial procedure. Per some sources, it can be a non-surgical procedure. That is the point Michael made. Sorry, you lose. Even if it was always surgery, which it isn't, that STILL wouldn't necessitate the word "surgery" appearing in its definition -- any more than we need the word "controversial" in there. See WP:LEAD -- the definition should be UNDISPUTED. Also, cite a source claiming these 'clamp and wear' devices removing the foreskin by a method other than cutting, which means (CUT: 1 a: to penetrate with or as if with[emphasis mine] an edged instrument). Blackworm 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I've missed something, but I don't think I've seen any sources cited that state that circumcision can be non-surgical. To which sources do you refer? Jakew 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
One wouldn't specifically use the word "non-surgical" to describe any particular circumcision, but I believe that the descriptions of forced circumcisions found in the letter Michael references above meet my definition of "non-surgical." Is this not the case for you? Also, that circumcision is not necessarily surgical follows from the dictionary definition of "circumcise," which is, ": to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)." The state of being circumcised has nothing to do with the sequence of events leading to that state -- a foreskin could be cut off by a dropped knife, in which case its former owner would be circumcised; but no "surgery" was performed. It could also be recklessly cut off by a sadist torturer with scissors; which would also not be "surgery" by any but the most strained definition. As I've said in the past, the reason I oppose this attempt, not duplicated often if at all elsewhere, to define circumcision in terms of "a surgical procedure" is because the definition of the word *does not* say this, and further that the words carry POV by evoking the image of a nice, sterile, careful, and beneficial procedure, a point on which there is serious debate in the common case. Start with a definition we can all agree with, then push your POV as best you can elsewhere. Blackworm 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, all you have is a personal interpretation of a source. Jakew 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't support Michael's change for his reasons. I support it because it improves the article by making it conform more to WP:NPOV. That's all. I've already made my case for that, it's summarized here and details are in the archives. That one was argued against illogically by you, and also by Avraham ("Avi"), Jayjg and Nandesuka. Check out their user pages, they're admins! Avi pushed for Jake to be admin too. Blackworm 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I repeat my request for you to cite a source to support your claim that the foreskin is not necessarily cut off by circumcision. You have very recently used this claim as a basis to edit the article away from using the word "cut" in the first sentence. Please explain and defend your edit, citing source. Blackworm 09:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Q: Can the prepuce be left on after the clamping mechanism is applied?
A: Yes, the prepuce can be left on without cutting it away; the tissue will necrotize. However, the removal of the tube with a larger amount of remaining prepuce may be more difficult. Theoretically the SmartKlamp® will eventually drop of by itself if you don't do anything.

– http://www.smartklamp.com/medical/faq.html

Jakew 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept that this private website is a reliable source. Secondly, the quote above refers to not requiring the surgeon to cut away the foreskin. It is the clamp that cuts off the foreskin, by first causing tissue to die (necrotization), then penetrating the necrotized tissue. That the tissue is first weakened by necrotization does not mean it is not eventually cut. All emphasis mine on many definitions which still apply: CUT: 1 a: to penetrate with or as if with an edged instrument 2 a: trim, pare <cut one's nails> 4 a: to divide into segments -- b: intersect, cross c: break, interrupt... b: to undergo incision or severance... f: to cause constriction or chafing... 1: to free from control or restraint. Blackworm 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that when a source refers to "without cutting [the foreskin] away", it actually means the opposite? Jakew 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, the "I'm so confused" mode. Your patterns are repetitive. I said, just above, "Secondly, the quote above refers to not requiring the surgeon to cut away the foreskin." The statement first sentence you quote from the unreliable source is informing the user of the clamp that he or she does not need to cut the foreskin away. The following statement sentence implies that some cutting from the user may be necessary. The statement sentence after that implies, with the word, "theoretically," that no one has ever used this clamp without needing to cut! Now please, stop this nonsense. Blackworm 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This particular discussion has gone a long way from deciding whether the beginning of the article should be adjusted to account for the fact that some circumcisions are not accurately described as surgery. To recap, this applies in cases where:

  • forcible circumcision of adults or children by unqualified operators
  • many ritual or traditional circumcisions, where the operator has no medical training, as in an example from southern Thailand, published in the Bangkok Post on 18 March 2006, where a rural doctor won an award for his work in reducing circumcision-related injuries among the Muslim men in that area.
  • ritual circumcisions, where the motivation is religious rather than medical.

I believe that if we added just two words to the beginning of the article so that it read 'surgical or other procedure, this would account for these occurrences without going into detail. I can't see any problem with that particular wording and I ask for feedback on that wording. Michael Glass 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, do you know of any sources that explicitly state that circumcision is not surgery? Jakew 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jake, first of all, I am not stating that circumcision is not surgery. I am stating that circumcision is better described in other terms in certain contexts. There is a difference. Here are examples where sources show this:

  • "Judaism views circumcision as a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery." [12]
  • Jewish circumcision described as a rite and a ritual [13]
  • A Jewish doctor discusses the surgical and ritual aspects of the procedure [14]
  • The Royal Australasian College of Physicians discusses the controversy over whether circumcision could be viewed as an assault [www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527]
  • Boyle and Sobova argue that circumcision of boys may be viewed as an assault [15] Margaret Somerville argues a similar position [16]
  • Edwin Baxter was convicted of second degree assault for attempting to circumcise his child, a conviction that was upheld on appeal [17]
  • The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations defines circumcision as a surgical procedure but then goes on to say, "It has ritual significance in some cultures, and so its practice may be ceremonial, performed with non-surgical instruments by elders rather than doctors" [18]

I hope that this clarifies why I want to add two words, or other to account for these and other cases. Michael Glass 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, as far as I can tell, none of these sources claim that circumcision is not surgery. Some state that there are (or may be) non-surgical aspects in addition. But arguing that circumcision, in some contexts, may meet religious or legal criteria is not arguing that it is not a surgical procedure. Jakew 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
He is arguing that since there are cases of circumcision where there are no surgical aspects, circumcision cannot correctly be defined as surgery. Even if the circumcision could always be described as "surgical," which is the bold assertion you are making, there is no indication that it should be defined in those terms, any more than it should be defined as a "controversial" procedure, for example. Blackworm 12:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the argument is pure original research. Jakew 13:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Michael's may be, but mine isn't. Your definition of circumcision as "surgical" violates WP:NPOV by presenting a purely medical point of view, when circumcision could just as easily be framed as "ritual" or "controversial," for example. Circumcision is not defined thusly; your adding to the definition is promoting a POV. Blackworm 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Blackworm, once again, that is not how the English language works. It is a ritual or controversial SURGICAL procedure. The use of "Ritual" and "Controversial" as adjectives does not remove it from surgery, any more than an angioplasty performed against someones wishes would still be considered a "controversial" surgery. Your argument fails due to the fallacy of the False dilemma. Circumcisions are controversial surgeries. -- Avi 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Circumcision is not defined as surgery, even if all instances of circumcision were surgical, which is another point under debate. This is why the argument does not suffer from the false dilemma. You are seeking to frame all circumcision as "surgical," using the narrow context of medical sources, when "surgical" is not part of the definition of circumcision. You might later choose to describe it as "usually surgical," offering to describe most practiced instances of the action of circumcision. But circumcision is not defined as surgery; and arguably is not always surgery ("the work of a surgeon") in all its instances. You are aware of the difference between the words define and describe? Consider, for example, how "amputation" is defined in Wikipedia: "Amputation is the removal of a body extremity by trauma or surgery." This definition is correct. The definition we have for "circumcision" is not. Blackworm 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you wish to resolve this debate by defining circumcision as "The amputation of the foreskin" rather than the long winded bit of POV we currently have, I'm sure there would be significantly less opposition. Blackworm 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Jake and Blackworm are arguing from a binary viewpoint: that circumcision either is or is not surgery. That is not my point. I am not arguing an either/or position on circumcision as surgery but an and/or position where circumcision could be both surgery and a religious ritual or both surgery and an assault, if proper consent has not been obtained. I believe that there are also some occasions where the description of circumcision as surgery would be problematic, as when the circumcision resulted from a drunken attack. [19] Now in this particular case it is pointless to argue whether or not this drunken attack was surgery. Call it surgery if you will, but the important thing is that it was an assault. Now if my proposed two words sound too either/or perhaps that problem could be remedied with a slightly different wording. Finally, this has nothing to do with original research, it is merely trying to acccount for the complexities of describing something accurately. Michael Glass 13:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, there are two problems here. Firstly, we have a problem of sourcing: if you wish to state that it is sometimes surgery (and/or etc), then you must have a source that makes that argument, not a synthesis or interpretation of sources. The second problem is undue weight: it is plausible that someone might perform any surgical procedure as part of a drunken assault, but in general these events are rare, and of dubious relevance to an encyclopaedia. Jakew 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jake, I have already provided a source that makes exactly the first point. It says, "Judaism views circumcision as a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery." [20]. What could be clearer than that? Secondly, many thousands of children are circumcised in traditional ceremonies in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia every year. Call some of these operators traditional surgeons, if you will, but this description is problematic when you consider the high rates of death and disability that result from these procedures every year. Take this example from Uganda [21]. Thirdly, as my letter in the Journal of Medical Ethics documents, forced circumcisions can and do happen in a wide range of countries and cultures [22].

I think that I have exhaustively documented situations where circumcision can be seen as something other than surgery, or, if you prefer, something in addition to the surgical aspect. All I am asking for is two words or other to account for these occurrences and I really can't understand what all the fuss is about. Michael Glass 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the first source you cite supports the statement that circumcision is surgery. That it (or perhaps more accurately, bris milah) may be viewed as something else as well does not change the fact. Your other points seem to be original research, and I have to say that I'm mystified by your letter: if an event is documented in several countries, does that make it common? Jakew 11:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jake, please read the quotation: "Judaism views circumcision as a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery." Yes, it does say it is surgery, but there is something far more important here for the Jewish religion: and that is the religious significance. As I said before, we are not dealing with an either/or situation in this instance, but a situation where the circumcision is viewed as both a religious ceremony and surgery. Secondly, your view of circumcision is ethnocentric. It is narrowly focused on Western medical circumcisions, Open your eyes and you will see that there are traditional circumcisions happening in many countries, and while some of those doing these circumcisions might be described as traditional surgeons others might better be described as quacks and frauds, and their practices are far from what we know as surgery and far less safe. Even if you take a point of view that is based in England, have a look at this case [23][24] Call it surgery if you will, but it's not surgery as most would know it. If or other troubles you, why don't you suggest an alternative wording? Michael Glass 13:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, my view is simply source-centric. Unless you have sources to support an "or other" definition, we'll have to go with what we have. Jakew 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jake, what you are doing is going with the authority rather than the evidence. It's like an early surgeon, who when told that Vesalius and others have made some discoveries about human anatomy said, "Yes, but, Aristotle says..." In this case I have shown that the bald statement, "Circumcision is a surgical procedure..." is incomplete at best and questionable in some cases. Why not look for a simple way of defining the word in a way that is more in accordance with these facts? Michael Glass 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Michael, that's what WP:NOR is all about: going with the authority, and avoiding making novel interpretations of the evidence. Jakew 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that's not what you're doing, Jake. Quoting the authority to say that circumcision is surgery stretches the definition when it is taken out of the medical context in which it was originally stated. The examples quoted are from a medical context; the context in the article is circumcision in general. Turning around to say that you have authority to state that in another context is also a novel interpretation. This is demonstrated by the fact that in this context the definition no longer fits exactly. I am willing to work with you to find a way round this problem. Michael Glass 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, quite a few sources state something like "circumcision is a surgical procedure...". Very few, if any, state "in a medical context, circumcision is a surgical procedure". Can you find any sources that explicitly define it in a manner you wish to use? Jakew 12:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What about: "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." ? Jake is right, I think that the most common medical definition of the procedure defines it as 'surgery', and most medical sources define it as such. But if one were to examine it from an anthropological point of view I'm sure one would find that it is defined more commonly as a cultural practice, or body modification, and perhaps mention that it has become medicalized in recent history.
Bodies Under Siege: Self Mutilation in Culture and Psychiatry, Armando R. Favazza, M.D., (The John Hopkins University Press, 1987) : "Although instances of deliberate skin-cutting are recorded as far back as the old and New Testaments of the Bible the behavior has generally been regarded as a symptom of various mental disorders...", "The multiple theories about the origin of circumcision have been discussed previously. Early theories focused on hygiene. However, most Jewish writers have presented purely religious arguments, for example that the ritual is an act of faith." and from the wikipedia page : Body modification (or body alteration) is the permanent or semi-permanent deliberate altering of the human body for non-medical reasons, such as spiritual, various social (markings)...It can range from the socially acceptable decoration (e.g., pierced ears in many societies), to the overtly religiously mandated (e.g., circumcision in a number of cultures)" I realize we can't use Wikipedia as a source but I'm sure that in the field of anthropology circumcision would be most often defined as a cultural practice/body modification as opposed to being defined simply as a surgical procedure. - although I haven't looked into it. Maybe this is a solution for this "or other" debate - instead of defining it solely as a surgical procedure, why not just define it for what it is? I can see the point that 'surgical procedure' does not exactly apply to many forms of circumcision, and I can see how "surgical or other procedure" sounds a little vague, hence Jake concern about lack of source. - Gainstrue 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/circumcision.html uses this definition as well >
Circumcision
Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, which is the skin that covers the tip of the penis.
Similar to my suggestion above, reasonable and with a valid source - U.S. National Library of Medicine & National Institutes of Health. Personally, I'm not too concerned with the term surgical procedure being used but I see how it is not entirely accurate in an article dealing with circumcision not only as a medical procedure but as a religious rite and cultural custom as well. - Gainstrue 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gainstrue, I agree with your proposed wording. Michael Glass 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Gainstrue's proposed wording to what is there now, as well. The addition of "surgical" to the definition was recent and without consensus. Blackworm 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just check the definition:

"Surgery ... is the medical specialty that treats diseases or injuries by operative manual and instrumental treatment."

It's simple, really. Ritual infant circumcision (by supernatural or pseudo-medical beliefs) is never a surgery, but always an assault; circumcision as a therapy to phimosis may be (barely) called a surgery. but in either case it is always an amputation and a mutilation. Biased? Loaded words? No, just calling a spade a spade... -- Stormwatch 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reckless disregard for NPOV, I fear. In future, please recall that NPOV does apply to talk pages. Jakew 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Just pick a dictionary:
  • Assault: a violent physical or verbal attack. √
  • Mutilation: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts. √
  • Amputation: to cut off all or part of a limb or digit of the body. √
Can you tell me where infant circumcision does not fit these definitions flawlessly? Anyone? -- Stormwatch 20:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems fairly obvious to me that it doesn't fit any at all, but this isn't the place to debate the issue: Wikipedia does not allow original synthesis or interpretation. Jakew —Preceding comment was added at 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The following definitions are useful because they come from non-medical sources:

The Macquarie Dicitionary (2nd Edition, 1991) defines circumcise as "to remove the foreskin of (males) sometimes as a religious rite.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) <http://www.dictionary.net/circumcision>defines circumcision as" The act of cutting off the prepuce or foreskin of males, or the internal labia of females." It also notes: "The circumcision of males is practiced as a religious rite by the Jews, Mohammedans, etc."
The fifth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1964) defines circumcise as "Cut off foreskin of (as Jewish or Mohammedan rite, or surgically)

In these three examples, the act of circumcision is defined without reference to surgery and the religious aspect is noted. In the case of the Concise English Dictionary, ritual and medical circumcisions are separated. This, I think, gives us ample precedent to follow the dictionary definition of circumcision rather than stretching a medical definition to cover circumcision in general. Stretching the medical definition to define circumcision in general strikes me as a novel interpretation that does not seem to be supported by the dictionaries. Worse than that, if you stretch the definition in this way you have to classify all sorts of abuses as surgery. Michael Glass 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that my comment (above) about the dictionary definition of circumcision has not been commented on. I therefore propose the following wording:"Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. Two editors beside me have endorsed this wording and no one has argued that this wording is inaccurate. On the other hand, describing circumcision as surgery is problematical because circumcisions in non-medical contexts are better described as rituals or even assaults in some contexts. Also, when a non-medical circumcision is described as surgery it can stretch the definition beyond belief. Finally, when circumcision is defined by a dictionary, rather than a medical text, the medical aspect is either secondary or is not mentioned. Therefore, in this contentious matter, it's better to go with the dictionary definition of the word. Michael Glass 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "cutting off" instead of "removal," since this is the more precise terminology used by two of three of your cited definions. It used to be defined this way in the article, but Jakew changed it to "removal" without discussion or consensus. When asked to justify this change, Jakew claimed that there are examples of circumcision when the foreskin is not cut. When asked to present reliable sources to support this claim, Jakew failed, then went silent.
Nonetheless, I agree that your wording is better than the obvious POV we have now. I reiterate that I support your change. Blackworm 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has expressed an objection to the proposed wording, I have changed the wording accordingly. Michael Glass 00:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if circumcision were always surgery, I see no reason to have "surgical procedure that removes" rather than "removal": the latter is better because briefer. If there are positive reasons for including "surgical" somewhere in the arguments above, please point them out to me. However, good reasons have been given for not including "surgical": some circumcisions are not aptly referred to as surgery; several dictionaries define the term without referring to surgery; and most of the definitions mentioning surgery are from medical sources, therefore not neutral-point-of-view. Clearly there is controversy on this page about the word "surgical". I support removing the word "surgical" from the leadin. The leadin is supposed to be uncontroversial. I also like having the Latin etymology given there: has anyone given any reason for removing it? --Coppertwig 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

POV - prevalence quoted in lead (30%) -- later we admit it's really 16.7% to 33%, so it's ok.

