Talk:Circumcision advocacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 031205. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

who is philo judaeus? is he just some random 1st century guy or what?

See Philo. -- Beland 04:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Prevalence of advocacy efforts

Routine infant circumcision caught on most in the United States, Canada, and Australia, where infant circumcision became routine for males after World War II. However, unlike most of the United States, circumcision rates fell sharply in Canada and Australia during the second half of the Twentieth Century. In 2002, Dr Kendel, the registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan warned physicians in a memo that consumer pressure could result in future malpractice suits if the utmost care in obtaining informed consent is not taken. [10] [11]. The Medical Journal of Australia has published an article expressing concern that too many boys were being circumcised for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>phimosis<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<, when simpler remedies than circumcision were available [12] [13].

Make phimosis a wikilink,i have no clue what it is.Patcat88 13:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Article title 2 Neutrality 3 Recent changes 4 Hospital sentence 5 Success/change paragraphs 6 Revert 7 Michael Glass 8 Revert 2 9 Statistics 10 Evidence of emotional involvement 11 Religious advocacy 12 Jesin and Circlist 13 Suppression of links 14 Contentious webpages 15 Protected 16 Original research 17 Unprotecting 18 Verifying 19 [Advocating Circumcision Today] 20 Section titled "Have advocacy efforts affected circumcision practices?" 21 Philo - is defending the same as advocating? 22 Recent revert 23 Historical text commented out 24 "Legal and economic aspects" 25 Usage of the term 26 Proposal to merge with History of circumcision and Circumcision 27 Text Jakew keeps removing 28 Important text that must not be lost in any move 29 Original research and unverified claims

[edit] Article title

The article circumcisionists currently redirects here and keeps returning in its separate form with criticism. I don't care what the article is called (circumcisionist, pro-circumcision viewpoint, or circumcision advocacy). I'm OK with deleting the circumcision advocacy article (initially my own creation) and redirecting it to circumcisionists. But having both seems illogical without a distinction made.

Also, according to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles:

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. It is not usually necessary to also describe opposing views

Any thoughts on that? DanP 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I think that this article is distinctly non-neutral. It seems to be unnecessarily slanted towards victorian views on masturbation, and has little on medical benefits that these days are generally the basis for such advocacy. Can we agree on removing some of the excessive and superfluous stuff? - Jakew 16:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is only one sentence about masturbation. Prevention of masturbation was a very important part the circumisionist argument, which went something like this:

Masturbation causes impure thoughts. Impure thoughts injure the brain and cause feeblemindness, epilepsy, neuroasthenia, and other disorders, so mastubation needs to be stopped for reasons of health.

The word "hygenic", when applied to circumcion, referred to mental hygiene, not physical hygiene or cleanliness.

Any comprehensive article actually should expand the discussion of masturbation.

See:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/dar10676_fm.html#i1082352

In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief",10 and most of his contemporaries concurred.11 Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse",12 and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.13,14

In the 1970s, a United States physician who had himself circumcised was so pleased with the result that he wrote an article urging everybody else to have it done, but even he acknowledged the loss of sexual sensation:

"The change in sensation during intercourse a few weeks later was surprising. The sharp pleasurable sensation was noticeably lessened, as it is when topical anaesthetics are used to delay ejaculation. . . The overpowering erotic sensation has been dulled, and with it some of the immediate pleasurable sensation. Initial excitement has decreased. . . [When fully erect the penis presents] a smooth shaft with a piston-in-cylinder-like action during coition. Friction and therefore sensation are diminished."15

[edit] Recent changes

I've made a number of changes to the article to improve neutrality, relevance, and factual accuracy.

• changed loaded terms 'rationale' and 'alleged' to more neutral terms. Included comment about opponents disputing benefits at the beginning.
• circumcisionists -> circumcision advocates throughout (in line with article title, and 'circumcisionist' appears in no dictionary)
• changed erroneous claim about medical science 'disproving' claim about penile cancer, with supporting links
• inclusion of current knowledge about masturbation and circumcision.
• changed link to current version of Brian Morris's review
• removal of loaded word 'still' in "remain in Canada". Still implies that they should not.
• removal of irrelevant gumf about elective procedures and so on - this is relevant to history of circumcision, but irrelevant to discussion of advocacy.

- Jakew 14:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made a few adjustments, notably:

• 'for medical concerns' implies advocacy has merit. Changed.
• 'though the benefits themselves are disputed by opponents' is subordinate to the historical note 'over the past century'. Changed to have less temporal incoherence.
• In "that advocated universal circumcision for alleged health reasons" the word alleged has some purpose, as it is not clear from the sentence whether "for health reasons" modifies "advocated" or modifies "circumcision".
• "Medical science has since confirmed his claim" is not exactly stating the facts.
• "The practice of promoting the claimed medical benefits of circumcision certainly was not confined to Jewish doctors" is off topic in the medical discussion.
• Reintroduce paragraph on consent forms

DanP 17:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'for medical concerns'. Ok. I'll be sure to check genital integrity and make sure that anything implying merit is changed. Re penile cancer, medical science is exactly stating the facts. Not a single study has ever shown otherwise. - Jakew 23:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes to show that circumcision mainly caught on in English-speaking countries and declined in Commonwealth countries after the publication of Gardiner's paper in 1949. Other changes include more information on Circlist and the advocacy of Dr Aaron Jesin in Canada. Michael Glass 21:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Altered for more NPOV phrasing, and removed irrelevant material. This doesn't support the claim that this unfortunate death affected Canadian circumcision rates in any way - the sentence appears to be just propaganda, so I've removed it. I've also again removed "In the 1970s, circumcision ceased to be routine", because it is not relevant to advocacy. - Jakew 23:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jakew, I disagree on "In the 1970s, circumcision ceased to be routine". This notable, as US advocacy shifted entirely from hospital choice to parent choice. You can say this is not relevant, but it would require substantial explanation on your part. DanP 03:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that US practice shifted from hospital to parental choice, but advocacy? Why do you think that? - Jakew 03:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision advocacy required this shift to gather consent prior to cutting. The medical dogma at the time is clear. Advocating a parent's signature is sociologically different than advocating practitioners to act in direct intervention without parental involvement. The element of persuation is added that was not previously required. DanP 04:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take your point there. Want to add an explanation of some kind to the article? Is it wise to thrash out the text here first? - Jakew 04:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hospital sentence

Jakew, my original sentence was: In the 1970's, circumcision became a choice for parents to make, primarily due to lawsuits against hospitals. Some hospitals are still active in promoting circumcision without consulting with parents, although a consent form is often provided. I don't see anything wrong with it (accuracy or POV-wise). I can add supporting links if necessary, but I don't personally see a need to hash it further. DanP 04:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that an explanation of the relevance to advocacy is required (possibly based on that which you gave above). - Jakew 04:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. How about the following? In the 1970's, circumcision advocacy was directed at parents, whose consent became necessary due to lawsuits against hospitals. Some hospitals still advocate circumcision to the point of not actually consulting with parents, although a consent form is often provided when giving birth at a hospital. DanP 11:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"In the 1970s" suggests that it was only in the '70s. How about: "In the 1970s and later, circumcision advocacy was directed at parents, whose consent was deemed necessary, perhaps due to lawsuits against hospitals. (do we have a source?) Some hospitals still advocate circumcision to the point of not actually consulting (can't think of a better phrase, but 'not actually' seems awkward) with parents, although a consent form is often (often? are we aware of any modern exceptions?) provided when giving birth at a hospital." (my comments in bold) - Jakew 12:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will gather some references. Give me a while -- I figured you would only touch up the awkward portions. I didn't realize you were going to scrutinize this one so much, knowing that references will only weaken the article's mostly positive light cast on advocates. DanP 15:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm in a pedantic mood. As far as the article goes, I'm always happy to improve it. I really don't care if it casts a positive or negative light, as long as it is factual and presented neutrally. Let the facts speak for themselves. - Jakew 18:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's done. Please review. I would have liked a shorter version better, but I guess relavance to advocacy is something you wanted clarity on. DanP 19:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Generally ok, but I've made a few minor changes. These should be fairly obvious, and don't substantially change the meaning, but please review anyway. - Jakew 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Success/change paragraphs