For some reason, only the WHO's estimate of worldwide prevalance is presented in the lead. This estimate (30%) is almost at the very top end of the range of published estimates (16.7% to 33%) we reference later in the article, yet it is stated in the lead paragraph. Also, note the contrast between what the source says...

Global estimates in 2006 suggest that 30% of males [...] are circumcised.

– - World Health Organization

According to WHO 30% of men worldwide have had the procedure [...].

– - Wikipedia, citing the above.

...and what the editors of this article wrote in the lead. There is no mention that it is an estimate that suggests something. I propose we change the lead to match the sentence in the "Prevalence" section which summarizes estimates of worldwide prevalence. Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one sixth (16.7%)[114] to one third (33.3%).[115] A slight rephrasing may be appropriate since the sentence should also appear where it is now, in the prevalence section. Blackworm 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Best to keep things simple. How about "According to WHO, estimates suggest that 30%" Jakew 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha! I love it! Jakew resists removing this obviously POV, biased, misleading sentence in the lead. PUT THE RANGE OF ESTIMATES IN THE LEAD AS A PROPER SUMMARY OF PREVALENCE ESTIMATES. DO NOT DISTORT THE DATA BY PRESENTING ONLY THE HIGHEST ESTIMATE YOU CAN FIND, TO MAKE CIRCUMCISION APPEAR MORE PREVALENT THAN IT IS FOR YOUR ADVOCACY GOALS, JAKEW. There, can I put that any plainer? iSee alsoWP:LEAD. Blackworm 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


PLEASE SEE

Conclusion:Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary according to WHO from 30% to 33.3%. Includes countries listed in Table 1. If 5% of men in other countries are assumed to be circumcised for non-religious reasons, the global prevalence of circumcision is 34% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.193.14 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to present only the opinion of WHO in the lead, to the exclusion of all other sources, merely because it has the highest prevalence estimate. To do so violates WP:NPOV, besides opposing WP:LEAD. The goal of the lead is summarize information from multiple sources, which the sentence I quote above regarding prevalence does much better than the existing lead statement. Blackworm 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Blackworm, the goal of the lead is to "...briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". It should "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions."
It should do so according to NPOV, which, among other things, states that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
So, in this instance we include a number of estimates in the text. In the lead, where we need to be brief and not overly specific, we include the most prominent estimate, which we carefully attribute in order to avoid endorsing that viewpoint.
Could you please explain why you feel this violates LEAD and NPOV? Jakew 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Quoting only the WHO in the lead paragraph is over-specific, especially since it almost at the top end of the estimate ranges. My proposed statement is no less "concise" than the existing one, which additionally adds a nonsense truism in order to labor the exaggerated point further, and additionally *repeats* (yes, repetition, in the lead, for POV) the cultural and religious character of circumcision. Don't even begin to talk about "concise" given that. The lead "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints." The language is beautiful and clear, and since prevalence is the only instance of a statistic currently used in the lead paragraph, let's indeed let all significant viewpoints ring clear by presenting the range of estimates from reliable sources; not one source cherry-picked for its near-highest estimate. Hence: WP:NPOV (In fact, nowhere does the WHO say THEY estimated anything, they are repeating others' estimates -- picked from some obscure source.) That WHO appears twice in the lead with apparently pro-circumcision bent each time is interesting, isn't it, Jakew? You say "we include a number of estimates in the text" -- but, here, we are talking about the lead, not "the text." Hence: WP:LEAD. Continue your obtuseness, irrelevancies, and "discussion," I still have some energy left on this one. Don't worry, you'll probably sap it out of me in a couple of weeks, like you always do, with your endless reversions and asking for justifications and claims of being confused. It's amazing how much you can argue for weeks demanding justification for the most obvious improvements to the article, as long as they seem to push a certain POV, while keeping complete and total silence when any justification for inclusion (e.g. the six-line paragraph in the Pain section) is demanded from you. The entire lead is written with a pro-circumcision POV slant, actually, and this may be the most egregious example.
Can we get some other opinions? What about you, Avi? What's your take on this one. I'd really love to hear it. How about Michael Glass and Nigelj, too? Coldpower27? Let's really talk this one through and make it a model Wikipedia discussion reaching consensus. Blackworm 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's something else to chew on. The missing "..." in Jakew's quote in the first sentence above, from WP:LEAD, is highly relevant. It comes from halfway down WP:LEAD, and states,

Next to establishing context, [emphasis mine -bw] the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article ([...]).

– - Wikipedia style guideline: WP:LEAD

Would you say the WHO quoting estimates of 30% establishes context better, or is it the fact that reliable sources present a range of 16.7% to 33%? In light of the chopped quote you posted, Jakew, would you agree that perhaps I am in a better position to understand the importance of context? (How ironic.) How about this, Jakew -- "Estimates of the percentage of males circumcised worldwide fall in the range 16.7%-33%, with the WHO quoting estimates of 30%." That is the real, logical, derived information that we get from all these sources. I have to say though, it makes WHO look silly, and not worthy of being "the most prominent estimate." Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest, anyway. But in any case, with my proposed sentence we can also get rid of that original research phrase "mostly in countries where it is common for religious or cultural reasons," which is not established clearly in the source, but which arguably is a truism and unwelcome in a concise lead paragraph given that we've already established the religious and cultural character of circumcision. What do you think? We even get to relegate the WHO to being the most important authority in the world on choosing estimates to publish and calling them "global estimates." Blackworm 06:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I wrote "...not worthy of being 'the most prominent estimate.'" What I meant was, "...not worthy of being [[...], if indeed it is." Blackworm 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion of the WHO hardly seems relevant. Nor do you appear to have read the sources - you claim that "nowhere does the WHO say THEY estimated anything". As you can see on page 13 here, "We have estimated the global prevalence of circumcision among males aged 15 or over...". Jakew 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed -- read that entire paragraph, noting that these estimates are based on others' estimates, make certain questionable assumptions (100.0% prevalence among Muslims and Jews), involve prior estimates ("we estimated the number of non-Muslim and non-Jewish men circumcised in countries with substantial prevalence of non-religious circumcision"), and apply only to males 15 or older. That is not even an estimate of worldwide prevalence, since it excludes males under 15. It is a guess based on a guess based on others' guesses. Given that WHO is now advocating mass male circumcision, ignoring any opposition or controversy, these guesses need to be taken with a grain of salt. But, given all that, I will propose the wording "Estimates of the percentage of males circumcised worldwide fall in the range 16.7%-33%, with the WHO estimating 30%." This I believe answers your objection. Blackworm 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I retract that proposal. It is wrong given that WHO excludes males under 15, where the "percentage of males crcumcised" is probably less given that many areas practice circumcision on boys of all ages up to 18. I will replace my earlier proposal with this: Estimates of the percentage of males circumcised worldwide fall in the range 16.7%-33.3%. The WHO, sadly, appears to have nothing to say on actual worldwide prevalence of males of all ages in this source. Am I mistaken? We also should note that the current lead statement regarding the WHO under scrutiny here is not only POV on two counts (the picking of a source with a high end estimate, and the "drumming in" of information irrelevant to the statement in the form of a repetitive truism), it is factually incorrect. I suggest we amend this by adopting my proposed replacement as a matter of some urgency, Jakew. Blackworm 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I keep finding more holes in this ridiculous source. First, it states, "Results: Approximately 30% of males are estimated to be circumcised globally." Then, to explain this result, it goes into estimate after assumption after estimate regarding males 15 and older, then comes out with this, strong, convincing language: "Using these assumptions, we estimate that approximately 30% of the world's males aged 15 or older are circumcised." Are we to eat this illogic wholesale? How does "30% of the world's males aged 15 or older" concluded deep in the document become "30% of males" in the summary of results, which is what actually commonly gets repeated? Since when are males 14 and under not males? Maybe that's why this "reliable source" has DRAFT DOCUMENT written in large letters on it. Didn't quite get the bugs out of it, apparently. Is a non-draft version of this source available? Was this report indeed ever formally released by WHO? I hope not, for the sake of their reputation. Blackworm 10:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Blackworm, it's already perfectly clear that you dislike the WHO's estimate. I assure you that there's no need to elaborate further, especially since your criticism is, and can only ever be, original research. Jakew 11:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak, and pathetic, Jakew. My criticism of WHO may be original research; my criticism of the sentence under scrutiny is not. So far, you have not presented a viable objection to my change. Blackworm 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
See also Misuse_of_statistics#Overgeneralization -- a page linked to by WP:RS to explain misuses of statistics. Above, I describe the details of the overgeneralization error the authors of this draft WHO document made. Perhaps it was corrected in the final version; but presently we don't even know if a final version was written, or if this document was scrapped before publication. Blackworm 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've been asked to give my tuppence worth, I will. For consistency's sake i think we should give a summary of the estimates in the introduction and more details further into the article. It is inconsistent to have 33% in one place and 16-33% in another. If the WHO estimate is seen as more authoritative, then this might be noted, too. Michael Glass 13:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What prevalence among Jewish males does this imply?

"Circumcision is a positive commandment obligatory under Jewish law for Jewish males, and is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child." What would you guess to be the prevalence of circumcision among Jewish males given that information? Should we cite a reference and quote a percentage? Blackworm 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? -- Avi 07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Why what? Blackworm 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I now see from your edit summary that you are asking, "for what purpose?" It is still unclear what you are referring to, specifically. If you ask why we should cite a reference and quote the percentage, then my answer would be simply to enhance the article. We have eight lines devoted to prevalence specific to countries; it seems logical to devote one line to prevalence specific to one of the religions that most commonly circumcises. But then, I'm asking the opinion of others here on whether this information should be placed in the article. Should I put you down for a "no?" Your resistance seems to suggest that I should -- in which case I would ask, why? Blackworm 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I was just curious. I don't know of any sources, but theoretically, the prevalence among Orthodox Jews will be around 100% (exceptions made in the case of hemophilia or other blood-clotting disorders, for example). Among Reform Jews, my hunch is that it tracks the general population, and Conservative Jews will be somewhere between. Of course, that's completely unacceptable for wiki, but a logical estimation. -- Avi 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your estimates, Avi. We need something more concise, however; this article is attempting to conform to WP:SUMMARY. Now how about we find a source for prevalence among Jews and cite? Is this area of no interest? Blackworm 07:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WHO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health. Established on 7 April 1948, and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the agency inherited the mandate and resources of its predecessor, the Health Organization, which had been an agency of the League of Nations.It's a serious international organisation!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.212.135 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Brit Milah under "other uses?"

This is new. Why is Brit Milah listed at the very top of the circumcision article, in the disambiguation section? Brit Milah is a subset of circumcisions, not a separate concept. It should not be in the section devoted to other uses of the word "circumcision." It is correctly referenced elsewhere in the article. Blackworm 09:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply, because often people looking for the Judaism-specific ritual do not know the proper term, so they type in Circumcision; it most probably is the second-most meant article when "circumcision" is searched for. The other uses templates are merely directional indicators. -- Avi 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any evidence that people "often" look for the Judaism ritual and do not know the proper term, nor any evidence that it most probably is the second-most "meant" article when circumcision is searched. I put myself in the place of such a person, typed in "Jewish circumcision" in search, and was redirected to "Brit Milah." Presumably a semi-intelligent reader could do the same, or skip to the religion section (where "see also: 'Brit Milah' is mentioned at the top the section, AND linked again in the text), OR skip to the end "See Also" section where the link appears a fourth time. I believe it is a bad precedent to start putting things that should be under "see also" in the "other uses" section before the term circumcision is even defined, and I do not believe your justification for it is valid. Blackworm 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. See:
Further, while I do not have any wikimedia page statistics, I'm pretty confident that more people are looking for Brit Milah than Female Genital Cutting when typing "Circumcision" and not meaning this particular article. As a matter of fact, the term "Circumcision" without any adjectival qalifiers has been used to mean "Brit Milah" but I do not recall it ever being used to mean "Female Genital Cutting" without the "Female" qualifier appended to the front. If you feel so confident in the intelligence of the average reader that the blurb at top for Brit Milah is rendered unnecessary, I am certain you would agree that the blurb for Females is even more of a waste of WIkipedia server space and client-side CPU and Video card processing power and resources.
So, according to your logic, shall we remove the template in toto from the top? -- Avi 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. Lots of sources refer to circumcision of males and females. It is the same Wikipedia circumcision advocates who have defined circumcision as male circumcision, contrary to the dictionary definition of "circumcise" (: to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)[[25]]. Once this fraud has been successfully perpetrated, we are now to accept this nonsense you are proposing? Nowhere is FGM referred to anywhere in the article as referring to the article's subject, circumcision. Brit Milah is clearly a kind of male circumcision. It does not merit inclusion in "other uses" any more than any of the other "see also" terms. Blackworm 18:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of definitions:http://www.webster.com/dictionary/circumcision. -- Avi 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what's your point? Blackworm 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The definition specifically mentions Jewish circumcision, doesn't it? -- Avi 01:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you please construct an argument? I really don't know what you're getting at. Blackworm 06:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Brit Milah is a form of circumcision currently discussed at length in the main article; FGM includes the dictionary definition of circumcision but is only mentioned briefly, and not ever associated with the word, "circumcision," nor is this defintion of circumcision as being something done to males and females even presented in any way. That is a fraud. It is shameful and heartbreaking that it is allowed to continue. I suspect that when the articles were renamed to what they are now, the supposed "consensus" accepted by the hapless victims of your and Jakew's illogic was that FGM would only be mentioned as something "sometimes referred to as 'female circumcision.'" They probably rejoiced that they were "allowed" to put the misleading and factually incorrect disambiguation ("other uses") statement we had. It was disgraceful then. Now -- it's doubly disgraceful with your suggesting to use someone's mistake to remove the section "in toto" -- which would make the fraud complete. No, sorry. Remove Brit Milah from the "other uses," please. Blackworm 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It is used as a "signpost". For some strange reason, you seem to be understanding that having directions to other articles at the top of an article page is tantamount to Wikipedia making a philosophical statement. I believe you are under a distinct misinterpretation. You are not the only reader of wikipedia, Blackworm. There is significant reason to believe that people entering the term "circumcision" are looking for "Brit Milah". Thus, the direction sign. Simple, concise, appropriate, and undeniable. -- Avi 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is nonsensical. It could be applied to any of the terms in the "see also" section, or any aspects of circumcision ("circumcision and law", etc.). It is POV a violation of WP:NPOV to single out Brit Milah for special mention before the general article on circumcision even starts; demonstrably so, as I argue above. It was added without discussion here nor consensus. Remove it, please. Blackworm 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Wikipedia already has the concept of a "signpost:" a disambiguation page. If you wish to propose one, I would be glad to discuss it with you. Blackworm 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello? Can we fix this glaring example of an WP:NPOV violation? Do you give your assent? You are an administrator who has admonished me in the past, I do not wish to flare your wrath by performing these edits unilaterally. I leave you with: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.[emphasis mine]" -- Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Blackworm 08:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Avi wrote, addressing me, above: "[...] you are so adamant in the clarity of your understanding, and via projection, of the understanding of every reader of wikipedia, who would, of course, immediately revert to a state of total befuddlement when faced by the term 'female' circumcision."
I never made that argument. If you wish to remove FGC from "other uses," propose it in a new section rather than attempting to piggyback onto this proposed change. Do you have any other arguments to make against this change? Blackworm 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion not supported by source.