I'm concerned about all these new levels of new speculation being added. For one, I find this inaccurate: "The National Center for Health Statistics attributes this partly to an increasing number of births to Hispanic women in this region." The way I read the information, I see nothing about "women" being the factor -- they only say "among hispanics". It's speculative to point the mother in every instance. It also refers to "several other studies" (apparently they don't need to say which ones?). I propose leaving out racial speculation until it can be justified. DanP 19:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence so that it refers to Hispanics and does not single out the women. I think it is fair enough to report on the CDC's speculation about the effect of the increased numbers of Hispanics in the area. Note tht this is only a partial explanation for the change. Michael Glass 20:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I've reverted Robert Blair's change of source and percentage for US circumcision rates. The official figures come from the CDC, and are more reliable than Bollinger's figures. - Jakew 02:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Robert Blair, if you insist upon using an unreliable source (Bollinger), then for the time being I'm prepared to humour you. However, it is invalid to compare figures obtained using different methodologies. Since you have shown a desire to compare 1999 with 2002 (for unexplained reasons), I have taken both figures from Bollinger. This indicates a small rise in rates, so I have changed the sentence structure accordingly. I'd revert to my previous version if I were you. - Jakew 04:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of humouring, the current choice of figures isn't very helpful. The graph in the Bollinger article shows a steady rise from 1870 to 1980 and then a subsequent drop. There's also a small rise again, but the timescale switches at that point from decades to years, which tends to overemphasise its significance. —Ashley Y 04:36, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem comes from Bollinger's inclusion of a number of different sources, with different sampling techniques. For historical data, Bollinger takes figures from Wallerstein's Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy, which was published in 1980. Now, Wallerstein claims that rates peaked in 1979 at 85%, but compare with the actual recorded circumcision rate for 1979[1] - 64.3%. It seems that Wallerstein may have overestimated rates by about 20%. Historical rates tend to be estimated from the proportion of circumcised males in a given age group, rather than the actual newborn circumcision rate, which is obviously lower. It is also likely that the CDC's rates underestimate the rates, due to the fact that many circumcisions are not performed in hospitals. So the illusion of a sudden and dramatic fall isn't supported by the evidence we have for '79-'99, and it is probable that this illusion is simply due to differences in sampling techniques. - Jakew 04:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Bollinger's figure are more accurate than the CDC because they come from a private company with a higher sampling rate. I think your present version is fine. Robert Blair 04:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Glass

Michael, I've removed the second link you added ([2]), because it doesn't support the assertion in the text. Nowhere is poor scholarship claimed or implied (unlike failing to read a study that you cite, which clearly implies abysmal scholarship by any definition). All it claims is that there may have been methodological flaws (which, without proof, is a weak claim in itself). Bizarrely, it then goes on to describe HPV and smegma as causes, apparently oblivious to the fact that both of these are more common in uncircumcised men. But I digress.

We should be careful not to write yet another mini-medical analysis of circumcision in here. I've left your first link for now, though I really think that it should be removed for the benefit of the article. Would you be happy with the original form plus a "See: medical analysis" addition? - Jakew 03:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I would regard methological flaws as being evidence of faulty scholarship though I would agree with you that failing to read a study, or quoting it unfairly, looks even worse. While I can see why you are dissatisfied with the American Cancer Society's lack of back-up for their opinions, I would put this down to the fact that this is because it is prepared for the general reader and not for medical researchers. Despite this, I think that the American Cancer Society link should remain because of the expertise implied. Just to leave one reference conveys the impression that the whole argument rests simply on one faulty summary that can easily be refuted.

I believe the American Cancer Society was referring to studies that failed to take into account the fact that circumcision is not spread randomly through the community. As we both realise, it is more common in the wealthier sections of the community, and it has long been realised that people with more money enjoy better health. This is a very significant confounding variable in any studies of the rate of penile cancer between those with foreskins and those without.

I am content to live with the change that you have made (removing one of two links to the American Cancer Society). However, I would not be happy to revert to the previous version for the reasons that I have outlined above.Michael Glass 13:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert 2

Robert Blair, I'm partly reverting your revert because the paragraph on Wolbarst is approaching a complete medical analysis. This is completely unnecessary and redundant. We have already got a perfectly good medical analysis of circumcision article, and don't need another one. The article is supposed to be about circumcision advocacy! I have, however, attempted to compromise by including a single sentence summarising the research on the matter of penile cancer since Wolbarst. - Jakew 01:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

I have replaced Bollinger's statistics with stats from the CDC. The reasons are as follows:

• Consistency. The rest of the paragraph uses CDC material so it makes sense to stick with these figures rather than chopping and changing.

• It is better to compare statistics over a 20 year period than a 3 year period.

• One would expect the CDC figures to be the most authoritative and acccurate.

Michael Glass 21:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I endorse this change. Additionally, Bollinger is far from neutral and does not appear to be terribly skilled with statistics (for example, he incorrectly uses annual risks to calculate number of circumcisions to prevent penile cancer and utis. He should have used lifetime risks), so a statement without a primary source is particularly suspect. Let's stick to the official figures. - Jakew 22:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of emotional involvement

There is evidence that some people have an emotional involvement in circumcision. I detailed some example in a letter that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. [3]. If it was accepted by the JME I can't see that there is a problem in linking it to this article.

Michael, a letter alleging such an involvement is not acceptable. Such allegations were removed simultaneously from both this article and genital integrity, by general agreement not to indulge in ad hominems. - Jakew 12:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe it is ad hominem technically -- but one could argue it is inflammatory in some cases. But I agree with the spirit of what you say Jake, so as to preserve NPOV and to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Perhaps you can make this same discussion point within the foreskin restoration article, and we can move back to a live-and-let-live ceasefire? DanP 19:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like people to read my letter [4] carefully. I have not simply made allegations, but have provided evidence. I reject the allegation that this letter was an ad hominem attack. My letter would not have been published without the clear evidence that I provided.Michael Glass 04:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michael, actually I believe it could be a neutral addition, and is substantiated and factual. I also believe emotional aspects of foreskin restoration could be neutral additions. But, as it turns out, often the circumcision advocates never tolerate anything but their own spin and speculation when there is blood on their hands and an axe to grind. Nobody restoring their foreskin has forced children to do so, therefore it is only their actions which create this dispute over emotional involvement. As further evidence, they childishly blame subjects of circumcision for being "single-minded POV warriors" -- hypocritically forgetting that the discussion is motivated by actions they actually promote. Nobody is completely innocent here. Nevertheless I have repeatedly extended the olive branch. Jake and I have worked at limiting statements of motivation, since they are taken (rightly or wrongly) as statement of allegation. The mere fact that Jake has now ignored my invitation with regard to live-and-let-live is somewhat upsetting to this delicate balance. DanP 20:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious advocacy

Why is there no mention in this article about advocates of circumcision for religious reasons? Sirkumsize 03:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a policy; it's just that nobody has written the section. Be bold, but remember NPOV. - Jakew 10:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesin and Circlist

Dr Jesin did reproduce material that Circlist collected. He acknowledged Circlist's copyright. If you look carefully at the link you will find the following words near the end of the webpage [5].

• Copyright 1999, All Rights Reserved CIRCLIST

Almost identical material may be found on Circlist [6].

Michael Glass 23:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but much (perhaps all?) of the content is copyrighted by others. Regardless, nowhere else in Wikipedia do we remark on copyright statements, and this is clearly an irrelevant detail. I understand that you have a vendetta against Circlist, but this is not the place to persue it. Jakew 11:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, you have admitted that what I wrote is true.

• Why do you want to suppress something that is true?
• It is ordinary practice to record where people get their information from. Why should this instance be any different?
• You say that the information that you suppressed is irrelevant. How do you justify removing the date of publication? Are you suggesting that the date of information in a fast-changing world is irrelevant?
• You have accused me pursuing a vendetta against Circlist. How is the mere mention of Circlist an attack on Circlist?
• You are quick to label people as genital integrity activists but object to having someone's connection to Circlist pointed out. Why the double standard?

Please look again at what I wrote. I did not use one perjorative term. I simply stated three facts that you know to be true: Jesin got the material from Circlist; Circlist claimed copyright; and their copyright date was 1999. Please explain how telling the truth becomes such a problem for you in this instance. Michael Glass 12:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael, you haven't addressed the fact that it is not common practice on Wikipedia to specify the source of reproduced material, and certainly not an indirect source (remember that much of the page is reproduced from elsewhere). The only comment you've made with any validity concerns the date, though really this detail is excessive. In the spirit of compromise I've added it anyway.

Concerning my "accusation", please see the text of your edit summary: "Evidence of the Circlist - Dr Jesin link. See the talk page." This makes it crystal clear that your intent is not merely to make an "ordinary" statement of source, but to "expose" some link.

I am curious to know how you justify linking to Circlist in this edit while in this you state that it is inappropriate to do so.

You seem to feel that any site that somewhere or other mentions or links to Circlist needs to have this pointed out. This is not our role, and to do so without doing the same for mentioning or linking to any other site is a double standard. Jakew 13:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I appreciate that you have let the date of the material stand. I also have no problem if the direct link to Circlist goes. The point is that Jesin uses Circlist and acknowledges his source. It is not just that there was some incidental link but that the wording of Dr Jesin's webpage and the Circlist webpage are almost completely identical. I think it should be mentioned because it is not what one would expect from a member of the medical profession. Yes, it does 'expose' this fact.

Why don't you want this fact publicised? What is your problem with telling this particular truth?

In the other case, there was a quotation from Circlist to bolster an agrument about the 'gliding action'. I removed it because Circlist is not a reputable source of information. I stand by this statement. I also stand by pointing out that Dr Jesin uses a source of information that is (a) old and (b) not reputable. It is relevant to Wiki readers.

What is so terrible about quoting from Circlist? Which of the articles are "not reputable"? Most are republished articles from such "disreputable" sources as the British Journal of Urology, AIDS, the Southern Medical Journal, the (London) Sunday Times, etc. If a webpage conveniently presents these together, what is so inappropriate about making use of this material?

Furthermore, what information is outdated? Only one article (ironically, "Postpubertal Circumcision Not Protective Against HIV") has since been found to be incorrect. I'd certainly agree that the information is 6 years old, but should any doctor citing articles 6 or more years old be "named and shamed"? (Perhaps we should keep it simple and just shoot them.)

Including this information serves no useful purpose to the readers, most of whom won't know what Circlist is anyway.

Finally, Wikipedia is here to provide an informative encyclopaedia, not to make a pseudo-legal case against anyone or anything. In some hypothetical trial you might wish to provide evidence that Dr Jesin links to Circlist (please let me know if you ever do, I'd appreciate the giggle value). An article has a different purpose, however, and Circlist is either a reputable source or it is not. I'm quite happy with removing it from both articles (though I think it's a little extreme to argue that it is not a reputable source for an anecdote), but to remove it as a 'source' while introducing it as 'evidence' suggests that you don't quite understand what Wikipedia is for. If I've misunderstood your reasoning process behind removing it from one article while introducing it in another, please explain and accept my apologies. Jakew 16:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, there are very good reasons for acknowledging Circlist as the source of information for Dr Jesin's web page on medical benefits. First, Jesin's webpage on medical benefits is an acknowledged copy of the Circlist webpage, complete with editorialising and even the occasional typo. Secondly, Jesin acknowledged that Circlist was his source of information. Thirdly, we have to take it on trust that the quotations from the other sources that Circlist quoted were correct. As we can't guarantee this without checking out each reference personally, it is prudent to acknowledge the secondary source. Fourthly, if Dr Jesin is happy to acknowledge Circlist as his source of this information, why shouldn't we mention it?

Even if it is true that most readers will know nothing about Circlist, this is not a good reason conceal or suppress the fact that Dr Jesin used a particular webpage from Circlist for his own website. The fact that Dr Jesin uses Circlist is not in itself an accusation; it merely states a fact. Regarding it as inappropriate is one reaction; saying that it is fair enough is another reaction. Readers can decide for themselves if it is important to follow this matter up.

It is one thing to mention that Dr Jesin used Circlist; that is easy to establish. However, when Circlist publishes an anecdote, then we have no way of telling whether it was true or made up or a mixture of both. I do not regard it as a clear or authoritative source of information about circumcision. The words that you cut out made no accusation; it merely recorded something that happened.

I hope that this addresses your concerns.

Michael Glass 12:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I note that you have not replied to the statement above, but you keep on removing the statement that Dr Jesin copied the medical benefits material from Circlist. Why do you keep deleting this factual information? Michael Glass 19:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've explained before. It's an irrelevant detail. The article is about circumcision advocacy. By (questionable) extension, the section discusses specific advocates and their activities. The fact that one advocate reproduces some articles is obscure enough, but it is simply ludicrous to then continue to describe the secondary sources of the articles. Jakew 20:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, the four words describing where Dr Jesin got his information are not irrelevant. As I explained before, Dr Jesin copied the information directly from the Circlist webpage virtually without changes. Dr Jesin acknowledged this source, which is proof positive that this was his primary source of information for this material. Thus, the accuracy of the information stands or falls on the accuracy of the Circlist webpage. Now in some cases we are given detailed information where the information came from. However, in other cases we are only given the name of the writer, and no date. In these cases it would be difficult to make an independent confirmation of the material.

Therefore I insist that the primary source of Dr Jesin's webpage for the medical benefits of circumcision came from the Circlist webpage. We have been tussling over this wording for some time. Therefore I ask you to step back for a moment and consider what is said and more importantly, what is not said. It says that Jesin got his information from a particular source, but it neither praises nor condemns him. It points out that the material contains articles about the medical benefits claimed for circumcision. It does not say or imply that the information was a concoction. It points out something that Dr Jesin himself freely acknowledges, his source of information. Therefore I believe that your effort to remove this information is misplaced.

Both of us have more valuable things to do with our time than tussling over four words that both of us know are true. Please think again. You are fighting for the removal of information that you know to be true but regard as irrelevant. I am fighting for the inclusion of information that I believe to be important for the reasons outlined above. Surely, then, because the information is true, and because there are so many more important things to do, you could let it go. After all, if it doesn't worry Dr Jesin, why should it worry you?

As I have said before, I respect your intelligence and value the many contributions you have made to Wikipedia. However, on this point, I believe that the stand you have taken is simply not worth the effort. Michael Glass 22:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suppression of links

It is Wikipedia policy to acknowledge sources. Jake has removed the link to a Circumstitions webpage that records when states stopped funding circumcisions through Medicaid [7]. He says that the source is unreliable. However, he leaves the information.

I suggest that the accusation of unreliability is merely a cover for removing a link to material that he disagrees with.

Michael Glass 21:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Jakew 11:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, it is a policy of Wikipedia to acknowledge sources The fact that you allowed the information to stand is acknowledgement on your part that the information was true. So the problem for you was not with the reliability of the information but with your opinion of the website itself. I suggest that you don't want readers of Wimipedia to read things that you disagree with and so you define opinions you disagree with as 'unreliable'. That is why you were prepared to have a link to the Circumstitions map on the American states that did and didn't fund circumcisions through Medicaid, but not with the webpage where the map is to be found.

This is a bit like the Anglican clergy who denounced the dissenting clergy but were happy to buy their books of sermons and preach them as their own. Michael Glass 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Michael. I have removed the statement as well. If a reliable source can be found, I've no objection to including it again. Jakew 12:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that the Circumstitions webpage that you rejected is unreliable? Just saying something is unreliable is a poor test of reliability. Michael Glass 09:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research.
• "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers' Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly."
• At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. WP:RS Jakew 11:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How is all this relevant to the webpage that you rejected? Michael Glass 13:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hugh Young's website (circumstitions.com) is a personal website, with extremist views (including political views relating to 'human rights'), and which on the page concerned presents itself as a primary source. Jakew 14:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, on what grounds do you call Hugh Young's views extremist, apart from the fact that you disagree with them? Michael Glass 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Given the standard of the Socialist Workers Party as extremist, it's hard to exclude a site that accuses many of the most prominent medical associations of bias, hypocrisy, greed, unethical behaviour, and so on. Come on, Michael, it even admits on the front page that it doesn't pretend to be balanced.

I have trouble understanding how you can claim that Circlist is unreliable while protesting that Circumstitions is not. It doesn't make sense. Jakew 15:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, this is an interesting comment on your political ideas. Perhaps you didn't notice how you shifted your grounds. I asked you why you asserted that Circumstitions is unreliable. You replied that it was extremist. When I asked you why it was extremist you replied that the website says nasty things about medical associations.