From the article: The frenulum is cut if frenular chordee is evident.[23][24] I read this somewhat ambiguous sentence as, "The frenulum is always cut during the circumcision procedure if there is evidence of frenular chordee." Assuming that is an accurate reading of the statement, neither of the two sources cited make that claim. The claim seems farcical; it would seem apparent that not all circumcisions are performed by experts who can diagnose frenular chordee with 100% accuracy and who consequently cut the frenulum. Is there another interpretation of the article statement? I propose this sentence be removed. Blackworm 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal seems reasonable. Jakew 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are you agreeing? Oh, I see. You don't want any mention that the frenulum is often cut off during circumcision for no reason at all. Now I understand. That sentence must have served to weaken that point by implying it was only done if necessary. Now you'd rather see the whole idea go away. Hmmm... How can we rectify this? Well, I guess we can start by removing the sentence, then we can cite a source later. Blackworm 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you: the claim is unsupported by the source material. But apparently you are now unable to assume good faith and remain civil even when others agree with your position. Jakew 20:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You are now and have always been unable to discuss anything without either injecting POV, illogic, or WP:AGF behavioural guideline violations -- the latter being obsolete among the parties present here. And where am I being uncivil above? I was publically musing; merely trying to "talk out" my confusion. I'm better now, and my apologies for burdening you with my mumblings. Thank you. Blackworm 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Jake, I'll tone it down. Perhaps I'm just celebrating a possible first; I invite you to do the same. Sorry. Blackworm 02:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of "pacific islands foreskin not removed in circumcision"

The sentence I deleted is: In pacific islands circumcisions do not remove the foreskin REF (mp3) This is not a reliable source. Further, your statement is demonstrably untrue. The word "circumcision" means "to cut around" and does not refer to a dorsal slit, which the unreliable source (an interviewee on a radio program) mistakenly calls circumcision. It should remain out of the encyclopedia article. Blackworm 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm is correct on this one, I believe; the source in question is insufficiently reliable to be added to the article. -- Avi 03:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision procedures section incomplete, and not WP:NPOV.

The section on circumcision procedures goes into great detail about three related forms of the procedure, all discussing aseptic uses of a clamp. There are myriad other circumcision procedures that are performed in both aseptic and septic settings. The section as a whole perhaps depicts the majority of circumcisions performed, but neglects to mention other significant forms of circumcision. As a WP:SUMMARY article, this is unsatisfactory. Also, the specific choice of presented procedures may lead the reader to form certain incorrect general conclusions about circumcision. Therefore, I believe this is a case of a violation of WP:NPOV through an absence of material. Blackworm 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you list the other 9,997? You did claim there were 10,000, or are we allowed to use more than one definition now, such as 1a here? -- Avi 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Remember, Avraham ("Avi") is a Wikipedia administrator. Blackworm 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
And your point (besides the implied personal attack) is ? -- Avi 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That you should know better than to waste time and space with irrelevancies when something someone writes upsets you but you have no argument against it. Blackworm 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Why does the term irony seem to be apropos? -- Avi 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Only in reference to our apparent role reversal. Blackworm 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Added {{fact}} to controversial warning in preview

Was this appropriate? Nah, probably not, despite the general lack of sense of controversy one gets from reading the article. That only shows the article is deeply flawed, not that this tag is. On second thought, I'll remove it. Sorry. Blackworm 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs information about ridged band

The ridged band is the most important part of the foreskin, but it's not mentioned in this article at all. I hope someone can add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.107.128 (talk • contribs)

The subject of this article is circumcision, not the anatomy of the foreskin. The 'ridged band' is discussed in other, more appropriate articles. Jakew 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I hope someone can add it in, too. The anatomy of the foreskin is highly relevant to this article, which currently inexplicably focuses on the remaining parts of the penis (e.g. the glans) to argue, for example, that circumcision is not harmful to penile sensitivity. Do you have a specific edit to propose? Blackworm 21:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why only male circumcision?

If this is just about male circumcision why isn't the article called "male circumcision" as there is also a seperate "female circumcision" page. Shouldn't we make a redir or something to have a correct structure? Wiki1609 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a "correct structure"? Should we have a 'gentlemanbird' page to match ladybird? Or should Wikipedia reflect language that's actually in use? Jakew 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Circumcision" is used to refer to circumcision of both males and females. That male circumcision advocates along with anti-female circumcision activists now control the terminology and wish to downplay similarities between the male and female forms is interesting, but should be irrelevant to the organization of an encyclopedia in my opinion. Blackworm 23:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate this:

"FGM includes the dictionary definition of circumcision[[26]] but is only mentioned briefly, and not ever associated with the word, "circumcision," nor is this defintion of circumcision as being something done to males and females even presented in any way. That is a fraud.

– Blackworm

It seems I'm not the only one to observe this problem. How do you propose we fix this, Wiki1609? Blackworm 06:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


To me it seems much more logical to have the structure like this:

  • Circumcision
    • Male Circumcision
    • Female Circumcision

Now it is like this:

  • (apparently Male) Circumcision
    • Female Circumcision

I don´t really care what its called in females, its just that this structure is wrong. And female genital cutting isn´t a word that´s used much, I hadn´t even heard of it before I saw the article. Regardless of that, the structure is wrong because circumcision has two forms: female and male, so that´s how the article should split. Like in >dog: bitch and stud<. Not >stud: there are also bitches<. Debate about the term should be in the female section. I suggest a short article saying circumcision is the cutting of whatever for whatever purpose; theres circumcision in males and circumcision in females. In the second article you can say circumcision in females in usually called FGC, but it remains circumcision. Wiki1609 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a disambiguation page. Please see WP:MOSDAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries: "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. The recommended practice is to use a hatnote on the article for the primary meaning to link directly to the secondary meaning." (emph added)
And, sure enough, that's what we have at the start of the article: "This article is about male circumcision. For the practice sometimes referred to as "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting. For Judaism's circumcision ritual, see Brit milah." Jakew 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The hatnote implies that it is incorrect to refer to "female circumcision." That is factually incorrect and violates WP:NPOV. Circumcision refers to an action performed on both males and females. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to restrict the circumcision article to discussion of circumcision of males. There is no consensus that circumcision of females is in any way a "secondary meaning." In my opinion, the article should be renamed "Male Circumcision," references in the article likewise changed, and a disambiguation page created for "Circumcision." The "Brit Milah" hatnote is misplaced, since it is certainly not a "secondary meaning," but a separate discussion section exists on this page for discussion of that recent addition made without consensus or discussion. Blackworm 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, then, that this non-secondary meaning isn't even mentioned here: Medterms.com National Cancer Institute Centre for Cancer Education, and listed second at: Circumcision, Merriam-Webster. Jakew 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
So you mean that Blackworm's understanding seems to go against that of the National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Education, and Medterms? Also, the Webster link defines Female Genital Mutilation as the clitero/labiodectomy and says that it is "called also" female circumcision, whereas a Brit Milah is in the primary definition of Circumcision. Are these sites also run by pro-circumcision activists? -- Avi 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess that the American Heritage Dictionary, Princeton University's Wordnet, and MediLexicon must also all be controlled by activists. An WP:NPOV#Undue weight violation, anyone? -- Avi 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You've both sure had to dig into and cherry pick some pretty obscure sources. "Medterms?" Please. Two "cancer"-related sources, one of which contradicts the American Cancer Society[[27]], the largest and most prominent of these groups? It's not convincing. You are not going to convince me that the female form of circumcision is a "secondary" definition, unworthy of being even CALLED circumcision anywhere in Wikipedia, because the female form is described as (1b) instead of (1a) in a medical dictionary. That is simply preposterous. Avi goes further, muddling the discussion, by arguing in a backwards manner, from the FGM definition back to circumcision, when definition (1) of "circumcision" itself includes the female version. As for Western medical sources, since female circumcision isn't routinely practiced by Western medical specialists, it should not be surprising that it is ignored by them. It should also not be surprising that they attempt to appropriate the word for the procedure they profit from, and dissociate the word from a practice widely regarded as an assault. Regardless, it doesn't change anything I've said. Circumcision is done to males and females[[28]], and always has been, despite ignorance of the female form of it in the West, and current widespread attempts to change the terminology for advocacy purposes. The current Wikipedia article, written and maintained (i.e. maintained in a pro-circumcision state) by at least one known circumcision advocate, defines circumcision as only done to males. This is factually incorrect, as several editors have pointed out. Wikipedia is not for your circumcision advocacy. If you wish to aid this present whitewashing of the use of "circumcision" to describe the female form of circumcision, publish on your advocacy web site, or donate to the WHO or to Schoen or whoever your male circumcision advocate/female circumcision critic of choice is. Here at Wikipedia, we are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Blackworm 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You could have saved a lot of time by simply typing "You are not going to convince me that the female form of circumcision is a "secondary" definition", Blackworm. Clearly, no amount of evidence will do so. Jakew 12:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether it is a "secondary definition" or not, you have yet to validate the current organization of these articles -- which would require you to show that the female form of circumcision is not circumcision. Kind of a contradiction, but have at it. Blackworm 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No such claim is made, Blackworm. In accordance with the recommendation in MOSDAB, quoted above, the article is about the primary meaning, and includes a hatnote directing readers to the secondary meaning ("This article is about male circumcision. For the practice sometimes referred to as "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting"). Jakew 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I judge by your misquote of the hatnote, which omits the Brit Milah link, that you agree that Brit Milah should be out of the hatnote? Perhaps you could comment in the appropriate section, above, regarding your apparent views on that.
The presence of the Brit Milah definition, the THIRD given under the banner of "circumcision," invalidates your argument that those terms of Wikipedia policy apply. Again, we are discussing a disambiguation page here to avoid precisely this problem.
I propose either of two things: Wiki1609's suggestion to turn "Circumcision" into a disambiguation page with the three meanings discussed here, or remove "Brit Milah" from the hatnote, and rephrase the FGC reference to say, This article discusses male circumcision. For female circumcision, see female genital cutting. In addition to either of these changes, me must change the title of the article to "Male Circumcision," and keep consistent with this definition throughout the article, referring to "male circumcision" where there may be ambiguity. Note the two links -- they appropriately validate female circumcision as an often used term (same way the WHO does, actually), without judgment and POV, and direct the interested reader to the best current article related to the subject. Since the "female circumcision" page does not exist, and since "female genital mutilation" and later "female genital cutting" are more recent UN/WHO-invented terms, this encyclopedia organization is more likely to stand the test of Wikipedia standards and policy than the current format and wording. The disambiguation page is a more neutral solution in my opinion, but I acknowledge that POV is a strong thing; therefore the removal of "Brit Milah" and the rewording of the FGC reference is also an acceptable solution to me. Blackworm 01:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You judge incorrectly, I'm afraid. I simply quoted the part of the hatnote that was relevant to this discussion. I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, and am mystified by your proposed 'solution'. What exactly do you hope to achieve by a) removing a common form of (male) circumcision from the hatnote, b) including two adjacent links to the same article (one via a redirect, one direct), c) renaming the page from an obvious, common name to a non-obvious usage, d) including, on a page entitled 'male circumcision', the text 'This article discusses male circumcision. For female circumcision, see female genital cutting.', and e) padding out the article with unnecessary 'male' qualifiers? Alternatively, what is the point of a dab page with only 2.5 entries, and how is the reader served by having to click on the primary meaning to get to the page that he was almost certainly looking for (and if he wasn't, he'd have found the alternative in the hatnote)? Jakew 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You mislead by implying the hatnote currently only has one "secondary" link, when in fact it has two; invalidating your argument above based on the WP policy you quote: "Some disambiguation pages [...] list only two meanings, [...]."
What I hope to achieve is clear from my previous comment. I quote from first paragraph of the source of your quote (which, as you have used it, is inapplicable). WP:MOSDAB: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." This is Avi's incorrectly applied argument for the inclusion of "Brit Milah" in the hatnote (the above refers does not refer to hatnotes but to disambiguation pages, a term which when brought up caused Avi, an admin, to go curiously silent). Nowhere does it say you can point the user toward two other "meanings," -- one, "sometimes used," the other, Judaism's ritual male circumcision -- in the hatnote, and then, especially, claim through subsequent application of the term that circumcision only correctly refers to male circumcision. I am really sorry if you and Avi cannot understand at this point, but my reasoning is solid and I stand by it. There are several distinct and separate violations here, and your defense of them is weak and disheartening. This is an NPOV issue (and, yes, factually incorrect) due to the article's misuse of the term "circumcision"[[29]] to be equivalent to male circumcision. Wikipedia should not claim this by omission, organization, or content; and right now it fails in all three aspects you are defending. The current organization is indefensible. You ask what I hope to achieve: neutrality, and Wikipedia policy. What do you hope to achieve by arguing against this change, Jakew? I am mildly interested, but if you are merely seeking personal opinions from editors interested in making this change at this point, you have to understand that bothering to respond to you is optional. Now, do we think we should also slap a "totally-disputed" tag on this flawed article soon? For some reason they keep getting removed, but it seems appropriate. Blackworm 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If you bother to read the section of MOSDAB from which I quoted, you'll see that it is applicable, since it discusses a recommended alternative to disambiguation pages. Furthermore, you'll find that it links to WP:HAT. On that page, in the section entitled WP:HAT#Otheruses, you'll find a (somewhat extreme) example that links to no less than four other articles. Furthermore, since the hatnote clearly states that the article is about male circumcision, it is perfectly proper to use the term in that context, and certainly there is no implication that this is the 'only' correct usage. Nor, for that matter, does the fact that colour redirects to color imply that I spell the term incorrectly - in both cases they simply reflect a logical way to present information without redundancy. Jakew 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not assert that I did not read the section. You continually fault my reading, which is a personal attack disguised as a valid argument. As I clearly indicate above, I read the section you quoted which clearly refers to splitting up a disambiguation page if there are two meanings on it and one is overwhelmingly more "meant" than another. This is not the case here; the current organization fails both these clauses. That there are potential examples of longer hatnotes, that does not mean one is appropriate here.
You are also taking a major leap in your argument. It is not proper that the article entitled "circumcision" refers solely to male circumcision. This is the central point. It is not enough that there is a weak disclaimer in the hatnote -- circumcision is not male circumcision. In the article on "Breast Cancer," would it be appropriate to have a hatnote saying, "This article refers to female breast cancer. For male breast cancer, click here," and then imply in the article that only women get breast cancer? Your arguments are not nearly valid by any stretch. Blackworm 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you appear to disagree with the recommendation in MOSDAB, which views it as perfectly proper for an article to be about the primary meaning. Jakew 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I disagree with your assertion that the meaning you wish to exclusively assign to the word "circumcision" in this article is the primary meaning, or is the entire meaning of the word, as the organization and content currently imply. Further, WP:MOSDAB describes a disambiguation page as a "harmless" solution to these disputes; therefore your vehement opposition to the suggestion seems misguided. Blackworm 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Your disagreement with sources is noted. I'm afraid you have misunderstood the organisation and content: the very existence of the hatnote is incompatible with your claimed 'implication'. Jakew 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have ignored my response, in which I specifically deny that I disagree with the source you present. I'm really sorry that you seem to be having such trouble understanding. The existence of a hatnote does not dispel the implications found in the title of the article and elsewhere that circumcision only correctly refers to male circumcision, and thus it doesn't dispel the WP:NPOV issues; see my "Breast Cancer" example above. Blackworm 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Jakew said: "[...] certainly there is no implication that [circumcision referring to male circumcision] is the 'only' correct usage." It is debatable whether the implication is in the hatnote; what is not debatable in my opinion is that the implication is present in the title of the article, and everywhere else in the article, including in the first sentence (the definition), which currently reads: "Circumcision is the surgical procedure that removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." Blackworm 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiki1609: I agree with everything you said; it is clear that these articles should be organized in the way you propose, to avoid the massive POV issues we have now. "Circumcision" does not equal "male circumcision," despite the POV of the editors primarily responsible for making this article what it is today (i.e., biased). Blackworm 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It depends on how the reliable sources use the term. Here are examples of sources which use quotation marks or other things to imply that they do not wish to call FGM "circumcision": [30] [31] [32]. On the other hand, there are a lot of publications that simply use the term "female circumcision", and I get more hits on Google Scholar for "female circumcision" than for "female genital mutilation". How about doing something in between the current and proposed wordings, e.g. "For female genital mutilation, also called female circumcision, see ...". --Coppertwig 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if someone searched for "female genital mutilation", they wouldn't have found this page. So I can't see how this helps the reader. We only need to cater for the situation (however unlikely) in which someone searched for 'circumcision' while looking for information about female circumcision, and direct them to the page they wanted. Jakew 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"However unlikely" is your POV, contradicted by the evidence Coppertwig and I present. Coppertwig's research suggests that the terms "female genital cutting" and "female genital mutilation" should in fact redirect to the most often used term, "female circumcision." It also invalidates much of your argument in favor of the status quo, Jakew. Blackworm 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of discussing the renaming of a different page here, Blackworm. There are good reasons for the present state of affairs, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss those. My comments refer to proposed changes to the text of this page. Jakew 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems your confusion is still high. This subthread on a different article was started by you, in response to Coppertwig, with the sentence, "It occurs to me that if someone searched for 'female genital mutilation', they wouldn't have found this page." I'm sorry, I cannot help you further in the face of this bizarre about-face and illogic on your part. We are clearly discussing changes to this page, unlike you. Blackworm 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what you meant by: "Coppertwig's research suggests that the terms "female genital cutting" and "female genital mutilation" should in fact redirect to the most often used term, "female circumcision."" Which seems to indicate that you propose to move FGC to FC. Jakew 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to your irrelevant observation with something also perhaps more appropriate for discussion elsewhere -- although it did serve to reinforce Coppertwig's point that "female circumcision" is widely used, which I do believe indicates that it should fall under the banner of "circumcision," i.e., THIS article, and not in the form of a POV disclaimer in a hatnote with a link to a more recently invented and less widely used term. If you object to the forum for discussion of this particular idea, then let's both end this diversionary tangent you started, right here. Blackworm 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Just out of interest, do you think that male menopause should be merged into menopause? Jakew 14:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That is yet another irrelevant, diversionary tangent. If you wish complete your analogy and argue for that change using dictionary definitions and other reliable sources, I suggest you do so in the appropriate place. This isn't it. Blackworm 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, that is not an acceptable solution. Circumcision is not male circumcision, period. For Wikipedia to take that stance, rather than report on that usage as notable in the West (where female circumcision is almost unheard of), violates WP:NPOV. Whether we change the wording of the hatnote or go with a disambiguation page, the usage of the word "circumcision" and the title of this article must change. Otherwise, we must representatively write about female circumcision under the article entitled, "circumcision." Your proposal also uses the phrase "also called" which may continue to imply incorrect usage of "female circumcision," and inexplicably and in violation of WP:NPOV favours the less used (by your own standard) term "female genital mutilation," (also considered non-neutral POV by many), by using it first and implicitly claiming it was what the reader really meant. Just because there is longstanding POV in this article does not make that POV any more valid. Blackworm 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
“Circumcision is not male circumcision, period.” Once again, that is your genital-integrity based POV talking, Blackworm. Jake and I have already brought plenty of neutral, unaffiliated, sites, both lexicographic and medical in nature, that define circumcision as only applying to males. WP:NPOV#Undue weight, yet again. -- Avi 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I dispute that Jakew and yourself have brought "plenty" of sites arguing your point; certainly not enough to show universally accepted usage, and not enough to warrant exclusive use of the term to refer to male circumcision. Most of your links actually referred to circumcision applying to females also; in case you have forgotten, you were arguing then that the female form was a "secondary meaning," not that the procedure only applied to males, which you are now arguing. And, I have presented a dictionary definition, from the same dictionary you quote from, which defines circumcision as done to males and females. In addition to the Webster's definition I've repeatedly quoted, it is defined as applying to both males and females here [[33]], here [[34]], here [[35]], here [[36]]. Also, arguably, here, by WebMD: [[37]] (see the definition of "prepuce" here: [[38]]. Coppertwig presents solid evidence that "female circumcision" is widely used in the literature. Female circumcision is referred to here [[39]]. It is not a case of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, since the current organization and content give zero weight to this usage and in fact dismiss it entirely. That is the WP:NPOV violation. Blackworm 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't noticed, Blackworm, but two of these definitions are, in fact, Webster's. So your additions are a somewhat unimpressive mixture of repetition and OR. Your reference to Coppertwig's evidence also fails to support your point, since this relates to the use of the explicit term "female circumcision", rather than usage of "circumcision" (without qualifier) to mean that of the female. Jakew 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Jakew, please. Two of your three own quoted dictionary sources plainly include the female form under the definition; here for [American Heritage Dictionary], and here for [Medilexicon] -- note Medilexicon's use of the word "prepuce," which they define [here]. Your characterization of my presentation as violating WP:OR is disingenuous and unsupported by any evidence. "Female circumcision" simply refers to the circumcision of females, in plain English. The usage of "circumcision" without qualifier to mean that of the female is evidenced in the dictionary definitions already quoted by both of us, and it is also used in other places such as here [[40]], here (NIH, PubMed) [[41]], here (Oxford Journals) [[42]], here [[43]], and here (NYTimes) [[44]], which are just the results of a cursory search. Blackworm 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Blackworm, synthesis of sources is OR, I'm afraid. And I'm completely mystified by your examples of "usage of 'circumcision' without qualifier", since these examples seem anything but. You cite Female Circumcision: Rite of Passage Or Violation of Rights?, Circumcision and infibulation of females: a general consideration of the problem and a clinical study of the complications in Sudanese women., Female Circumcision: Management of Urinary Complications, Discussions of Female Circumcision, and Forced Circumcision Is Alien to Nigeria. Of these, all but the last explicitly discuss female circumcision in the title, and the last refers to 'circumcision of females' explicitly in the text. So you seem to be confirming my point: when 'circumcision' is used to refer to FGC, the term tends to be 'female circumcision' (presumably to avoid confusion with the primary meaning). Even though you haven't presented evidence of it, I am quite prepared to believe that there are sources that refer to 'female circumcision', using 'circumcision' without a qualifier, and since that is a secondary meaning I would expect as much. But I would expect such sources to be in the minority. Jakew 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Jakew, your continued confusion in light of plain evidence is trying. You will find that all of the sources I mention use "circumcision" without qualifier to refer to female circumcision. Here are some quotes from the five sources you link to above: "In these countries, from 43% to 97% of reproductive-age women have been circumcised." "[...] the overall proportion of women who have undergone circumcision is 94%"[[45]] "Circumcision and infibulation of females: a general consideration of the problem [...]"[[46]] (Read the title of this article you yourself posted again, Jake -- it plainly says "Circumcision [...] of females", not "female circumcision.") "Seventy-three paediatric and adult female patients presented with post-circumcision complications [...]" "Seventy-two [female] patients were circumcised [...]"[[47]] "Some groups circumcising females also circumcise males." "Many groups that now circumcise men but not women were influenced by missionary and other European colonial influences to stop circumcising women[...]"[[48]] "She alleges, you report, that forced circumcision of females takes place [...]" "Although circumcision of females has been an ancient traditional practice [...]" [[49]].
There is no synthesis of sources here, and I resent your repeated, unsupported claim that there is. What is unsupported is your claim that circumcision of females is somehow a "secondary meaning," and that further this justifies the organization and content of this article which currently implies that there is no other correct definition for "circumcision" besides male circumcision. Blackworm 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Blackworm, the synthesis relates to dictionary definitions that you attempted to combine, not to these usages. As for these, as I've already noted, they explicitly discuss female circumcision (or, equivalently, circumcision of females) in their titles. Similarly, I would not be surprised if sources discussing the male menopause simply use the term 'menopause' once their subject is clear, but if sources did not qualify 'menopause' at all I would presume that they were talking about the primary (female) meaning. That's how English works. Jakew 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Your "menopause" analogy is completely flawed, since you will be unable to cite five unique reliable dictionaries which include this definition under "menopause." Your claim of equivalence between "female circumcision" and "circumcision of females" is noted; but I should point out that it invalidates your prior argument, and strengthens mine for reorganization of this article. Blackworm 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough, Merriam-Webster gives the following for 'menopause', meaning 2: ANDROPAUSE. (Please note that I cited the same dictionary in my post of 22:29, 1 November 2007, as an example of a dictionary listing FGC as a secondary meaning for 'circumcision'.) So I guess the analogy isn't flawed... Jakew 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not "completely" flawed. But still, completely irrelevant. Blackworm 16:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, that dictionary defines circumcision as: "1 : the act of circumcising." It defines "circumcising" as (its sole definition) ": to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)." Where is the "secondary" part? Again, there is no consensus here that circumcision of females is in any way a "secondary" meaning, but even if there was, that still would be no excuse to imply everywhere in the circumcision article that circumcision is something only done to males. Blackworm 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no. Applying your reasoning (such as it is), 'menopause' currently implies that the only correct usage of 'menopause' is that of the female. To continue applying your reasoning, the correct thing to do is to either a) have 'menopause' as a dab page, or b) rename 'menopause' to 'female menopause', and change the terminology throughout. I could go on, but I think it's already obvious that applying this reasoning has silly, if not absurd consequences. Jakew 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the disambiguation page is "harmless," according to WP:MOSDAB, I don't see why it would be a silly or absurd consequence at all, if you can make your case. It is still irrelevant here, of course. Also, you have yet to show five unique dictionary definitions which list "male menopause" under "menopause." You have yet to show any dictionary definitions that have it as definition 1 (unlike several do for "circumcision" referring to males and females). If you do that, take all the info over to Talk:Menopause, alert me, and I will support your proposal. Blackworm 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you thought I was making a proposal. I thought it was clear from the fact that I described it as "silly, if not absurd" made it obvious that it was an example used to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning. Perhaps English is not your first language?
The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. Where possible, pages should be named using common names, because those are what people search for. It is doubtful whether people will search for 'female menopause', so moving the page would not help anyone. And a disambiguation page would make the encyclopaedia less useful, because the vast majority of readers would then have to click on 'female menopause' to get to the page they wanted in the first place. In short, both of the changes resulting from application of your reasoning would make the encyclopaedia worse, less accessible.
As for "yet to show five unique dictionary definitions", I have already supplied one, which substantiates my point: that it is a secondary meaning. If I were to supply five, my point would still be valid, but I would have wasted more time. Jakew 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There are no flaws in my reasoning that you have brought to light. Both the organization of the article and its content currently violate Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NPOV, for the reasons I have shown. I further resent your continued personal attacks and incivility in the form of repeated questioning of my reading ability or my proficiency in English, especially after I have made it clear that I have no deficiency in either area. Blackworm 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The flaws are presented above, but evidently you choose not to see them. Jakew 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, alternately, could it be that I have countered your objections, and you choose not to see that fact...? No, I wouldn't go so far as to say that, since that would imply either self-denial or deceit on your part, which would be a violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. Blackworm 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, please, you are talking so much nonsense here. How can it not be entirely clear that circumcision is simply a surgical procedure. And being just that, you can perform surgery on both males and females, but why are males suddenly the default sex to undergo surgery and is surgery on females a "secondary meaning"? This is the reason why I asked about changing the title, because it is simply illogical to have circumcision consider just males. To give you the best example possible: orgasm, does this article only consider male orgasm with a "orgasm can also be a female orgasm" line on top? No, because orgasms are experienced by both males and females. These two types of orgasms differ and males have them more often, but does this mean an article on orgasm has to be just about the male thing? No. The same goes for circumcision, you can circumcise males and females, and although different things happen, both procedures are circumcisions. I hope now you understand why an article about circumcision should be about circumcision as surgical procedure. It should have both a male and female section, maybe linking to bigger articles that handle just male/female circumcision, but not like now making one of them default for no reason but a few random publications. And please don't bother trying to take down what I just said with some obscure wikipedia rule, because an encyclopedia should be clear, and clear is the way me and Blackworm are proposing. Wiki1609 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki1609, Wikipedia should reflect real-world usage (see WP:UCN), not the other way around. In common usage "circumcision" without qualifier almost invariably refers to that of the male. Consequently, if someone searches Wikipedia for "circumcision", then they are likely searching for information about that subject, and should ideally find that article straight away. In the event that they want information about female circumcision, the hatnote will direct them to the appropriate article.
Incidentally, please review WP:CIVIL. Jakew 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
To me real-world usage is that circumcision leaves in the middle on which sex it is performed. As I tried to make clear in the orgasm example, just because males get circumcised more often (in some parts of the world) doesn't mean that the word circumcision an sich refers to male circumcision. And who are you (or I) to say that people searching for circumcision are most likely searching for the male version? Because we can never tell, it would be more clear to start at a more neutral approach covering both male and female circumcision. I said this from the start, the structure rght now is unclear and presupposes things that cannot be presupposed. And I wasn't being be rude, it just seems you are very stubborn on maintaining the current status, while the changes proposed will only make things more clear no matter how you look at it (as far as I can tell). Wiki1609 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested in real-world usage, may I suggest that the "Google test" may be a helpful guide. Go to the search engine of your choice, and search for "circumcision". Now examine each result, and see whether it's about male, female, or male & female circumcision. I think you'll find that 90% or more of the first few pages of results are about male circumcision.
I'm afraid I can't see why the following is more clear, or indeed more useful. Consider the following usage scenario:
  • A reader, looking for information on (male) circumcision, searches Wikipedia for 'circumcision'.
  • He is presented with a disambiguation page, telling him to click on some link for info on (male) circumcision.
  • He finally gets to the page he wanted.
As opposed to:
  • A reader, looking for information on (male) circumcision, searches Wikipedia for 'circumcision'.
  • He gets to the page he wanted. Jakew 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
How about this alternate usage scenario:
  • An average Western reader wants to know what "circumcision" is.
  • They type "circumcision" in search.
  • They learn, much to their surprise given their cultural bias, that circumcision is done to females as well as males. The next time they want to refer to male circumcision, they will type "male circumcision" in search.
Such a scenario should be a goal of Wikipedia -- to inform, neutrally. Not to reinforce ethnocentric POVs. Blackworm 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your desire to 'surprise' people with such information seems troubling, Blackworm. Please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Regardless, the hatnote already informs people of the existence of the term 'female circumcision', and where they may find information on it. Jakew 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment on the content, not the editor. Do not make unfounded accusations of violating Wikipedia policy. Blackworm 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jakew's objection is internally inconsistent and has no merit. Even if we were to accept this tortured and illogical reasoning above, there is no explanation for only discussing male circumcision under the article title of "circumcision," and repeatedly and exclusively using the term 100% of the time to specifically describe male circumcision, and forbidding its use to describe female circumcision. The fraud is made complete by defining "circumcision" as male circumcision, and implying that "female circumcision" is incorrect usage in the hatnote. It is a huge, fraudulent violation of WP:NPOV that has been allowed to continue for way too long. Blackworm 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We clearly explain that the article is about male circumcision, and we direct people to the appropriate article if they were looking for the procedure known as 'female circumcision'. This is consistent, as explained several times already, with the recommendation in MOSDAB. Jakew 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to ignore what I said. Maybe a quote from guideline would help: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article)." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Further, the content must not then generalize and use "circumcision" to mean "male circumcision" when there can be ambiguity, as that violates WP:NPOV in addition to being factually incorrect. Blackworm 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Curiously, you overlook the fact that the article you cite goes on to say "(See disambiguation for more details)."... Jakew 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Please make an argument instead of arguing through innuendo. The article does indeed say "(See disambiguation for more details)." -- which you quote with no link. The link is to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, inviting the reader to read more. Again, what is your point? Nothing you have said nullifies the Wikipedia guideline's call for article titles to be non-ambiguous, keeping exactly in line with my proposed change to the title. Blackworm 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And if you follow that link, which you kindly supplied, and keep following links to appropriate policy and guidelines, you will find that there is a recommendation for the specific case in which there are two meanings, one primary and one secondary. I've quoted it above. Jakew 12:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Jakew is just overgeneralizing. His comment that 90% on googling "circumcision" is about male circumcision shows the flaw in his thinking. Just because more males get circumcised doesn't mean that the whole TERM circumcision will only apply to males. Can't you just admit this is true and let's make an article on circumcision on both sexes or just a disambiguation site. Wiki1609 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiki, I'm not saying that more males get circumcised. I'm talking about terminology, not prevalence. What I'm saying is that when the term "circumcision" is used, in most cases it refers to male circumcision. That is the primary meaning of the term 'circumcision'.
As such, we would (if we executed your proposal) have a disambiguation page with a common, primary usage and a less common, secondary usage. And, as noted above, "The recommended practice is to use a hatnote on the article for the primary meaning to link directly to the secondary meaning." WP:MOSDAB. Jakew 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I already told you what I think about the terminology argument, circumcision is just a surgical procedure and does not, in the first place, connect to any sex on which this surgery is applied. In fact you were talking about prevalence, because that's what 'usually' means, the most prevalent case. In some countries circumcision may usually point to male circumcision because they don't do female circumcision, but that doesn't make female circumcision a secondary meaning. They're still equal. A secondary meaning is between unrelated things, like a tip meaning the point of something and also giving a waiter some money. That does not apply here, circumcision in males and females is the same, it's cutting tissue off the genitals. A secondary meaning of circumcision would be cutting something off in construction or something, but that's not the case. Wiki1609 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Sorry, I made my suggestion without looking carefully at the current wording first. Current wording is For the practice sometimes referred to as "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting.. I now suggest changing this to: For "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting. Reasons: (1) Brevity. (2) reflects current usage in a more NPOV way in my opinion. "sometimes referred to" goes further in the not-wanting-to-touch-it-with-a-ten-foot-pole direction than seems warranted by the small number of articles I found that use quotation marks or something to distance themselves from the usage; yet by retaining quotation marks it can also be interpreted as avoiding actually calling it by that name.

Re secondary meaning: If you do a web search for "circumcision" what you tend to find at first is some articles that use "circumcision" (without qualification) in the title but which turn out to mean male circumcision if you look more closely. This suggests that the primary meaning of "circumcision" is male circumcision. I haven't seen any articles that say "circumcision" (without mentioning a sex) in the title and turn out to mean (only) female circumcision. So I think the primary meaning of "circumcision" is male, and the article title is OK. Someone searching for "circumcision" is probably looking for male circumcision. Reply to Wiki1609: some secondary definitions in dictionaries are very similar to the primary one. The tissue excised is not exactly the same: male and female genitals differ from each other about as much (or nearly as much) as one organ of the human body differs from another organ of the same body.