This is a grievous fault - in the eyes of a conservative. Would you please document your accusations so we can judge how they stand up to scrutiny?

Now, about Circlist. The reason I say it is unreliable is that it is sexually charged. Circlist promotes circumcision for sexual reasons and plenty of its contents is pornographic. The following web pages are examples: “Masturbation and Circumcision” [8] appears to pander to a pedophile element. “Wife gives husband erotic circ.” “Circ-nurse” and “circumcision slut” [9] are obviously written by someone with a fetish about circumcision. Other pages that demonstrate the erotic nature of “Circlist” include [10] and [11] (the word enjoy is evidence enough). Michael Glass 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth Michael, my political views tend to be left of centre. Now, when you asked why circumstitions is unreliable I explained that it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. One of these (you seem to have ignored the others) is extremist (ie radical) views. Nothing in the definition of 'extremist' requires the idea to be inherently 'wrong', only that that it deviates dramatically from mainstream positions.

Accusations of bias:

• "filled with misleading statements and pro-circumcision bias"
• "was openly biased toward the conclusion they wanted to reach"

Accusations of greed/unethical behaviour/corruption:

• "These policy statements are at least as much political as medical: it would be financial and public relations suicide for the AAP to admit that routine infant circumcision was harmful and unethical."
• "This deviates from good science, good medicine and good ethics."

Accusation of misrepresentation:

• "It misrepresents the RACP's own policy, bending it in favour of circumcision."

Concerning your comments about Circlist, while I agree to a certain extent, I think that you're being excessively harsh. The site itself is quite substantial, and represents a cross-section of views from a large number of people. Obviously there will be a range of views there, and it is unlikely that there is a single reason for promotion of circumcision. Let's not forget the context here: a procedure performed on a sex organ, with claimed (though highly controversial) sexual effects, and with documented (though highly controversial) sexual preferences relating to whether it has or has not been performed. Given this, a degree of tolerance for sexual content seems not unreasonable (need I remind you that most anti sites rave about the foreskin's purported sexual attributes? One extreme example being foreskin.org's list of pornographic videos featuring foreskins). Jakew 15:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, thank you for documenting what you feel is wrong with Circumstitions and your further comments on Circlist. When Circumstitions criticises the policy of the medical bodies, it quotes them and then gives a detailed critique that the reader can examine and assess. Thus you can say that Circumstitions is being unfair while I can observe how many hits Circumstitions can make against these august bodies. However, when Circlist publishes material there is mostly no attribution, and the material is presented in a sexually suggestive way. Therefore, whatever we think of Circumstition's stand against circumcision, the way it documents the points it makes is valuable for and of interest to the reader.

The same applies to CIRP and CIRCS. Both, of course, have an agenda. However, the documentation they supply make them useful to the reader. Now I know that pro circumcision sites like CIRPS and Circumcision Online will claim that their information is objective or unbiased, but this kind of assurance should simply be taken with a grain of salt. It's the documentation that is valuable, and how trustworthy we judge the site to be.

As for the sexual content of both pro and anti-circumcision sites, a certain amount is inevitable, because they deal with people's genitals. The question that should be asked is whether the site has anything valuable or interesting to say, or is it just into it for sexual reasons. On this test, I would say that Circumstitions passes muster, but Circlist doesn't. Michael Glass 01:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael, please understand that the above points are not what I feel is wrong with circumstitions. These are why I feel it is extremist. I have many personal objections to that site, but they are not relevant to this discussion.

As for Circlist, I'm sorry that you deem it so useless. Personally, when I was doing my research prior to my own decision, I found it to be extremely valuable. Jakew 11:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I won't comment on your own personal decisions. I can understand you feel strongly about Circumstitions. However, this is the statement that I would like to comment on:

Now, when you asked why circumstitions is unreliable I explained that it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. One of these (you seem to have ignored the others) is extremist (ie radical) views. Nothing in the definition of 'extremist' requires the idea to be inherently 'wrong', only that that it deviates dramatically from mainstream positions.

The radical=extremist=unreliable equation simply doesn't stand up. As I read you, it appears you argue against this equation yourself when you say that an 'extremist 'position doesn't have to be wrong, only that it deviates from the mainstream position.

Are you suggesting that we should reject ideas not because they are wrong, but because they are not mainstream? Even leaving aside the question of what is mainstream and what is not, are you judging worth not by asking whether it is the norm? This is a fine policy for enforcing conformity; it is a poor one for finding truth.

I want to suggest another way forward: finding accurate information and using it, but when it comes from contentious sources, letting the reader know that we are quoting from CIRP, CIRCS, PUBMED, Circlist, Circumstitions or whatever. Michael Glass 13:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael, there is no problem with citing articles that appear in a reputable forum (such as a scientific journal) that express radical ideas. However, when the forum itself is a site setup to express radical views, it cannot be viewed as a reliable source. We shouldn't cite a page at the Flat Earth Society's site in an article on geophysics, though it's fine to cite articles in reputable forums expressing the view that the Earth is non-spheroid.

I have no problem with sites that reproduce articles from a reliable source (unless there is reason to believe that the articles have been doctored, of course). I see no problem with citing an article because it happens to be reproduced in part or full at CIRP, CIRCS, and certainly not PubMed. Reproduction does not affect the document, so why should it affect the credibility?

The specific problem here is with original content from these sites. The page in question is particularly bad because it is without references. There is no way to verify the information. Wikipedia should not be in the business of citing paranoid rants from anyone and everyone capable of putting a web-page together. Jakew 19:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, please read the following:

"I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time."

Now read this:

- Dr.Thomas Wiswell

quoted in the Boston Globe

June 22, 1987

As you can see, the quote is referenced.

Here's another reference from the website:

Christopher J. Mansfield, William J. Hueston, Mary Rudy, "Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay", Journal of Family Practice, Volume 41, Number 4: Page 370-376, October 1995.

Yes, there is at least one link that doesn't work. However, there is a way to verify the information, say, about which states have a Medicaid subsidy for circumcision. So i don't think that Circumstitions is as bad as you have painted it. Michael Glass 08:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so there are two references for irrelevant details. The fact remains that most of the information - especially the Medicaid funding, which was the context in which you cited the page - is unreferenced. The fact that it might be possible to verify such information, given a lot of work, does not make it any more credible. Jakew 11:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Two responses: the details you describe as 'irrelevant' give evidence for the notion that money may have a conscious or unconscious influence on doctors and also parents of babies. The first is a quotation from Dr Wiswell that some of his colleagues saw circumcision as a quick and easy way to make a buck. The second notes the incidence of neonatal circumcision among diffeerent groups. You can read this article for yourself at the following link: [12].

The second point is that you didn't question the veracity of the information until I pointed out the inconsistency in accepting the information but rejecting the link. Another source of information about the states that have stopped funding circumcisions can be found on this site: [13]. The abolition of funding in several states can be documented elsewheere. Why do you want such information, apart from justifying an excuse for getting rid of a link to material that you disagree with?Michael Glass 12:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I describe the details as irrelevant because the page was cited solely for documenting states without Medicaid funding for circumcision. Had the page stated that there was a great conspiracy to promote circumcision for sheer financial greed, it might have been relevant (though highly POV). But it did not.

Secondly, ICGI (Dan Bollinger) suffers from similar problems to Circumstitions (Hugh Young). Again there are no supporting references, and again it is a personal website created to express Bollinger's somewhat extreme views. Surely a fact does not come into existence simply because both Hugh Young and Dan Bollinger say so?

I believe that the information concerning Medicaid funding is correct, but think for a moment: do you really want that as a precedent? Should Wikipedia's circumcision articles simply reflect Jake Waskett's views, or should they be supported with reliable, verifiable sources? Jakew 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, First of all I wasn't pushing a conspiracy theory. The purpose of the link was simply to state where the information came from. Your position seems to be as logical as saying this:

Adolf Hitler says that two and two equal four.

Adolf Hitler is a bad man.

Thereore we must reject the notion that two and two equal four.