Re synthesis: It would be OR and disallowed to count numbers of definitions in sources in order to state in the article something like "more publications use this terminology than that terminology". But, counting numbers of sources in order to decide what words to use in the title and body of the article is exactly the type of thing we're supposed to be doing to satisfy WP:NPOV, in my opinion. --Coppertwig 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to go along with your suggestion re the hatnote, Coppertwig. Jakew 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your reasoning, Coppertwig. Common specific usage of a word does not allow us to change the definition to suit the most popular case. If you Google "penis," I'm reasonably sure 99.9% of entries will be discussing the human penis. Even that overwhelmingly high percentage would not allow us to define "penis" as being the exclusive domain of humans, or warrant the barring of any mention of any other penises in the penis article. Also, I totally dispute your comments regarding male and female genitals; I believe they betray a profound lack of knowledge of anatomy. In any case, they are original research. Circumcision is done to males and females. Denying that it is proper to refer to circumcision of females (for example, through your use of quotation marks), is factually incorrect, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Claiming by omission and definition that circumcision is only done to males, is factually incorrect and violates WP:NPOV. Blackworm 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fortunate, then, that we're not changing the definition, nor denying proper usage, nor claiming that circumcision is only done to males. So all these NPOV violations are hypotheticals. Jakew 12:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course we are, currently, for the reasons I outline in detail above; your flat and unsupported assertions notwithstanding. Blackworm 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. When we say "this article is about male circumcision", we are describing the context and scope of the article, not the term itself. Next, neither the current hatnote nor Coppertwig's proposal implies that "female circumcision" is incorrect usage. Does a sentence fragment such as '...for "gravity", see...' imply that the term is inaccurate? FC is merely one of several possible terms, none of which are incorrect as such, though Wikipedia must, where possible, try to use neutral terminology. Finally, your assertion that we claim that circumcision is only done to males contradicts the hatnote, which refers to FC. Jakew 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You are forcing repetition again. See the definition of "circumcision" given in the first line of the article. See the title of the article, inconsistent with the content (against guideline). See the hatnote, which through the use of "sometimes referred to as" instead of a neutral statement like "also called", implies the incorrectness of the usage of the term. Even YOU don't use ever the term circumcision to refer in any way to a procedure done to females, despite its validity, carefully using words like "called" and "referred to" -- a reflection of your apparent bias. A hatnote disclaimer does not allow WP:NPOV to be violated in the remainder of the article. Blackworm 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
1) The first line exists within the scope and context of this article, as established by the hatnote. 2) The title is the common term for the procedure, and the primary meaning of the term (consistent with WP:UCN, and the recommendation in WP:MOSDAB). 3) Although I disagree with your interpretation of the current hatnote, I'd suggest that you re-read Coppertwig's suggested language ("For "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting."), which would address your concern. Jakew 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
1) The scope and context should be established by the title of the article, not the hatnote. See the guideline, quoted above. The disambiguation page is "harmless" according to WP:MOSDAB, yet you vehemently oppose it as a means to resolve this dispute, for unclear reasons. Also, the term "circumcision" is defined incorrectly and used incorrectly in the article. There is no basis to define circumcision as male circumcision. 2) That is WP:OR, completely unsupported. You have not established that circumcision, by definition, primarily applies to males (your "primary meaning"). You cannot establish this, especially not by your invented criteria of looking at the numbering of definitions in a dictionary, given that several of the most prominent dictionaries define circumcision in a gender neutral or gender inclusive way in their number (1) definitions -- as I have shown above. Even if you did establish this, it would not allow you to redefine circumcision as only applying to males. If the title of the article was "Circumcision (male)," and the remainder of the article consistent with that usage, you MAY have a point to defend the current organization and lack of a disambiguation page. As it stands, the organization and usage are indefensible. (3) No other interpretation is possible. For at least the third time: please stop faulting my reading, as that is incivil and a personal attack. It is also inappropriate considering I have already specifically addressed Coppertwig's proposal, in which he admits that "by retaining quotation marks [around "female circumcision"] it can also be interpreted as avoiding actually calling it by that name." He is absolutely correct; it does, implying that the use of the word circumcision as applied to females is incorrect, which is demonstrably false and a violation of WP:NPOV. Further, his proposal is unacceptable given that the dictionary definition of "circumcision" makes the meaning clear and correct -- circumcision, by definition, involves the cutting of both male and female genitals. Since this article in no way suggests any kind of cutting of female genitals is associated with the word, "circumcision," then the article can only properly be called, "male circumcision," or even more appropriately, "Circumcision (male)." Blackworm 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be going around in circles, Blackworm, and your edit summary ("Repetition apparently necessary, again. But discussing ad infinitum is discussion, which as long as it continues validates claims of "no consensus."") suggests that there is little point in us continuing to discuss the matter. While I decline to discuss an issue for the sake of discussion, I would be happy to continue if/when you are willing to discuss with a view towards resolution. Jakew 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we both seem adamant in our positions, and in our apparent belief that the other may not be discussing with a view toward resolution, I agree. The next move is clearly some form of mediation. I will investigate the options and procedure, and initiate this next step. Blackworm 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the penis article is a good example, because there is apparently no separate article on the human penis: human penis redirects to penis. How about this example: Paris goes to an article about Paris, France. If you want to find out about other places such as Paris, Idaho, you have to go through Paris (disambiguation). I think it's set up like that because the writers figure that the majority of people searching for "Paris" probably want "Paris, France". I think that's analogous to the case of people searching for "circumcision". The existence of an article titled "Paris" with a note at the top stating that it is about "Paris, France" in no way implies that there is no such place as "Paris, Idaho" -- quite the opposite: it tells people how to navigate to a page on that topic. Similarly, naming this page "circumcision" does not imply that there is no such thing as female circumcision. The name of the page is supposed to reflect common usage, to aid navigation. (For amusement, see 'Concerning "Paris, France"' on page User:Wetman). --Coppertwig 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, but the problem with your and Jakew's examples is that they refer to two completely different and only tenuously related things. Circumcision involves the cutting of genitals -- of either sex. Pretty specific thing in common, there; it's not just a random word that happens to have two wildly different meanings or is used in wildly different ways. There is arguably only one meaning, according to some dictionaries (cited above) that define it thusly: circumcision is cutting off the prepuce (which both sexes have). It's the simplest, most general way to describe fundamentally what circumcision is. The attempt to completely separate the male and female forms of circumcision by definition seems motivated by something other than an honest investigation as to what the word means and how it is used. Blackworm 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Another note: in the "penis" example I gave, the other article (to complete the analogy) would have been "non-human penis," not "human penis" which is the case mostly discussed in the article. But note that the article on "penis" has an entire section on the non-human penis. If the "circumcision" article had an entire in-depth section on "female circumcision" (with no subarticle), then much of my objections would be invalid. But it doesn't. It first defines, and then presents circumcision as solely applicable to males, which is factually incorrect, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Blackworm 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I think I see what you mean. It's OK to say "This article is about Paris, France. ... Paris is the capital of France." but it might not be OK to say "This article is about Paris, France. ... The word "Paris" means the capital of France." People from Paris, Idaho (etc.) might just possibly object to that, since it seems to be defining the word, as opposed to the other one which just uses the word, like an abbreviation. Suggestion: insert "Male" or "(Male)" before the word "circumcision" in the first sentence of the article (the one which defines the word). --Coppertwig 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree, Coppertwig. Look at it this way. Bob is from Paris, Idaho. He searches Wikipedia for 'Paris'. He's then presented with an article, which begins with "this article is about Paris, France", and directs him to other articles. He then has a choice: whether a) to continue reading about Paris, France, or b) to follow a link to another page. If we assume that he chooses to read an article (a reasonable assumption, since he's reading it) about Paris, France, then why should Bob object to being informed that 'Paris means the capital of France' in this context? Jakew 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hatnote edited, "consensus" claimed. Avraham, a Wikipedia administrator, has edited the hatnote and described it in the edit summary as "consensus." I object to this unilateral, undiscussed change of a topic under discussion and to the misleading labelling of it as "consensus," when it is anything but a consensus. It does, however, assure that third parties reading this discussion will be confused by some of the arguments of Avraham's opponents, since he has caused them to no longer apply. Blackworm 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi's use of the word "consensus" seems appropriate to me based on the information that was on this talk page at the time, for the edit removing "the practice sometimes referred to as" from the hatnote. It's still not clear to me whether you yourself oppose that edit, Blackworm, and if so on what grounds. I get the impression you probably oppose it because you say there's no consensus, but you haven't actually said that you oppose it: you could mean that someone else opposes it or that there hasn't been sufficient time for discussion. You said you disagreed with my reasoning, but that seems to be a reply to a different paragraph of my message which was discussing a different proposed edit. It seems to me that I proposed an edit to the hatnote, Jakew and apparently Avi thought it was OK, and nobody expressed opposition to it, at least not that I noticed in this rather long discussion, and nearly 2 days elapsed to give people opportunities to comment. So I think "consensus" is or at least was a reasonable description of the situation. --Coppertwig 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Coppertwig. I thought it was rather straight-forward as well. -- Avi 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And, I'm curious as to Blackworm's use of bold at the start of his paragraph. One would almost think that he is shouting in deep consternation at some perceived radical attack on the very substructure of the entire article, when all that occured was the implementation of a suggestino agreed to by more than one person with differing viewpoints, that had no major opponents, and which served to make the hat-note more neutral. -- Avi 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The edit hides some of the POV put in place and vigorously defended there for a long period of time by Avi and Jakew, the moment I begin to discuss the prospect of mediation. It serves to make any third party go "Huh? That's not true. What an idiot" when they read much of what I write in this thread concerning the hatnote, or the other evident POV. It was a move reminiscent of Kasparov. Labelling it "consensus" when no one ever discussed it, and this issue is still very much alive, *and* the issue of Brit Milah in the hatnote is still alive, is disingenuous. The change made was not ever discussed here -- the change you proposed here, Coppertwig, was specifically rejected because of the use of quotation marks, which continued to push the POV supported by yourself, Jakew, and Avi that circumcision of females is nonexistent as a concept (evident everywhere in the article). Avi made a different change, undiscussed by anyone, and labelled it "consensus." Shameful. I happen to think the edit is an improvement, but it is not a solution to this issue by any means, and its prematurity only serves to weaken the arguments of Avi and Jakew's opponents; making its appearance at this point CURIOUS and extremely inappropriate. Yes, there is consternation indeed. Blackworm 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So, to review: Coppertwig proposes a change, Jakew indicates willingness to go along with it, and Blackworm objects to two quotation marks. Avi removes the two quotation marks, thus addressing the sole objection raised, and implements the change. Blackworm now indicates that the resulting change was an improvement. Does anyone actually object to this change? Jakew 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean for content, as opposed to personal, reasons, Jake, do you not? -- Avi 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig proposed his change as a solution to this entire issue. I objected to the labelling of the (improved) change as a "consensus," which may imply to some that it settles this issue (and/or the "Brit Milah" addition to the hatnote). It does not. Circumcision is not (only) male circumcision, despite Avi's assertion that anyone who believes so is displaying their "genital-integrity based POV." Apparently the creators of all the dictionaries cited above have "genital-integrity based POV," according to Avi, as well. Despite a change to finally address some of the POV in the hatnote which Jakew and Avi defended for so long as totally neutral, there remain plenty of WP:NPOV violations to be addressed: in the hatnote (Brit Milah), the article title (not matching content), the definition (not matching the true definition as found in dictionaries), and the content (repeatedly implying the incorrect definition), as discussed above. Blackworm 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording of the first sentence.

I note that there is a still a dispute over the wording fo the first sentence of the article. Three editors have indicated a preference for this:

Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.

Two editors have indicated a preference for this:

Circumcision is the surgical procedure that removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.

Those who edited this way also deleted the following:

Dictionary definitions of circumcision:
  • "The act of cutting off the prepuce or foreskin of males, or the internal labia of females." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [50]
  • "to remove the foreskin of (males) sometimes as a religious rite." The Macquarie Dicitionary (2nd Edition, 1991)
  • "Cut off foreskin of (as Jewish or Mohammedan rite, or surgically), Concise Oxford Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1964
Circumcision defined in a medical context:

Why shoot the dictionary? Why revert to a wording that has problems In a non-medical context? Defining circumcision as surgery becomes problematical in some instances and as dictionaries define the word without reference to surgery it is preferable to follow the dictionary definition of circumcision to avoid these problems. Why the continuing fuss? Michael Glass 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from a cursory search of dictionary definitions of "circumcision" that the word "surgery" has no place in the definition, despite any evidence that most instances of circumcision are surgical. The word "surgery" or "surgical" in the definition only serves a POV purpose (since surgery is naturally assumed to be beneficial or required). Repeated, long debates about this are in the archives, notably the last archive (#32). Blackworm 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is circumcision synonymous with male circumcision?

Is it neutral and correct for this article to both define and use the word "circumcision" to solely describe the circumcision of males?

I'm thinking yes. "Circumcision" by and large refers solely to male circumcision. The technical term for what is often considered female circumcision is generally either clitorodotomy, excision, or infibulation. Modern usage tends to favor other general terms inclusive of various types as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), or Female genital cutting(FGC). It is an entirely different can of worms. Phyesalis (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think your claims don't hold up. Please refer liberally to this Talk: section, entitled "Why only male circumcision?" I argue there that the definition of circumcision by all major dictionaries is either gender neutral (to paraphrase, "cutting off the prepuce"), or gender inclusive (again, paraphrasing: "cutting off the foreskin or clitoris"). The organization of an encyclopedia should reflect the accepted meaning of words as found in such sources. For example, you may personally choose not to use "circumcision" to refer to female circumcision, due to your apparent personal belief that it is "an entirely different can of worms," but that does not make the usage of the word "circumcision" to apply to a procedure done to females incorrect, and Wikipedia should not support this POV to the exclusion of others. Even in medical sources, and Western-centric sources such as the Internet, where you would expect that "circumcision" almost always be used in the context of male circumcision (due to the relative prevalence), the phrase "male circumcision" is quite often used to specifically disambiguate. The circumcision of females is also discussed in volume, using the term "circumcision," in both scientific literature and on the Internet. The circumcision of females is not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia to my knowledge except using other names invented recently by the UN and its agencies: "female genital mutilation," and "female genital cutting." I believe Wikipedia should not favour the terminology invented recently by and disseminated by certain interest groups (the UN and WHO are organizations with specific interests) at the expense of the dictionary definition. Wikipedia should not reflect an adherence to one POV, in content or organization, especially when other POVs are prevalent (in this case, the point of view that circumcision is gender neutral/inclusive). I don't believe your view is neutral; in fact I believe it makes the same WP:NPOV error that the current article organization and content make. Blackworm (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
"FGM" gets over 2,500,000 hits on google, "female circumcision" gets 640,000 usually prefaced by the term "FGM". Circumcision is not gender neutral. The very use of the term circumcision in conjunction with clitoridectomy (part or all of the clitoris is removed), excision (removal of the clitoris and the labia minora) and infibulation (removal of clitoris and labia minora, and cutting or scraping of labia majora which are then held together so that the wounds heal and scar tissue forms, covering the urethera and most of the vaginal opening) is loaded and inaccurate, which is why the majority of the international community has collectively decided to refer to it as FGM or FGC, at the vocal behest of African women. At worst, the term "circumcision" is often considered sexist and pejorative. At best, "female circumcision" is anachronistic.
Male circumcision is not a human rights violation, FGM has been a human rights violation for the last 12 years since the 1995 Beijing Platform of the Fourth World Conference on women, PS - it was the African delegation that pushed for the language concerning FGM. Male circumcision has religious and health arguments supporting its general international acceptance (I have no opinion on male circumcision). FGM is cultural and regularly results in infection, obstetric fistula, lower fertility/sterility, nerve damage, an increased susceptability to HIV and death from labor complications, with ZERO health benefits. How many men have circumcisions, get a woman pregnant and then die as a result of their circumcisions? FGM is internationally recognized as gender-based violence and reason for asylum in the US. If you look up "female genital mutilation" on Pubmed, you will find some articles that refer to FGM and circumcision, but most of these were published before 2000. Almost nothing after 2000 refers to female circumcision.
So if your POV is that the UN and the WHO have specific interests (what organization doesn't?) then you better include the US legal system, Amnesty International, American Academy of Pediatrics, Islam and the Muslim Scholars Conference, UNICEF, the international medical community, the majority of womens' rights conferences, the majority of women, the majority of medical and sociology journals. None of these institutions or communities recognize female circumcision as an appropriate term. They tend to use FGM or FGC. And I would venture to guess that their specific interest is in stopping a crippling social phenomenon that has killed and permanently injured countless women.
As for sacrificing dictionary definitions for terminology disseminated since the 1970's, don't worry. The Mideast and North African Encyclopedia defines FGM, not female circumcision. Same with the Encyclopedia of Medicine. Webster's Online Medical Dictionary (nih.gov) defines circumcision as "1 : the act of circumcising: a : the cutting off of the foreskin of males that is practiced as a religious rite by Jews and Muslims and as a sanitary measure in modern surgery b : FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION" (emphasis in original). When you look up "female circumcision" it redirects you to "Female Genital Mutilation" which it defines as "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the United States -- abbreviation FGM; called also female circumcision." No doubt to clue in those who had been a bit behind in their modern terminology. The online medical dictionary at cancerweb doesn't even have an entry for female circumcision.Phyesalis (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It does, actually.[[51]]
That the three letters "fgm" returns millions of Google hits should come as no surprise. A significant portion of those hits have nothing to do with female genital mutilation. Try randomly entering any three letters into Google; you will get millions of hits for almost any combination. A better test is entering "+female +circumcision" -- which requires both words be in the entry, and comparing the result to "+male +circumcision". The results and 1.71 and 1.79 million hits, respectively. Searches for "female circumcision" and "male circumcision" (with quotes, indicating an exact match for the phrase) returned 580,000 and 340,000 hits respectively -- the latter being enough to claim that circumcision is not implicitly male circumcision; it often needs to be explicitly qualified. Of course, that test does not tell us exactly what we want to know either. In our discussion in the other section above, Coppertwig noted that he obtained "more hits on Google Scholar for 'female circumcision' than for 'female genital mutilation.'" Further, the argument that one usage is more prevalent that the other does not indicate that the other is invalid, which is the burden that must be met by those seeking to exclude female circumcision from the definition and subsequent discussion of circumcision.
The question of whether any form of circumcision is a human rights violation is irrelevant to this discussion. It is entirely valid that one form of circumcision may be regarded as "right" and another as "wrong," but that does not change the fact that they are both still circumcision. You claim that medical sources after 2000 have changed their terminology away from "female circumcision;" but I claim this, also, is irrelevant to the definition of circumcision. The definition of circumcision did not change in the year 2000 because certain parties decided they wished to use other terminology, as you suggest.
Your broad claim that "[n]one of these institutions or communities recognize female circumcision as an appropriate term" appears to be original research. It is contradicted by material from:
  • the US government [[52]] ("Circumcision, or cutting of the prepuce or hood of the clitoris is the mildest form of female genital mutilation [...]") This incidentally reinforces my point that circumcision and female genital mutilation are not necessarily synonymous.
  • Amnesty International [[53]] ("Associated Press report that an Egyptian conference of Muslim scholars from around the world has declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women.")
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics [[54]] ("The AAP Executive Committee has reviewed the medical opinion of the Section on Urology and concurs with its opposition to female circumcision [...].")
  • An account of the 2006 Muslim Scholars Conference at Azhar University in Cairo [[55]] One thing to be noted about this newspaper article is the frequent use, after establishing context, of the word "circumcision" without qualifier to mean circumcision of females: "Although circumcision is often justified for supposedly religious reasons, there is no religious justification for the practice in either Christianity or Islam." They're talking about females being circumcised there.
  • UNICEF [[56]] ("In Egypt, the practice of female genial[sic] mutilation / female circumcision (FGM/C) is almost universal.")
The other groups you mention ("the majority of ...") are too vague to be disproven individually, but the Google Scholar tests is strong evidence of the contrary in the case of the scientific community, including publishers of peer-reviewed journals. I assure you that the word "circumcision" is used quite neutrally and correctly in these sources as well.
Your quoting of Webster's online dictionary serves my point; it defines circumcision primarily as "the act of circumcising," and further defines "circumcise" as ": to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)." Your emphasis on its secondary definition of "female genital mutilation" is confusing, since it also serves my point. It shows that circumcision has come to be used to mean "female genital mutilation," after it was already used to describe one specific form of FGM. As I've already pointed out, Cancerweb does have an entry for female circumcision, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. I strongly urge you to read the discussion in the section above entitled "Why only male circumcision," where no less than six dictionaries and a handful of medical and other sources are cited backing up my claim. Blackworm (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, having gone back and reread the discussion, here is my response to your RfC:
  • As there is already a page for Female genital cutting (which would prove that the consensus over there is that circumcision is not the prevailing term - not that WP is a reliable source but that WP pages should reflect parity) I suggest that you search their talk history for what they used to reach that conclusion.
  • Out-of-hand rejection of UN/WHO terminology is unfounded POV. This isn't an abortion discussion, if you have objections with the international standard take it up on the FGC page.
  • The argument for female circumcision is OR synthesis of disparate sources taken out of context. It suggest a lack of familiarity with the subject and a particular bias. FGM/C terminology has been around since the 70's. Each of the previous examples establishes the greater context as FGM before mentioning FC. For example the selective use of the AAP is from a page titled "Female Genital Mutilation" and is one person's usage published in 1994. However, the AAP policy statement in 1998 "Female genital mutilation--Committe on Bioethics" clearly states "The traditional custom of ritual cutting and alteration of the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents, referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM)..." makes no reference to female circumcision in the abstract or body of the article.[[57]]
  • The argument that FGM/C is NPOV because it is "relatively unheard of" in the West, also suggests a lack of familiarity. The US recognizes it as a reason for asylum, and as a crime under numerous state and federal laws since 1996. There is also a broad body of Western scholarship that regularly uses the term.
Given that there is no substantial argument to support anachronistic usage of "Female circumcision" against the prevailing national and international communities use of FGM/FGC, I recommend following the FGC page's lead. The answer to the question of circumcision's neutrality in its application to female ritual cutting is clearly No. It's clear that while the term may be used from time to time within the context of FGM/C, it is obviously not a neutral term, but instead one loaded with various controversial connotations. Phyesalis (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that seems to be completely composed of original research. Even the FGC page you quote as having a "lead" to be followed, includes female circumcision in the first sentence (the definition); not that Wikipedia is a reliable source anyhow. Blackworm (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OR? In an article in 1999 from Medical Anthropology: The extensive literature on the subject, the support of international organizations3, and the emergence of local groups working against the continuation practices appear to suggest that an international consensus has been reached. The terminology used to refer to these surgeries has changed, and the clearly disapproving and powerfully evocative experssion of "female genital mutilation" has now all but replaced the possibly innaccurate, but relatively less value laden-term of "female circumcision". Obermeyer, Carla Makhlouf (March 1999). "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable". Medical Anthropology Quarterly 13 (1): 79-106. 

From Social Science and Medicine: "The term “female circumcision” is a euphemistic description for what is really a variety of procedures for altering the female genitalia. While numerous terms have been used to describe the wide range of procedures, there are generally four commonly recognized forms of genital cutting. The least extensive type, and the only one that can be construed as analogous to male circumcision, is commonly referred to as sunna (Arabic for “tradition” or “duty”), and involves removal of the prepuce or hood of the clitoris. Toubia (1994) claims that in actuality, no medical reports document the existence of this procedure. Rather, in the majority of cases categorized as sunna, the clitoral prepuce is removed with all or part of the clitoris as well. Therefore, in the medical literature it is sometimes referred to as clitoridectomy (Toubia, 1994)... As variations in the practice (degree of cutting, training of the circumcisor, sanitary conditions, degree of medical support) are obliterated, presented is a seemingly objective, scientific discussion of the medical “facts” of a single practice — “genital mutilation”... Shell-Duncan, Bettina. 2001, April "The medicalization of female "circumcision":harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice?" Social Science & Medicine, v52.7 p1013-1028 doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00277-1

And from the American Journal of Bioethics": Routine neonatal male circumcision has been the subject of considerable debate among medical professionals. This subject, however, has received negligible attention in the bioethics literature. This suggests that most scholars working in bioethics do not consider neonatal male circumcision, unlike the practices of female genital excision that are common in parts of Africa and elsewhere, to be a morally troubling surgical procedure. (p35) ... [Take] clitoridectomy, for example. Of course, in addition to being strange (at least to those outside of the cultures where it is practiced), is also very harmful. It is this harm that separates female genital excision from male circumcision. (p44) Benatar, Michael & David Benatar. 2003,April. "Between Prophylaxis and Child Abuse: The Ethics of Neonatal Male Circucision |journal=The American Journal of Bioethics, v3.2, p35-48

3 impeccable sources, all peer-reviewed, and not one of them feminist or UN/WHO related. OR? OR is unsubstantiated and irrelevant dismissal of international orgs like the UN and WHO. Phyesalis (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your first source seems like excellent material for the female circumcision section or article. Again, that organizations choose to advocate male circumcision and oppose female circumcision, and thus choose to adopt terminology to further these goals, is relevant and notable, and to be presented in Wikipedia. It does not change the validity of the original terminology. There are other users of the English language who correctly refer to the circumcision of females. It is not verboten to use the word in this way, as you seem to imply. The point here is not whether "female circumcision" is more or less desirable a phrase than "female genital mutilation/cutting," the point is that circumcision is done to males and females -- which a person with a dictionary can easily confirm. As presenters of the neutral point of view, that means we don't choose to redefine words for advocacy reasons -- even your source admits that "female circumcision" is a "less value-laden term." In any case, your source does not claim that circumcision only means "male circumcision," and that it is incorrect to use "circumcision" to describe any procedure does to females, which, if unopposed by anyone, would be the claim required to substantiate in order to retain the current organization and usage in the Wikipedia article(s). Of course, since it is proven that the term is valid and is used, I really don't see how any of what you present is relevant.
Your second source is interesting, but again, what does this prove? Presented in the large discussion section above ("Talk:Circumcision#Why only male circumcision?") are uses of circumcision to describe a procedure done to females in at least five dictionaries and five various peer-reviewed sources. The Google searches support the position that it is improper to deny that the word is used to apply to females. Certainly some object to its usage, and that can be documented; but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.
Your third source uses the phrase, "neonatal male circumcision." Why is the word "male" needed here, if it is implied by the word, "circumcision?" The answer is, of course, that "circumcision" does not necessarily imply male circumcision. Your own source proves my point. I am not sure what point you were trying to show by its presentation.
Finally, I think you are misunderstanding my position. I don't "dismiss" the WHO or the UN, I dismiss the idea that they should have the power to redefine English words for the rest of us, in their attempts to control how we think. They can try, and we can document their attempts, and even some of their success in their attempts (as evidenced by some sources you present). What we cannot do is take their position to the exclusion of other positions, or present their position as undisputed fact. That is the violation of WP:NPOV in this article and its organization. Ultimately, the definition of a word in Wikipedia needs to be undisputed; the definition we have for "circumcision," in the first line of the article, is disputed, is a particular POV, and is not a neutral POV, or even one of a majority (if we count lexicographical sources, which I believe are the only good sources for a definition). The remainder of the circumcision article builds on this error. This needs to be repaired. Blackworm (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The word circumcision in it's application to females has been disputed since the 70's. It is just as loaded as FGM. The least value-laden term is FGC (I can get you sources on that - but it's in the FGC article sourced), female genital surgeries, or the more specific clitorodectomy, excision or infibulation. Why not use the term clitorodectomy? "Female circumcision" even in it's euphemistic, less-precise, value-laden terminology refers to a whole range of rituals not related to the cutting of the clitoris. Clitorodectomy is the most accurate, analogous and least loaded term. It is also in dictionaries and has an undisputed def., unlike FC/FGM. I think this would be a reasonable compromise that does not give weight to either side.

Clearly "lexicographical sources" do not agree, we have all cited various dictionaries and encyclopedias that had contradicting takes on the term. Choosing the ones that suit your purpose is cherry-picking. If you can find some peer-review sources on the history of the terminology that say female circumcision is both superior to and more commonly used than both FGM AND FGC, you might have an argument. Additonally there is the issue of parity - the FGC page makes no mention of male circumcision per se (though it does refer to male circumcision advocates), nor should it have to. The MC page has no obligation to address FGC. They are two different things with different pages.

While you may have personal issues with interational consensus (as previously cited) it is still international consensus. The UN and WHO didn't just get together one day and decide to hijack language for their own purposes - they did so in response to scholarship and at women's behest because they showed good reason to divorce the concept of female cutting from the religious and medical contexts of circumcision. And guess what - the majority of the world agreed. Circumcision can be defined as a surgical procedure with health benefits. FGC cannot. You have provided no sources to support your cherry-picking of definitions. Definitions and terminology have changed over time, first FC, then FGM, now FGC or female genital surgeries. While a circumcision and a clitorodectomy might have an argument for comparison, "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" do not. And though the term may still be employed in some limited contexts, very few people would argue that the two phenomena are the same thing differing only by the sex of the person cut. Given the fact that the FGC page want nothing to do with MC, and seemingly, the Circumcision page wants nothing to do with FGC, why don't you start a daughter article that addresses the multiple contexts and debates? Politics of circumcision? You can link to this and the FGC page.