Once again I suggest that you are rejecting a link to one small piece of information is that you don't like Hugh Young and Dan Bollinger and the position they take on circumcision. Labelling their views as extreme is a convenient way for you to dismiss their views and the information they present as not being worthy of consideration.

But I'll tell you what. Instead of providing links to the wicked Hugh Young and Dan Bollinger, let's provide a link to Maura Lerner of the Star Tribune, 1 September 2005. She says that Wisconsin was the 16th state to abolish the funding of infant circumcisions. [14] However, in what is no doubt a deep genuflection to the hallowed First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin law is tempered by the loophole unless required by religious practice. So presumably you can still get the State of Wisconsin to subsidise an infant circumcision upon your establishment that your religion requires it. Michael Glass 20:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious webpages

Instead of a revert war, perhaps we should try to work out a consistent policy on contentious web pages. What do others think? Michael Glass 12:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Such a policy already exists. The problem is that we (I'm no exception) haven't been applying it consistently. Jakew 12:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In which case why in does your last revision seems to miss this. You have removed the info which is from the Circumstitions web site, (which is a biased site), yet you have removed the part wording which points out that the articles published by Dr Aaron Jesin are quoting from the Circlist website (another biased website). Surely this is double standards or am I missing something? --Dumbo1 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You are missing something, yes. The issue has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with what sites are suitable sources for use in Wikipedia. The former is evidently use of an inappropriate site as a source, whereas the second is a description of an indirect source. Jakew 16:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Talk about splitting hairs! If Circumstitions is inappropriate, so is Circlist. Similiarly if a site has copied from either of the above, then they are also inappropriate. You can't get round this by finding another site (similarly biased) which has just copied the articles. And even worse in my opinion, when someone has pointed out that the source is a load of copied articles from a biased site, you go and remove that note! I can sympathise with your frustration at some of the rampant anti-circumcistion editing, however replacing it with your own bias is not going to produce a well rounded article for Wikipedia. All it will do is prolong the fight. Perhaps thats why some people edit Wikipedia (I'm not suggesting that is your position). Most of us want Wikipedia to be a balanced information resource regardless of whether it conforms to our own personal view of the world. --Dumbo1 17:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:FAITH. I have not tried to "get around" anything. In fact, if you bother to check the edit history, you'll find that the link originated from one of our anti-circumcision editors.

Secondly, look at the context. The page is about circumcision advocacy (and, by extension, advocates). Do you really think that we should restrict the examples to only reliable/unbiased pages? Are biased circumcision advocates not worthy of note?

Can't you see this distinction between source and example? Consider the following hypothetical scenarios (with hypothetical links). "The advocacy site Circisgreat.com states that circumcision prevents heart disease.[15]" (OK, example) "Circumcision is known to prevent heart disease.[16] (not OK, source) Jakew 11:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, the other commentators are quite right. The only evidence we have is that Dr Jesin's quotes are from Circlist. I have shown that Dr Jesin used Circlist, something that he freely acknowledges. What I have not shown and what you have not shown is that the Circlist quotes that he uses are an accurate reflection of the original articles. Therefore the secondary source should be shown. Michael Glass 21:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Jake, we've been reverting and reverting for weeks. This is quite unlike our usual dealings when we find enough common ground to come to an agreement that we both feel comfortable with. I think that it's time that we sought some outside help to assist us in sorting out this disagreement. How do you feel about such a procedure? Michael Glass 12:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've no objection to requesting mediation, if you want, Michael. A simpler alternative, however, might be to simply delete the sentence mentioning the page concerned. Jakew 13:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

An even better solution, Jake, would be for you to stop removing relevant information from the article. You agree that the statement is accurate, but you keep removing it without adequate justification. -- DanBlackham 01:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If the information were relevant, Dan, I wouldn't remove it. Accuracy is no excuse. Jakew 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I'm protecting the page as you two seem to be in a slow edit war. The purpose of this protection is to get you two to discuss the page properly, a mediator may come in to assist. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf, I have certainly tried to address Jake's concerns, but I got no response for more than two weeks. This can be seen here [17]. If Jake would be good enough to restate the concerns he still has with those four words, perhaps we could get somewhere. Also, please note that two other Wiki editors also take issue with this removal of information. Michael Glass 11:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, the problem is that you haven't responded to my concern. Instead, you've gone off on a tangent. Let me repeat:

I've explained before. It's an irrelevant detail. The article is about circumcision advocacy. By (questionable) extension, the section discusses specific advocates and their activities. The fact that one advocate reproduces some articles is obscure enough, but it is simply ludicrous to then continue to describe the secondary sources of the articles.

Jakew 12:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I see you have branded a simple statement as a detail, i.e. trivial. You have also branded it as irrelevant, i.e. not on the topic at hand. You describe Jesin's word-for-word reproduction of the Circlist webpage as reproducing some articles. You describe the Circlist webpage as the secondary source of the articles reproduced.

First, Dr Jesin's webpage is virtually identical in wording to the Circlist webpage. As the Jesin webpage is utterly dependant on the accuracy of the Circlist webpage the article is more accurate with the added words.

Secondly, it is not accurate to describe a word-for-word reproduction of a webpage as reproducing some articles. The reproduction of the webpage included such details as this:

Diabetes and Circumcision

About eight years ago it was discovered that I am a type II diabetic (non-insulin dependent luckily) and now everytime I am at the doctor they are pestering me about getting circumcised. I don't have any problems with my penis or foreskin at all, no infections and it goes back easily. What is the deal with this? Do any of the other CircList members have some sort of information about it? [18]

Now this and the answer supplied are not articles from another source. They are, however, parts of the Circlist webpage that Dr Jesin copied and published - together with an acknowledgement. Therefore it is totally accurate to describe the Jesin webpage as a reproduction of the Circlist webpage. (For comparison, the same thing can be found on the Circlist webpage here [19].

Thirdly, as the article is about circumcision advocacy it is entirely appropriate to give details about circumcision advocates. There is no problem in giving details about others, so why not Dr Jesin?

Finally, perhaps Jake could explain why the fact that Jesin reproduces a Circlist webpage is sensitive to him when it is not sensitive to Dr Jesin?

Michael Glass 04:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, let's not waste time debating something which we both agree on. The page is sourced from Circlist. We both agree. Let's call that final and focus on what we do not (yet) agree. Deal?

Secondly, it is undeniably true that it does reproduce some articles. Your objection seems to be that it also reproduces some original content. Yet the original content from Circlist that you highlight also meets the definition of 'article'. If this really troubles you, we can rephrase the text to find a better word ('content', 'text', or 'documents', perhaps).

Thirdly, I have no problem as such with giving details about any advocates, including Dr Jesin. Nor is it 'sensitive' to me.

Let me try to explain my position clearly:

• There is a difference between advocacy and advocates. This article is the logical opposite of genital integrity, but compare the content. Nowhere in that article can you find "Maggie L Ranthorp hands out leaflets in the shopping centre in Nowhere, Ohio," which would be a similar level of detail to what we're describing.
• The fact that Jesin reproduces articles (from anywhere) is fairly obscure, as I've noted in the previous point. I don't strongly object to it, but it's really at the far limit of acceptable tangents.
• Returning to our friend Ms Ranthorp, we now report that she acknowledges that another author put the content of the leaflet together (some of it in turn reproduced from elsewhere).
• And that particular someone ('Bob') is a name which will mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of readers, thus adding nothing but bulk to the article.
• To put all this in context, it is extremely rare to report on a source, let alone an intermediate one, for reproduction of articles. To my knowledge, nowhere else in Wikipedia do we do so. Jakew 13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I'm glad we agree that the Jesin webpage is a copy of the Circlist webpage. However, you haven't addressed this point:

As the Jesin webpage is utterly dependant on the accuracy of the Circlist webpage the article is more accurate with the added words.

We are in the same position as someone who quotes the Bible. If a passage is quoted it is customary to acknowledge the translation. In this instance, Dr Jesin has reproduced a webpage and it is quite in order to mention the source.

But let's take your example of Maggie Ranthorp and her leaflets. If it was significant to mention that Maggie was handing out leaflets, the time and place of her activities could be important, and so could the content of those leaflets. Say Maggie was handing out copies of the Quaker Peace Testimony at the nuclear facility in Nowhere, Ohio, those extra details would be significant. Similarly, if she was handing out excerpts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Nowhere, Ohio, those extra details would also be significant. The details would remain significant even if some readers hadn't heard of the Protocols or the Quaker Peace Testimony.