And that's it - I've offered my comments, backed them up with peer-reviewed sources and provided one compromise (clitorodectomy) and one alternative (start another page). I'm sorry that you put out the RfC and have only gotten one comment, one you don't like. Phyesalis (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You continue to reinforce my position. You make reference to the circumcision article as "the MC page," which I take to mean "the Male Circumcision page" -- but such a page does not exist. The page discussing male circumcision (exclusively) is called "Circumcision," and it is my exact proposal that we rename it to include the word "male," which would resolve some of the WP:NPOV violation. Your suggestion that sources like Merriam-Webster,[[58]] American Heritage Dictionary,[[59]] and Oxford English Dictionary[[60]] are "cherry-picked" is completely absurd. No one has yet demonstrated one prominent lexicographical source that defines circumcision as exclusively the domain of males. The Wikipedia article is a glaring exception, and it should not be. In order to maintain the status quo, it seems that at least a majority of these sources would have to define circumcision thusly. It seems just as absurd to me to claim that male and female circumcision cannot be compared (due to the details of these procedures), and therefore the female form should not be discussed in the article entitled "Circumcision." It also seems completely bizarre to me that you apparently suggest I discuss circumcision of females in a new article "Politics of Circumcision," yet you believe no one should be allowed to discuss circumcision of females, or indeed ever refer to any procedure done to females as "circumcision" in Wikipedia, contrary to the dictionary definition of the word. The Orwellian word doublethink comes to mind. Regardless, thank you for responding to the RfC. Blackworm (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Blackworm is still being right all the time, so I wonder why the article's structure has not been changed with reasonable consensus yet. Most sources Phyesalis brings up indeed serve to strengthen Blackworm's story. The WHO and UN indeed cannot change the english (or any) language, people arguing circumcision does not include females should understand that FGC and similar terms were simply invented to increase awareness of the problem, because when they called it circumcision it probably didn't attract enough attention (this is not OR, it would be OR to think that because the UN uses a more serious term this should be the normal english word, and deform a neutral verb to something sex-specific). Using a shock-term like genital cutting helps making aware that circumcision in females serves no 'real' purpose, but does not change the fact that it is circumcision on a female, nor were these terms ever invented to achieve this. Therefore it does not mean that cicumcision suddenly becomes a male-only thing, because cutting off anything from the genitals was already called circumcision. So objectively there is no reason to deny that cutting off parts of females' genitalia is circumcision (where did you people get this idea?). Read the meaning of the word: circum caedere, to cut around. It does not say to cut around a penis, so includes cutting around any genitalia. Furthermore, Phyesalis and others need to understand this discussion was not about calling the cutting off of parts of the vagina either FGC or female circumcision. We argued that whatever the term used at some point in time, it remains circumcision, and hence the structure now is wrong (circumcision does not equal male circumcision). What if we all call male circumcision willycutting suddenly, will that mean that circumcision has no meaning anymore? Nope, willycutting and FGC are just the terms of the moment for circumcision, one for fun and one to attract attention to a problem. Do we agree to change circumcision to redirect to a female/FGC part and a male circumcision part? Wiki1609 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because international consensus is that FGC is not circumcision, FGC comprises a greater set of procedures that have no known health benefits and many known complications. Excision and infubulation are not types of "cutting around". Circumcision could possibly be used to refer to clitorodecotmy, the only part of FGM/C that involves cutting around anything, and even that often includes the excision of the clitoris. (I doubt many would support the assertion that circumcision is the complete excision of the penis.) Everything else involves cutting off parts, like the labia minora and the complete excision of the clitoris, or the sewing of parts together, not to close a gap of missing skin, but to create new and unhealthy forms, like the sewing together of labia majora. If you would like a section that refers to clitorodectomy - I say go for it - but any assertion that circumciscion is synonymous with FGM/C should be well documented and contextualized in secondary or preferably tertiary sources (as I have done to show that it is not). Blackworm has relied on dictionary definitions to support a contested term. Get some secondary or tertiary sources to support your claim, merely citing the term in use is OR. Phyesalis (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by your contradictory statements. If, as you say, "circumcision could possibly be used to refer to clitorodectomy," doesn't that confirm an answer of "no" to this question posed by this RfC? Also, if you read my comments in the "Why only male circumcision?" section above, dated 14:40, 4 November 2007, you will see how a cursory search reveals multiple instances of the word circumcision being used to refer to procedures performed on females, in other sources besides dictionaries. Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to draw your attention to Wikipedia's naming convention, which begins, "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." (Emphasis in original.) Note that the use of "circumcision" as the title of this article, which solely discusses male circumcision, conflicts with "circumcision" used to describe a procedure performed on females. The convention also states, "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." Wikipedia seems to agree with my point that recent scholarship (the terms "female genital cutting/mutilation") should not determine titles of articles. I believe this shows that the article "female genital cutting" violates this convention; however this is a matter for that article's talk page. Blackworm (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, you post an RfC, I comment. You don't like my comment. I try to find several compromises and now you take exception to that? Cursory searches of definition and examples of use in the face of documented tertiary sources are merely OR. And FGM/FGC is the common name. (I have to say Blackworm, in light of your objections over on the FGC page, this is kind of confusing - you removed material that asserted common usage because the citations only contained usage, not assertions of usage.) And just how far back does "recent scholarship" cover? The documented history of the international adoption of FGM or FGC goes back, depending on how you want to look at it, over 25 years ago. Please show me a tertiary source from the 21st century which states that "female circumcision" is the common name. 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs) My bad, not enough tildes. Phyesalis (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are continuing to misunderstand the issue under consideration here. There is no onus on anyone to show that "female circumcision" is common in the last seven years as a term, in order to allow the mention of the circumcision of females in the article on circumcision, or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Despite this, your request is easily met: an advanced Google Scholar search on "female circumcision" (with quotes, indicating exact phrase match), restricted to articles published in the years 2001-2007, returned 2700 hits. "Female genital cutting" returned 953 hits, and "female genital mutilation" returned 3160 hits. I suspected some overlap between the latter two searches, and thus searched on "female genital cutting" OR "female genital mutilation", which returned 3710 hits. A similar search for articles containing any of the three terms returned 5390 hits. Subtracting the result for articles using either or both of the two UN/WHO terms from the number of articles using any of the three terms, I conclude that 1680 articles out of 5390, or 31.2% of all Google Scholar articles on the subject published after 2001 exclusively use the term "female circumcision." I thus conclude that "female circumcision," meaning the circumcision of females, is a valid, scholarly term, and this is even more solid evidence that Wikipedia should reflect the reality by changing its presented definition of "circumcision" with the correct, gender neutral definition. Blackworm (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Questions regarding whether female genital cutting should be renamed 'female circumcision' are not appropriate for this talk page, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The point of the above was to show, again, and in a different way, that "circumcision" does not mean "male circumcision," and therefore this page must not quietly assume that it does. Blackworm (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain. If I were to present to you evidence that "baked alaska" is a far more frequently used term for a particular dish than "hot snowman", would it appear to be an argument a) that we should rename the (hypothetical) 'hot snowman' article; or b) that alaska does not mean "most northern US state"? (I'm copying your words here, but in this analogy I think you mean that alaska can mean either "most northern US state" or "strange icecream recipe".)
What I'm trying to say is that a phrase can have a different meaning from the individual words, so I don't understand how you can use the frequency of a phrase to demonstrate the meaning of a word. If your argument is that "alaska" commonly means "baked alaska", then wouldn't it be better to discuss the usage of the bare word? Jakew (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Your strained analogy fails; "circumcision" is defined as a procedure done to males and females.[[61]][[62]][[63]] That is the discussion of the "bare word." Blackworm (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I realize you said "tertiary" sources. My point about the incorrectness of your criteria in this application still stands. Blackworm (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you brought up "naming conventions". Since I have provided tertiary sources for FGM/FGC, and you haven't provided anything outside of your own OR, the onus is on you to support your claim the "female circumcision" is more common than the terms FGM/FGC. Furthermore, you must then be able to provided sources about the analagous nature of FGM/FGC since there are a number of sources that clearly separate the two phenomena. This is an RfC not a debate. Comment: find your sources or you have no leg to stand on. You can wait for someone else can wait for someone else to come in for comment or let it go. Comment over. Phyesalis (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that I never claimed "female circumcision" is more common than FGM/FGC (though it possibly is), and the fact that such a claim would be quite irrelevant to this discussion, shows me that you are possibly having difficulty understanding the issue raised. Perhaps you are confused by the phrase "common name" as discussed in WP:UCN. "Circumcision" is the common name for a procedure performed on males and females. That is the entire point, and one I believe I have demonstrated beyond doubt. Your repeated, bizarre claims that I have presented no sources to back up my arguments are easily disproved by a simple reading of this talk section and the previous discussion section. Blackworm (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the WHO site: [Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.][[64]] It does not matter for this discussion what you call it, it remains that circumcision in females is everything done to the external parts of the vagina (from stitching together to removal of clitoris). Jakew's analogy does not count, it's hard to think of anything that is similar to the word circumcision where one form gets a special name (in this case the female form). Phyesalis, you are talking about something else than what I proposed in the "why only male circumcision" discussion. According to the WHO quote circumcision in females exists, and it has many forms. Therefore circumcision does not equal circumcision in males, but is gender-neutral. In all these pages of discussion noone has actually proven that circumcision equals circumcision in males, nor is this possible. Wiki1609 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Circumcision, or cutting of the prepuce or hood of the clitoris is the mildest form of female genital mutilation [...]."[[65]] Circumcision and female genital mutilation don't seem to be used synonymously. One seems to be a subset of the other, referring to a specific form. You wouldn't call an infibulation without excision "circumcision," for example. The literature shows it refers specifically to excision of the clitoris (clitoridectomy), or the removal of the female prepuce (clitoral hood) in a procedure called clitoridotomy. It also seems to only be used to refer, in females, to procedures done without the consent of the female. Some procedures falling well into the definitions of "circumcision" and the UN/WHO's "female genital mutilation," but that are sought out and generally performed in aseptic environments with anaethesia by surgeons, are not called by these terms; rather, they are labeled "labiaplasty" and, more colloquially, "vaginal rejuvenation" and "designer vaginoplasty." Oddly, male circumcision is still called circumcision even if sought out by the male; it would be interesting to see if any studies have been done to see if this is a result of the cultural acceptance of male circumcision vis a vis the female form. But, under the current organization, where would one place this hypothetical information? By de facto excluding the female form from the "circumcision" article, past editors have assured such comparisons and contrasts will have no place in Wikipedia. Perhaps this is why I feel strongly about this RfC's question -- besides being wrong and violating WP:NPOV, the organization and narrowed context of the "circumcision" article is stifling both thought and the presentation of information. Blackworm (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

global warming

global warming has been a problem science the lat 70 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponkiller (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article on circumcision? ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on studies referenced in this article

I am a practicing epidemiologist and have a few comments on what is presented here. I will make this argument as concise as possible. Epidemiological studies are not perfect and often not under the guidance of health professionals. I have noticed that the WHO findings are cited in the introduction, vember 2007 (UTC)

The AAP's 1999 statement obviously predates the findingsand by it's placement it is somehow more relevant than other studies. The WHO study mainly incorporates African populations, which are often unable to provide circumcision nor STD prevention due to economic restraints, among others, yet correlate circumcision to incidence of AIDS. The American Association of Pediatrics has released a statement in 1999 that no definitive conclusion can be made regarding circumcision and disease, which is the only conclusion that can be made. Judging from the ongoing discussions/arguments about what studies are relevant and/or correct, I think most of you would agree there is no conclusion that can be made. I suggest that this statement from the American association of Pediatrics is presented in the introduction beforehand or no such study presented in the introduction. Individual studies should be discussed thereafter in the following sections. It is gross overrepresentation of credibility on behalf of the WHO.209.189.246.41 05:26, 11 No of the three randomised controlled trials. The World Health Organisation's statement was released some months afterwards, and in response to these trials. In the opinion of their experts, the efficacy of circumcision is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jakew 13:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
But why do we give them more credibility and notability than the AAP? Why is the WHO, referenced elsewhere in the article as a "circumcision advocate," allowed to present its opinion twice in the lead section, occupying almost half the lead section, with no countering or balancing source? Do we give circumcision opponents as much attention? Blackworm 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The AAP have not yet issued a statement addressing the subject of the HIV RCTs (though reportedly they are in the process of revising their statement in light of that evidence). When they do, we may well need to update the article.
As for 'circumcision advocate', are you suggesting that the amount of coverage given to an organisation should reflect their stance on the subject? As an example, since the WHO are opposed to HIV, should we avoid using them as a source (or at least minimise our reliance on them) for that article, giving equal weight to alternative theories which view HIV as harmless? Jakew 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I was under the mistaken impression that WHO was listed as a reference for statements in the article regarding circumcision advocates. Nonetheless, one sentence in the lead has no less than four cites to apparent circumcision advocates (though whether the conclusion is supported by the source is dubious at best). That WHO promotes (and thus advocates) circumcision is documented, however; and it is unclear whether balancing views are adequately represented, especially in the lead section. Note in the lead section: the current live dispute on the high global prevalence estimate we quote from the WHO, and the uncontested and unbalanced five-line paragraph repeating the WHO's stance on circumcision with respect to HIV. Blackworm 22:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the lead section mentions HIV prevention as a (possible) benefit of circumcision, then at the very least the lead section needs to mention some (possible) risks/harms/side effects of circumcision, for balance. --Coppertwig 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
One would think. How about we say that circumcision is painful, that analgesia doesn't eliminate the pain, and that most doctors don't use analgesia anyway? These are all facts cited later in the article, just put together in a way that doesn't suggest circumcision is usually painful at all (combined with the idea that it is more humane not to "subject" the infant to anaesthetic before circumcising him). Blackworm (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SYN. Jakew (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. The current arrangement violates that policy too. Thank you, Jakew. Blackworm (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Jakew (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you? Coppertwig and I were discussing mentioning harms of circumcision in the lead, for balance against the multiple benefits presented. Do you have any suggestions of what we could say? Blackworm (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely convinced that we actually need to say anything. In the lead, we have two 'pro arguments' ('worthwhile public health measure' and 'HIV') and two 'anti arguments' ('medically unjustified' and 'infringement upon individual bodily rights'). I'm afraid I don't see why there's a pressing need to upset that balance. Jakew (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Almost the entire lead, with its focus on medical benefits (and no risks/harms), and religions that support the practice (presenting none who prohibit it), is a "pro" argument. (I notice also that the cited section on the Roman Catholic church prohibiting circumcision has "mysteriously" disappeared from the article.) Blackworm (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Only one benefit is mentioned, and that is HIV, which I mentioned. We also discuss some medical conditions for which circumcision might be used as treatment. I'm not aware of any religions that prohibit circumcision outright (ie "sorry you've got a gangrenous foreskin, but you can't be circumcised"), though of course in several religions circumcision has no special meaning.
So we establish context by discussing situations in which circumcision occurs: religion, prophylaxis, and medical treatment (I can't see how you can view this as a 'pro' argument). In the process, we also give a broad overview of the article. In addition, we also summarise the controversies, giving some arguments for and against. Jakew (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<< outdent) Jakew, I believe your last comment is evidence of either a very faulty memory, or bad faith. I direct the reader to Archive 28 of this talk page, which contains the following exchange:

Since you seem to feel strongly enough about it, my latest edit restores "observance" as the condemnation and further includes the order against the practice. Hopefully this will meet with your approval. Blackworm 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Jake, the way it is now (BW's edit) seems an accurate paraphrase of the text. -- Avi 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Agreed. I've just been looking around for some commentary on the source to check, and now have a headache. Too much Christian theology/philosophy/something for me (no offence to anyone intended) -- time for bed. Jakew 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

– - Talk:Circumcision/Archive_28 (emphasis mine)

The edit Avi refers to as being an accurate paraphrase of the source, and which Jakew read and agreed with, was:

The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin and ordered against its practice in the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442.

– - Wikipedia, "Circumcision," 29 April 2007 (deleted since, for unexplained reasons)

Now, given that you read this text, and read this source, and "agreed" that it was accurate, your suggestion that you are "not aware of any religions that prohibit circumcision outright" is extremely difficult to accept. Please explain.

Finally, the lead section is not currently a broad overview, but a specific, concentrated barrage of pro-circumcision POV. It even introduces pro-circumcision ideas not mentioned later in the article (circumcision used to treat penile cancer), contrary to specific instructions in WP:LEAD. It devotes about a third of its length to discussing the WHO's advocacy of circumcision to fight HIV, going into detail which is completely inappropriate for the lead (and without mentioning any criticism of the WHO's position). It quotes only the near-highest prevalence estimate (30%, again, from WHO), rather than summarizing sources (a range of 16-33%), and further presents the estimate as a fact, rather than an estimate. It only discusses religions "friendly" to circumcision. Jakew defends all this as neutral. It is dumbfounding. Blackworm (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of photos

After a long and agonising discussion over the proper photos to include it seems a pity that all photos have been peremptorily removed. It is fit and proper that confrontational photos not startle but it is surely anomalous that in a discussion of removing the foreskin there is no illustration at all of what such a beast is. There are plenty of obviously pruriently-intended photos in the Wikipedia Commons and most of them can properly be discounted, but could not a pair of non-prurient photos of an uncircumcised and a circumcised penis be returned to the article in the appropriate place? Not everyone who looks at such an article as this will be an adult, but everyone will be literate and will have sought to be informed. Masalai 12:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be photos. Up to a few weeks ago, there were two pairs of photos. Then the uncircumcised photos were apparently deleted from Commons for some reason, I think, or for some reason were not displaying. (typo in link?) But I think the pair of circumcised photos is still there. Why not include it? And find another uncircumcised photo. --Coppertwig 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate my first comment as to photos. It does seem odd that so agonisingly (and continuingly agonisingly) worked-out a discussion should fail to provide a simple photographic or diagrammatic illustration of precisely what the beast is that is under such protracted discussion. I had no idea myself till I was in high school and in communal showers that there was any difference as to nether configuration; I certainly never entered into such discussion with my children (of both sexes), who are now grown, as to such matters -- the bare basics of heterosexual intimacy are quite embarrassing enough to broach, without descending to such minutiae. I forbear to barge in by introducing photos, even from the presumably commonly assented to Wikipedia Commons, without there being a wide consensus that it is proper -- they are so readily and without objection peremptorily deleted. Is it not proper? Could this be discussed? Masalai (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

BMA source curiously used

"There are, therefore, limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests."

– - British Medical Association, The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors

"Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child, [...]"