It's the same with Dr Jesin. You say Circlist means nothing to the vast majority of readers. If that is so, then it doesn't matter if that particular detail is included, except for four extra words. By this argument you are fighting with all your might for the excision of four words.

Why are you fighting so hard to exclude these four words?

What concerns you about the information that these four words contain?

As the one who is fighting tooth and nail to conceal information, I believe the burden of proof falls on you to show why Wikipedia should follow your wording when you have freely admitted that the wording you object to is:

true

accurate

on the public record

does not trouble Dr Jesin

I have also demonstrated that the wording you are fighting for is

less accurate

suppresses information that even you admit might be of interest to some readers

So why are you fighting so hard for a wording that is less accurate? Surely Wiki readers are entitled to something better than that. Michael Glass 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No Michael, we are not in the same position as someone quoting the Bible. This is a point which you seem to miss. We're not citing it as a source, nor are we stating or even implying that it is true. We're just stating that he reproduces this text!

Your Maggie example is interesting, but omits one vital point: why is it significant to note? You implicitly assume that it is. My example was intended to show that it isn't.

Actually, the more I think of it, the more I'm concerned that much of this article, including the contested sentence, is original research and probably does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The fact that we can find and enumerate examples but not sources is a clue. I'm going to get some input from others on this. Jakew 15:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

My comments about you two battling over this is that if medical advice comes from CircList.Com, we should indicate so because CircList.Com is not a medical site, and unlike Cirp.Org does not republish peerreviewed medical articles. It is important for the readers to know the source of information — especially medical information.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, Circlist does republish peer-reviewed medical articles, Walabio. On that page, you will find "Syndactyly repair performed simultaneously with circumcision: Use of foreskin as a skin-graft donor site. J Pediatr Surg 1997 Oct;32(10):1482-1484 Oates SD, Gosain AK" and "Prophylactic neonatal surgery and infectious diseases. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997 Aug;16(8):727-734 Weiss GN" Similarly, you'll find articles on this page. Of course, much of Circlist's content is not from peer-reviewed journals, but that can be said of CIRP, too. Jakew 12:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, in your version the article states that Dr Jesin reproduces articles etc. In my version the article states that Dr Jesin reproduces a Circlist webpage containing articles etc. The difference is minimal, except that my version mentions the source of Dr Jesin's webpage.

You say that this information is trivial, but your actions belie this, because you are fighting tooth and nail to exclude that very information. You said that Circlist wasn't as bad as I had painted it, but your actions belie that too, because you are struggling so hard to obscure the link. Before that you accused me of having a vendetta against Circlist, but all I seek to do is to point out that Dr Jesin copied one webpage out of Circlist, so how could that be a vendetta?

If the matter is trivial and if Circlist isn't so bad, what is your problem? Please explain. Michael Glass 11:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Circlist, Michael.

If I have a bee, you must have a hornet because there were 73 hits for your name to 22 for mine. In one you said "as a member of circlist..." so it would appear that you not only have a hornet in your hat but a Circlist membership in your pocket!

The difference being, of course, that I'm not pushing for discussion of it in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I'm stubborn. I admit it. Even though it is a trivial change, I don't see why the article should become trivially worse.

How does the addition of four words make the article worse when those four words are a true and accurate description of Dr Jesin's webpage, wherreas the passage without those words gives a false impression, especially about the material on the webpage that originated with Circlist?

It makes the article worse because it's irrelevant detail, and without the words it is not a false impression. It is absolutely, categorically true that he reproduces articles. This is true regardless of whether he was personally handed photocopies by the Queen Mother, or whether he stole them from the offices of a pharmaceutical giant!

Now perhaps you could address my actual points, rather than querying my motives? Jakew 12:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, Jake, I asked you to account for your actions, not your motives. Apart from your stubbornness, the points you made about why the passage should be cut seem to be:

• You think the information is trivial.
• You think the passage is better without the four extra words.

My points are these:

• I believe the four extra words are a fair, accurate and non-judgmental description of Dr Jesin's webpage whereas the passage is misleading without them.
• I believe that the information is significant, because one doesn't expect a member of the medical profession to reproduce a webpage from Circlist.
• As Dr Jesin is quite open about his use of Circlist material, what possible objection can there be against mentioning it?

If I have not answered any of your points, please let me know.Michael Glass 11:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me address your points.

• I do not understand why you believe that the passage is misleading without the four words.
• I wonder whether your expectation (or lack thereof) is common to many people, or whether this is a result of your personal bias.
• The fact that he is open does not mean that we are obliged to do the same. Jakew 13:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake.

Point 1

• Dr Jesin's webpage is a word-for-word copy of the Circlist webpage. Omitting those four words conceals this fact.
• The webpage contains original material. Omitting those words conceals this fact.
• It is therefore more accurate to say that Jesin reproduces a Circlist webpage containing articles than to say that he reproduces articles.

Point 2

• As you know from your discussion at Father Magazine [20] and also on the talk pages at Wikipedia, many people take issue with the sexually oriented material in Circlist.
• It is therefore noteworthy that Dr Jesin chooses to reproduce material from such a contentious source.

Point 3

• True, but we are certainly not obliged to conceal this fact. If Dr Jesin is comfortable with eing linked with Circlist, why should we not note this fact?

I hope that I have now answered every one of your objections. Michael Glass 21:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, point 1:

• The word 'reproduces' implies word-for-word copying.
• As I have commented, the word 'article' covers this material. However, as I have indicated previously, I would be happy to substitute the word 'text'. This would answer this point, I believe.

Point 2:

• I am aware that anti-circumcision activists vilify circlist, yes. I have never known anyone who is not an anti-circumcision activist to object to it.

Jakew 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Point 1: I thought you had already conceded that the Jesin webpage is a word-for-word copy of the Circlist webpage. I used that word because that is what it is! There is only one slight variation, and that is because Circlist changed the webpage after Jesin had copied it. If the word reproduces does not describe Jesin's word for word copy, perhaps you could come up with a better word to describe the situation.

Point 2: If Circlist is not contentious there is no harm in mentioning that Dr Jesin reproduced a Circlist webpage,

Do you have any other concerns about mentioning Circlist as the source of the webpage on medical benefits that Dr jesin has published on his own website? Michael Glass 08:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Point 1: I think you must misunderstand me. I said "The word 'reproduces' implies word-for-word copying." And I also agreed that it is a word-for-word copy. Therefore, I think that the description is accurate, and I disagree with your statement that: "Dr Jesin's webpage is a word-for-word copy of the Circlist webpage. Omitting those four words conceals this fact."

Point 2: You incorrectly assume that this is the only harm. This overlooks objections that I have already raised. Jakew 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, what harm? We both agree that the four extra words are true, that the Jesin webpage is a word for word copy of the Circlist webpage, and that describing this as reproducing the Circlist webpage is also accurate. In other words, we agree on the facts.

Where we disagree is on matters of opinion. In your second point you make a new claim, that the four words are harmful. I have gone over your assertions and have noted claims that the four extra words are irrelevant, that they are off the topic, that the Circlist webpage is a secondary or indirect source and not a primary source, and that we're not citing it as a source.

Bunkum! The Circlist webpage contains original material which Jesin copies along with the rest of the material. Obviously, then, the Circlist webpage is the primary source for this material. As for the other material, we and Dr Jesin are totally dependant on Circlist for the accuracy of the transcriptions. You have never replied to this or disputed this, so let's agree that this is also true.

This leaves three assertions. The first one is that the four extra words, though true, are irrelevant. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. If one person believes that the four extra words are true but irrelevant and four editors assert that those same words are both true and relevant, then the words should stay. All five editors accept that those four words are true and four of the five assert that they are relevant, so the words should stand.

The second is your assertion that the four extra words are off-topic because they are about a circumcision advocate instead of being about circumcision advocacy. This is simply not so. The four extra words establish the direct source of part of the webpage and the indirect source of the rest of it. Because of this, the four words are directly in line with the Wikipedia policy to cite your sources. Therefore your assertion is inaccurate and therefore is beside the point.

The third assertion is your new claim that the four extra words are harmful. As you did not use this description before and you offer no evidence of the supposed harm that will come from those four extra words, it carries no weight unless you can back up this assertion with any credible evidence.

Your first point (above) is quite confusing. It appears that you agree that the Jesin webpage is a word-for-word copy of the Circlist webpage, but you do not agree that omitting those four words conceals that fact. Let me show you how it does. Here is my version:

In Ontario, Canada, Dr Aaron Jesin, a General Practitioner, runs a circumcision clinic. His website reproduces a Circlist webpage containing articles from before the year 2000 on the medical benefits claimed for circumcision [21].

Anyone who reads the article can find that Dr Jesin reproduced a Circlist webpage on the medical benefits claimed for circumcision. However, let us look at your version:

In Ontario, Canada, Dr Aaron Jesin, a General Practitioner, runs a circumcision clinic. His website reproduces articles from before the year 2000 on the medical benefits claimed for circumcision [22].

The reader has no information where the articles came from unless he or she follows the link. Even those who check the link would have to read well into the article to find the first reference to Circlist. To find the Circlist logo and the Circlist copyright they have to go right at the end of the webpage. So the Circlist connection is concealed from most readers. Even a most careful reader would have to go looking to find the link, and even then they would not know that Dr Jesin's webpage is a direct copy of a Circlist webpage.

Therefore I stand by my statement that your edit conceals information. Michael Glass 13:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, this is not a source. Nowhere on Dr Jesin's site does he say that he advocates circumcision. I have just performed two searches of his site. The only mention of advocates is that of anti-circumcision advocacy. [23] [24] Rather than a source, this is an interpretation (and frankly, a poor one).

Now please read this:

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". WP:NOR

Jakew 12:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, there is nothing here that addresses any of the points I made above. It appears that having failed to rebut any of my points you have started on a new tack. Now you say that Dr Jesin is not an advocate of circumcision. The reason for this assertion is that a Google search fails to turn up the word 'advocate'.

In the Alberta Report, November 1997, Dr Jesin is quoted as speaking in favour of circumcision on religious and medical grounds [25]. It's the same in the Toronto Sun, 10 July 1998 [26]. Dr jesin also defended the practice of circumcision in the Medical Post in 2001 [27]. And so on and so forth. Of course he advocates circumcision, just as you do. Michael Glass 13:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

We've each been over these points many times, and we're just going around in circles, Michael.

I looked over the links you gave. Nowhere could I find mention of advocacy. Nowhere did he even say "I recommend circumcision" or "I encourage parents to circumcise". This is your interpretation, which is explicitly identified as original research. Jakew 13:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, he advertises his services to all and sundry. He speaks up in favour of circumcision on numerous occasions. Of course he's an advocate for circumcision. Your comment makes about as much sense as seeing an ad for Coca Cola and stating that it doesn't advertise Coke because the word 'advertisement' can't be seen.

And you still haven't responded to my other points.

As this dialogue is getting nowhere I think it's about time we considered mediation. Michael Glass 14:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Curious definition of advocacy, Michael. To my mind, it means recommending or encouraging an action. Jesin notes some advantages (like the AAP), and states that parents should decide based on medical and other factors (like the AAP). Are the AAP advocates too? Never mind.

Since several people have given their assessment of this article, and have agreed that it is original research, and since nobody has bothered to respond to my request for suggestions to salvage the article (if indeed that's possible), I intend to nominate it for deletion shortly. I would therefore suggest putting this discussion on hold, since if the article is deleted it is somewhat pointless. Is that alright with you? Jakew 21:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I see it is useless to discuss the question of citing sources feirly and honestly. The debate has passed by that digression and has lighted on original research. Is it all right? No it's not. It's a cop-out, but it's pointless to continue arguing that a direct quote should be attributed to its source. If that point was going to register, it would have registered by now. Michael Glass 08:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, if the article is indeed original research, (and it appears obvious to me that it is), then any issues about source citing become secondary. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I've been asked to look at whether this article consists of original research. The first question that springs to mind is who defines "Circumcision advocacy" this way. My (admittedly brief) search of the internet indicated to me that it there is no organized "circumcision advocacy" group or groups, but rather anti-circumcision advocates use this phrase to label those who disagree with them; if I'm correct, it might well make more sense to simply note the invention and use of the term by anti-circumcision advocates in the in the article about them. Second, who has defined the people or listed here as "circumcision advocates" or promoting "circumcision advocacy". If it is only the author of this article, then it is original research. If various anti-circumcision groups have defined them this way, then the attributions must be stated explicitly. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, I don't want to defend every word of the present article, but I don't think the words imply an organised movement to advocate circumcision. The beginning of the article says:

Circumcision advocacy is social and political activity to promote circumcision and ensure access and funding for this procedure, which is usually performed on a male baby or child. Advocates of circumcision are sometimes termed "circumcisionists".

While perhaps the wording could be polished, it does talk about social and political activity. If it had used the word movement the opening paragraph could imply an organised movement but it doesn't. It merely talks about social and political activity. Michael Glass 11:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, I don't think Jayjg meant to suggest otherwise. Rather, I think he meant to say that since the term is an invention of anti-circers, it might be better as a side-note in the genital integrity article.

Also, it is doubtful that Wikipedia should be the first to comment on 'activity'. Suppose it were in another field. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that we had just observed radioactivity in an isotope of lead formerly thought to be non-radioactive. Clearly, reporting this in Wikipedia first would be a violation of no original research. I'm sure you'd agree on this. My question, then, is why things should be any different just because the activity is social and/or political rather than in an atomic nucleus? Jakew 13:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jakew has stated my intent more clearly than I did. The main issue with this article seems to be that it is either original research, or a minor sub-topic of genital integrity, or both. For example, let's say I decided to write an article on Anti-broccoli activism, which I defined as "social and political activity to denigrate broccoli", and went on to link to various anti-broccoli websites (e.g. http://www.ihatebroccoli.typepad.com/) and listed prominent "anti-broccoli activists" like prominent food writer Jeffrey Steingarten, who regards steamed broccoli as "the root of all evil", and George Bush senior, who banned broccoli from the White House. That would naturally be considered "original research" - I have defined a social activity in a novel way, and then brought examples of websites or individuals who I felt matched that activity. Similarly, it appears that either you, or perhaps a small number of, frankly, not particularly notable anti-circumcision websites, have invented an activity called "Circumcision advocacy" carried out by "Circumcisionists", which turns out to be exemplified by an even smaller number of websites and individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to take this moment to recognise what is, I believe, the most novel use of broccoli in the history of mankind. Jakew 19:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you've got a source for that claim, Jake. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, no. And sadly that well-known journal, Broccoli Reports declined to publish it. So sadly it seems that readers of broccoli will never know. Jakew 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So I guess an important question is this: can the article be rescued? Can we find anything meaningful to say about circumcision advocacy beyond "circumcision advocacy is a term used by genital integrity activists to describe their opponents"? Has anyone outside of Wikipedia identified a list of advocates? If not, does anybody identify himself (or herself) as such? In short, should this article be listed for deletion, or can anything that is not original research be written? Jakew 20:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the term circumcisionists could be dropped but I can't see the problem with discussing circumcision advocacy. Some people advocate circumcision. It seems fair enough to write about this phenomenon and the people involved. The fact that people who are against circumcision use this term does not make it off limits. Michael Glass 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, have you read WP:NOR? Yes or no.