– - Wikipedia, citing the above

Is that an appropriate use of the source? It really seems a bit more complicated than that. Further claiming that the BMA observes that "controversy exists on the issue" doesn't correct this apparent misrepresentation of the source. Blackworm (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think the BMA footnote (the last of four footnotes) should be removed from that sentence. The BMA source says "As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." which seems to me to mean that the BMA is not itsef intending to set limits on what parents can do, but that society can set such limits; but the way it's cited in Wikipedia seems to be saying that the BMA believes that society should not set such limits. Actually, we should look carefully at the wording and how it represents the other medical associations, since I doubt the other medical associations mean that either -- I think they just mean that doctors won't make those decisions. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative, perhaps we could alter the sentence to say "...take the position that the parents should be entitled to determine..." This seems a fair representation of "the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests", isn't it? Jakew (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It is clear they believe society trumps parental choice -- why do you wish to omit this point and make it appear to be the reverse? Blackworm (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It just seems a fairly unimportant point: society creates laws regardless of whether the BMA approves or not. Still, if you think it's important, how about: "...take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should be entitled to determine..." Jakew (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's still not good enough; it has to be clear that the BMA believes that "parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." This crucial point is lost is your version. Blackworm (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's actually quite an important point. A medical association could take the position that governments should not make laws that restrict parents' choice and that they believe that parents are entitled to make those choices. I think that is not what they mean at all. I think they only mean that the medical association is not making those choices and is advising doctors not to make those choices but to leave it up to the parents -- they're not saying anything about what the government ought to do, IMO. If we were to quote them as saying they believe parents are "entitled" then it would sound as if they were saying something about what governments ought not to do. Even taking a sentence of theirs out of context can look as if it means that. And in the case Blackworm quotes, they're actually saying the opposite of parents being entitled. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I only added "be entitled to" because it was in the source itself. But if you prefer, how about "...take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine..."
The sentence that Blackworm quotes is about a different issue. Rather than addressing how the best interests should be determined, it addresses the question of what should be done once the child's best interests are established. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) The parents should determine what? It wouldn't make sense to say that the parents get to determine what's in the child's best interests and then, once that's determined, the parents don't get to make a choice that goes against those interests. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The parents should determine the best interests of the child or, as the BMA put it, "how best to promote their children’s interests".
I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense in the majority of cases. Sadly, however, a few parents are quite aware of what is in their children's best interests yet act against these best interests, either out of selfishness or sadism; just ask the NSPCC. Jakew (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It is flatly wrong to claim that "should determine how best to promote their children's interests" means the same as "should determine the best interests of the child." The BMA is specifically claiming that parents are not in the position to determine the best interests of the child. Coppertwig never said it "doesn't" make sense, he said the BMA's statement wouldn't make sense if we were to interpret it in your rather tortured way. Your flawed interpretation is further disproven by such statements in the source as "The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure." The child's wishes trumps parental wishes there -- unlike almost any other aspect of his life, where his parents make all decisions. Read also, in the source, "Summary: best interests." You will find it is clear the BMA does not believe that parents are the sole determinants of a child's best interests. Anyway, this BMA source is an excellent read, chock full of information regarding how infant circumcision is likely to be successfully challenged on the basis of the Human Rights Act, how some doctors argue there are lifelong adverse effects from circumcision, and so on. I can see why it is misinterpreted/misused/underquoted here. Blackworm (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting interpretation, Blackworm. May I refer you to "The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision", by R Mussell of the BMA's ethics department (J Med Ethics 2004;30:254-258). Please examine the box entitled 'Summary of the key points in the BMA guidance'. The third bullet point, to quote, states:
  • "it is for parents to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a child’s best interest" (emph. in original).
This contradicts your claim that "The BMA is specifically claiming that parents are not in the position to determine the best interests of the child". Jakew (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not. Demonstrating is not determining. It is a lawyer's job to demonstrate; it is a judge's job to determine. You say yourself it's the third point; that proves that there are other points that describe what other factors may determine the child's best interests. Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps you could demonstrate for me what is 15 + 7, without first determining the answer to that question? Jakew (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure I can demonstrate. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Those are 15 X's. XXXXXXX. Those are 7 X's. Count them all together and you'll determine the answer. Blackworm (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I would be most interested to know what you think "should determine how best to promote their children's interests" does mean, if not the above: what is the difference between what is "best to promote their children's interests" and their children's "best interests"? Jakew (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone is required to demonstrate that something is in the child's interests, then I would say that that means that that person is not the one who is being given the authority to decide what is in the child's interests; rather, apparently the person to whom they are required to demonstrate it seems to me to be in that position.
Determining what a person's interests are and determining how to promote those interests are logically two different things.
Some of these arguments may be getting a couple of steps removed from the point, so I'd like to clarify where we are in this discussion. Does anyone object to the removal of the BMA reference from the list of four references, as I suggest above, and if so, on what grounds? --Coppertwig (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly correct, Coppertwig. Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we're getting somewhat off-topic.
Instead of simply deleting the BMA reference, I propose that we replace it with: "The BMA take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests."
The last seven words are exactly as they appear in the source. As such, the reader can interpret what is meant for him/herself. Thus the question of whether Blackworm, Coppertwig, or I have the 'correct' interpretation does not need to arise. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This is completely disingenuous; the "seven last words" are what you want to add. Why not add the direct quote, such as "The BMA believes that 'the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests,' but there are 'limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests.' That is an appropriate summary. Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil, Blackworm. I'm afraid you are mistaken about what I "want to add". If you review the above discussion, you'll see my initial suggestion was "take the position that should be entitled to determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child". As a result of discussion, I then proposed "take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should be entitled to determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child". After further discussion, I proposed "take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine". Finally, when it became apparent that some disagreed with the interpretation of "make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests" as "determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child", I substituted the exact seven words used in the source, thus: "take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests". Jakew (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, you do not address the first quote from the BMA in this section, preferring your weakened interpretation. Blackworm (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As I commented previously, this quote is about unusual circumstances in which parents consider not the child's best interests but their own. This is obvious when one examines the preceding text: "Although they usually coincide, the interests of the child and those of the parents are not always synonymous. There are, therefore, limits on parents’ rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child’s best interests."
In contrast, the quote which I'm using is a "general rule", and in the limited space available, seems rather more representative. Jakew (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the BMA reference also says "Circumcision of male babies and children at the request of their parents is an increasingly controversial area ..." I don't think your suggestion is a good representation of what the source says. The BMA position is already discussed later in the same paragraph, e.g. "The BMA insists that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child," so I think that's enough -- we don't need to lengthen the article by adding more about the BMA position. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We already note the BMA's acknowledgement of the controversy, Coppertwig: "the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49]" Jakew (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm pointing out things you're already aware of. Here are a couple more interesting quotes from the BMA reference BMAGuide2: "The Association has no policy on these issues." and "It is clear from the list of factors that are relevant to a child’s best interests, however, that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."
It's my understanding that you've suggested an alternative to deleting the footnote, but you haven't explicitly said you're against deleting the footnote, nor have you identified anything as being grounds for not deleting it. I'm not trying to avoid understanding what you might be getting at; I just prefer that things be stated explicitly by the person making the point. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against deleting the footnote if it is replaced with a fair representation of their position.
However, I think that deleting the footnote without replacement would effectively misrepresent the BMA's position. If I were to describe someone's position, and only state that they insist that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child, wouldn't you get the impression that they were mostly opposed to circumcision (neonatal or otherwise)? Now what if, in addition to that, I told you that they believe that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests? Wouldn't that create a more balanced impression?
Now, suppose that after I'd told you these things, you actually read the document. Would you feel it was more representative if I'd told you a) only positive-sounding statements, b) only negative-sounding statements, or c) a combination? Jakew (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
At least you're admitting that you are most concerned about what impression the reader is left with. Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "most concerned", but yes, I'm certainly concerned that we give a fair and balanced impression of both the subject matter and the various viewpoints about it. This is essential to achieve a neutral point of view. Jakew (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) The "parents should be entitled" quote should not be taken out of context. Its context includes "... no policy ..." and "As a general rule, ...". Another alternative might be to find some other, relatively neutral quote. Maybe something about consent from both parents being required, or something about children being involved in decision-making; or something about members of the association having widely divergent views; or the first bullet point of principles of good practice, that doctors must act in the child's best interests. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't completely understand your argument, but your 'alternative' isn't a bad idea. Here's a suggestion. What if we replace the current paragraph:
  • Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46][47] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA state that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child.[49]
With this:
  • Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA state that "[p]arents must explain and justify requests for circumcision, in terms of the child’s interests", and state that "[c]ompetent children may decide for themselves".
Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It still misses the point that the BMA believes there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." What is wrong with, "The BMA believes that 'the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests,' but that there are 'limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." (?) Blackworm (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just addressed this issue above. Same edit, so the date should be the same as this one. Jakew (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the wording suggested by Jakew is fine, except that the BMA footnote should still not be attached to the first few words, and I would change "take the position that" to "state". That footnote could be moved later to after some of the other words. Blackworm, I think the point about there being limits on parents' right to choose is made clear in the quotes Jakew suggests. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Where is the point made that they believe "parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests?" Why must we ignore, or weaken this language, and why is Jakew's choice of quote better than mine? Is my suggestion "fine," as well, or is there a specific problem with it? Blackworm (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I thought I had removed the BMA footnote, but I may have got the footnote numbers wrong. If so, I apologise, and please understand that that is what was intended. Your other suggestions seem fine to me. Jakew (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to both Jakew and Blackworm.
To Jakew re the BMA footnote. My mistake. Yes, you had removed it. And it can be just removed, not moved, because the same source is referenced elsewhere in the article, so the link is not lost.
To Blackworm for my need to have suggestions very specific and explicit. Would you please re-state your suggestion, perhaps quoting the paragraph to give an example of how it would look if your suggestion is implemented, or saying exactly where an inserted quote would go, even if you already did, because I can't find it above? In answer to your question: it seems clear to me that the words Jakew suggests, "p]arents must explain and justify requests for circumcision, in terms of the child’s interests" imply that parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests, and that some other words he suggests, "[c]ompetent children may decide for themselves," implies that a circumcision cannot go ahead if a (competent) child consistently refuses it. (Presumably crying of babies is still ignored.) They're just stated in less extreme-sounding words. What I seem to be doing is working out a compromise with Jakew: rather than one very positive quote and one very negative one from the BMA, to have more neutral quotes. Do you think one specific quote really has to be in there, and if so can you explain why? --Coppertwig (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion was in quotes in my edit of 22:07, 18 November 2007, and repeated in my edit of 00:02, 19 November 2007. I propose it should replace the last sentence (beginning "The BMA state...") in Jakew's proposal (which otherwise seems fine to me as well). The suggested edit is: The BMA believes that "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests," but that there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." Again, why must we weaken, obfuscate, or suppress this language? Jakew's edit still does not get this point across well enough -- the only word in his edit hinting at it is "justify," but it is not clear to whom they need to justify it (possibly to themselves?) nor is there any idea of limits, entitlement not lying with the parents, or the suggestion that circumcision possibly is not in a given child's best interests. Blackworm (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making a specific suggestion, Blackworm. Either that one or Jakew's version looks OK to me; in fact, the two seem rather similar to me. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I explained some problems with the "limits on parents’ rights to choose" quote in my post dated 13:02, 19 November 2007, in which I discussed the context in which that sentence fragment appears. Jakew (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've temporarily reduced the paragraph to the following:

  • "Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49]"

I understand that this section of the paragraph is not disputed. I suggest that material can be added when there is consensus to do so. Jakew (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that edit removes too much. Pretty much all the suggested edits above had something about the BMA's position about there being some limits on parental rights. Much of the controversy on this talk page is about how to show balance in the article; I don't think there's consensus for removing one side of the BMA's position from the article. It would be better to put in one or another of the suggestions above. May I remind everyone to please use the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It is intended only as a temporary solution, while we discuss how best to insert the new material. Allow me to explain.
  1. The original concern raised in this thread was that the BMA may be misrepresented. That footnote was therefore removed.
  2. Although there were several suggested edits, there was no consensus to include any particular edit. I raised an objection to Blackworm's proposal in my post of 13:02, 19 November 2007, but unfortunately this appears to have been overlooked.
  3. As I explained in my edit of 19:49, 18 November 2007, I have a concern about misrepresenting the BMA's position by giving undue weight to certain material, including "states that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child".
  4. As far as I know, nobody has objected to any part of the reduced paragraph quoted above.
As such, I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus upon the inclusion of the reduced paragraph above, but disagreement over how to phrase what should be added to it. Do you think that's a fair assessment? Jakew (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect, as obvious by my immediate response to your proposal. I objected to the unexplained weakening and obfuscation of the BMA's position, and the omission of their specific language regarding the "limits on parents' rights to choose." There is no undue weight issue here; the BMA's position is explicit, and the quotes I added balance the part you object to by including the source of the previous (incorrect) summary (the quote, "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests"). Your objection to the "limits" part of the quote is addressed below. Blackworm (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You said: "As I commented previously, this quote is about unusual circumstances in which parents consider not the child's best interests but their own." This is pure WP:OR. The BMA makes no claim that parents acting in good faith will always choose the child's best interests. Your argument fails. If you wish to restore "context" to the quote that you feel is missing, I invite you to add the previous sentence to the quote; but your objection to its presence is invalid. Blackworm (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you disagree with my argument. The following is a direct quote from the source. It states: "Although they usually coincide, the interests of the child and those of the parents are not always synonymous. There are, therefore ..." How would you prefer to paraphrase? Jakew (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that interests may not "coincide" does not imply that parents are not considering their child's best interests. They may simply be in error. That is the point, paraphrased perfectly by my suggested edit. Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You are quite correct that the source does not refer to what parents consider. However, it also makes no reference to errors. It considers a situation in which the parents' interests and the child's interests are not synonymous, and this situation is contrasted with one in which they coincide, which is "usually" the case.
Unfortunately, your suggested edit does not include this information. The two statements are quoted without context.
An additional problem is that due to this quote and the "must not go ahead" quote, there is again imbalance in the representation of the BMA's position. This situation could be improved by replacing that with "[c]ompetent children may decide for themselves".
Since you appear to insist upon the inclusion of the "limits" quote, I'd suggest something like the following paragraph:
  • Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA believes that in general, "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests." However, they state that because the parents' interests and the child's interests sometimes differ, there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." They state that competent children may decide for themselves.
I've indicated the changes in bold. I'm not completely happy about this paragraph, and I think it does have some problems, but I think it better represents the context of those quotes. Jakew (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how this is any better. You wish to weaken the conclusion by confusingly framing it as a rare case where a competant child disagrees with his parents' wish to have him circumcised, rather than the clear position of the source that society has a right to ultimately determine the best interests of a child who is incapable of expressing an opinion. By pure chance (assuming good faith), this crucial point is the half of the "promote their children's interests" sentence you omit -- namely, "and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." I'll agree to your proposed change, if you include this conclusion of the "promote their children's interests" sentence. This crucial bit of context is lacking in your version. (Your quote isn't even technically accurate -- if you wish to omit the end of the sentence, you must write, "interests, [...]." not "interests." The BMA did not end the sentence in the way you quoted.) Thus my suggestion is: Blackworm (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA state that in general, "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." They state that because the parents' interests and the child's interests sometimes differ, there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." They state that competent children may decide for themselves.
Personally, I think my previous version is better. It gets the same points across in a much more succinct way. I don't see how direct quotes can cause "imbalance" in the representation of their position -- replacing strongly-worded direct source quotes like "[circumcision] must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competant child" with weak, more ambiguous and less informative paraphrased summaries ("children may decide for themselves", i.e. no mention of requiring BOTH parents approval) seems indefensible, unless your idea of "balancing" a source means overriding their opinion with your own. Presumably, if there were "imbalance" in the representation, such strong language would be balanced by other direct quotes elsewhere. But regardless, if the above paragraph is acceptable to you, it is acceptable to me. Blackworm (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Re Jakew's most recent and Blackworm's most recent suggestions: Too long and too repetitive, especially Blackworm's, but I'm unable to come up with a shorter wording that I think stands a chance of being accepted so I'm willing to accept either of the two suggestions for the sake of consensus. It's too bad the bit about both parents' consent being needed isn't included, but given that there are caveats (not if the other parent is dead, and only if it's non-therapeutic circumcision) it would probably take too many words to include it here. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Both are too long (which is one of the problems I mentioned) and Blackworm's suggestion is too repetitive. Nevertheless, I'm prepared to go along with it. I'll implement the changes. Jakew (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to the consent section

I note that this revision has been deleted:

The BMA states "Both parents must give consent for non-therapeutic circumcision." [1] It also states: "All children who are capable of expressing a view should be involved in decisions about whether they should be circumcised, and their wishes taken into account. The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure."[1]

The only criticism of this was that I had not discussed it first. While I believe in discussion, there is nothing that I am aware of in the rules to say that you have to discuss before editing. Of course, if anyone has any rational objection to the wording above, please let me know. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit would lengthen the article, which is already too long, and would give undue weight to these relatively anti-circ parts of the BMA statement in relation to the relatively pro-circ parts of the same statement and in relation to the statements of the other medical associations. Also, the BMA position is also discussed elsewhere in the article and I think it's confusing to the reader to go into this much detail about it in two places. This material might be useful in one of the subarticles. See also the lengthy discussion in the section just before this on this talk page, which is talking about editing the same paragraph. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agreed with what you said until you said "in relation to the statements of the other medical associations." Positions of other associations are irrelevant when fairly assessing and summarizing the position of the BMA. It seems that certain editors here feel a sense that something is wrong when a medical association seems too "anti-circ" to them; they jump to change the expressed position, rather than accepting even as a possibility that the medical association in question does, in fact, take a rather dim view of circumcision. This is why this article has so many WP:NPOV violations -- editors proceeding from POV to assess and summarize, rather than neutrally looking at the source and properly conveying its position. Blackworm (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, your objection sounds eerily like Jakew's famous one: "Too long, and too POV." For some odd reason, only edits seen as being unfavourable to circumcision are ever objected to for these vague reasons. Blackworm (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have the impression that the BMA position is more anti-circ than some of the other medical associations. Devoting a much larger fraction of the paragraph to the BMA position than to the other medical associations therefore seems POV. Could you explain how you see the uneven distribution of length of wording to be neutral? --Coppertwig (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, take a step back and remember that my suggested edit was significantly shorter than what is there now. My succinct summary, combined with the sentence which said "must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child" was appropriate given the exceptional stance of the BMA with regard to consent. The section is balanced overall. I don't see a problem. Also, if you're worried about POV, look at the relative weight in the "policies of medical associations" sections -- the American associations, the most pro-circ, take up half the section. The summaries of the other associations focus on the point which the pro-circ advocates wish to focus on the most: namely parental consent, not the fact that none recommend it. The BMA positions is summarized using the weakened language advocates prefer, instead of the strong language the BMA uses in its document. There is the matter of POV in the lead, with one advocate organization (the WHO) mentioned twice and occupying a third of the lead with its advocacy of circumcision to fight HIV, with no balancing text. There is POV in the "procedures" section where only a few medicalized instances of circumcision are discussed. There is POV everywhere. Blackworm (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Re the medical association positions, that makes sense. I've been meaning to suggest a change to the leadin (if specific benefits are mentioned, specific risks should be too) but haven't gotten around to it. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)