If yes, please would you give your take on the broccoli situation. Jakew 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have read this policy. I have also read this part:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia [28]

As for the broccoli thing, it's a joke, just like Popeye and his spinach! Michael Glass 08:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please could you list some sources, then, stating that circumcision advocacy occurs and identifying circumcision advocates? Jakew 11:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are two sources. One is published by the University of Chicago Press and the other is published by Oxford University Press. -- DanBlackham 13:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Robert Darby. A surgical temptation: The demonization of the foreskin and the rise of circumcision in Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. (ISBN 0-226-13645-0)
• Leonard B. Glick. Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. (ISBN 0-19-517674-X)

Please could you quote the relevant sections? Jakew 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that (regardless of what is quoted from Darby and Glick), neither of those sources is currently quoted in the article. So, frankly, this looks like an ex post facto justification to find some source that supports the contention in this very original researchy article. Nandesuka 15:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I can follow your point about Darby and Glick, but I can't see what makes this article "very original researchy". The sources of much, if not most, of the content of the article are noted. Or is "original research" the new weapon of choice that some editors are using to label, condemn and remove content that doesn't fit their world view? Michael Glass 21:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Both Jayjg (broccoli) and I (radioactivity) explained by analogy why this is original research. Unfortunately, you dismissed the former as a 'joke' and have yet to respond to the latter. Jakew 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My dictionary defines advocacy as the act of pleading for or supporting; an advocating (of something). Some people actively support circumcision. They can therefore be described as advocates of circumcision and their activities in support of circumcision can be described as circumcision advocacy. The word may have begun as a legal term, but its meaning has broadened. So please stop playing games. Michael Glass 21:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

By that nearly useless definition, there are advocates for and against broccoli, too. That does not make the topic notable or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unless there is some explanation forthcoming about why this topic is worthy of its own article, it is a prime candidate for deletion. Nandesuka 01:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comment. Shall we call it, "Shoot the dictionary"? Of course the definition is useless - for the purpose of condemning the article. so now it seems the move is to kill the article.

This started as a dispute between Jake and me about whether Dr Jesin's use of a Circlist webpage should be mentioned in the text. I argued that it should; Jake Waskett, a member of Circlist, was determined to suppress this fact. The page was protected and we kept on arguing the issues. When it became obvious to Jake that he was not prevailing with his arguments, he turned on the article as a whole, accusing it of containing original research. When he failed to prevail with this argument he switched to questioning the term advocacy. Now that this argument has fallen over, the call is for the article to be deleted.

Has it struck anyone that there is something odd about a member of Circlist fighting to prevent any mention of Circlist in Wikipedia? If so, I would suggest that people have a look at Circlist. I would suggest that there is more going on here than meets the eye.Michael Glass 06:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:FAITH, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.

Also, consider this. Suppose someone tries to remove a 'list of Jews who enjoy power and influence' (which, like the original dispute, is technically correct but unnecessarily specific, unencyclopaedic, and carries an implicit message that this is somehow wrong). Suppose that this editor happens to be Jewish. Now suppose the original author of the list complains that this is further evidence of the Jewish Conspiracy. Am I alone in thinking this behaviour is inappropriate? Jakew 12:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But isn't there also something inappropriate about a member of an organisation trying to suppress any information about that organisation? Isn't there also something inappropriate about a completely gratuitous reference to the Jewish Conspiracy? I find that comment personally offensive.

This began as a dispute about four words. These four words would identify a source of information. The article began on 5 January this year. No-one suggested that it was unencyclopedic until I pressed for this source of information to be included. How does a mere reference carry an implicit message that there is something wrong about Dr Jesin using Circlist material? Please elaborate.Michael Glass 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, regardless of the history, you still haven't adequately addressed the main challenge here, that of WP:NOR. WP:NOR begins by defining original research as untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". This article is premised on the notion that there is some sort of social movement, perhaps organized, that can be defined as "circumcision advocacy". In what reputable sources is "Circumcision advocacy" defined and discussed? Futhermore, who has identified the examples used in this article as exemplars of "Circumcision advocacy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a response typed out, but Jayjg has put things far better than I. I apologise to Michael for any offence caused; ironically, my intent was to try to explain why I felt offended by Michael's comment. I don't mind discussing the history of this article in a separate section, but as Jay rightly says, the relevant issue at present is of WP:NOR, and I think we should avoid getting off-topic. Jakew 21:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, that my comments came over in the way they did.

So let's for the moment disregard the history of suppressing four words that accurately said where a particular webpage came from. Let's not get off-topic by discussing anything to do with accurate attribution. Let's stick to original research. And let's stick to the article.

Definition

Regardless of what was intended, the definition has suggested to some people that this could be interpreted as an organised movement. It needs to be recast.

History

Nothing original here. The paragraph on Philo is sourced, and so is the material attributed to Ephron. However, one sentence could be taken to implying that circumcision advocacy began in the 19th Century. This must be changed, as Philo was doing it 1800 years before!

Another, more serious, problem is that the history is too truncated to give a fair picture of the complex social changes in Germany that changed Jewish reformers from questinging circumcision to Jewish doctors later in the century defending circumcision along with other Jewish customs against a background of rising anti-Semitism. No, this is not original research. Much of it is reflected in Ephron. However, a lot more can be found in such sources as Esau's Tears; Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, by Albert S. Lindemann, Cambridge University Press, 1997, ISBN 0 521 59369 7.

Prominent circumcision advocates in the United States

The problem here isn't originality, but a lack of a complete overview. It wasn't only Jewish doctors that were pushing circumcision. The first paragraph keeps harping on the Jewishness of the doctors pushing circumcision. I, for one, find this offensive, not so much for what it says but for the way it says it. It would be far better to point out that doctors and lay people, regardless of religious background began pushing for circumcision for a whole host of reasons. For instance, in Britain, Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, a prominent Quaker physician, was also pushing for circumcision.

The paragraph on the advantages of masturbation would seem to be irrelevant, but if it helped to dispel any anti-masturbation fears, that's no great problem.

Prevalence of Advocacy Efforts This section here is referenced quite tightly. I don't think there is room here for an original thought but Dr jesin's webpage needs to be properly sourced.

Advocacy in US Hospitals "Advocacy" hardly seems to be the right word here, if the doctors just took it as routine to circumcise a child without even seeking permission from the family. Because it is so controversial, this section needs to be more tightly referenced.

I could go through the rest of the article and say much the same kind of thing about the remaining sections. However, this would be overkill. My feeling about the article is that it does need more work. The dictonary definition, which one commentator found useless, came down in favour of a broad definition of advocacy. However, as the term has stirred up a lot of heat and very little light, perhaps we need to look for a word without all the baggage of advocacy.

Finally, the verb advocating isn't a preserve of the anti-circumcision crowd. It is also used by "Advocating Circumcision Today" a Jewish group [29] Michael Glass 09:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, there is an important question which you haven't answered. With the exception of Advocating Circumcision Today, who identify themselves as advocates, who has identified these persons and behaviours as circumcision advocacy? For example, who identified Philo and Ephron as circumcision advocates and in what publication? Who identified Hutchinson as a circumcision advocate? Who has defined and described circumcision advocacy, and in what publication? Jakew 13:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That is the $64,000 question. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary defines advocacy this way:

an act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending, active espousal.

The same dictionary defines advocatethis way:

1 to plead in favour of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: he advocated isolationism. 2 one who defends, vindicates or espouses a cause by argument, an upholder; a defender (fol. by of) an advocate of peace.

So anyone who did these things could fairly be described as an advocate. Michael Glass 12:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so when you finally get around to answering the question posed, and tell us who has identified these persons and actions as circumcision advocacy, we'll evaluate their use of language accordingly. Jakew 12:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of setting me tasks, I suggest you take the dictionary definition of the word advocate and show how it applies or does not apply to A Treatise on Circumcision by Philo Judaeus. I would say that he clearly advocates/upholds/defends/argues for and vindicates circumcision. Do you see the situation any differently? Michael Glass 12:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about my opinion. Nor is it about your opinion. It is supposed to summarise existing knowledge published elsewhere in reliable sources. This is why the question is so important, and why your avoidance of it is so frustrating. Jakew 12:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So now the game is to expect me to answer your questions but refuse to answer my question. I ask whether Philo Judaeus advocates circumcision and you refuse to give an answer on the grounds that someone in authority must say this first. By this line of arguing, no-one advocates anything unless someone in authority says he does. By this way of thinking you and I don't exist unless someone in authority has said we're alive.

Isn't this just a tower of nonsense constructed on the notion that describing someone as an advocate of anything is original research. I have blown out of the water the quite false idea that circumcision advocacy is a preserve of people who are anti-circumcision, but you still persist.

If you still have a problem with advocacy, perhaps we could change the word to something else. How about we call the article Promotors and Defenders of Circumcision? If this does not get round the problem you have, then I challenge you to come up with a suitable word or phrase that would accurately and non-judgmentally describe those who advocate/uphold/defend/argue for or vindicate circumcision. Michael Glass 12:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, you can use any word or phrase you like, providing that this has been used previously in an encyclopaedic source. The point is that it must not be our interpretation of these activities, since that would be an example of: "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"". If anyone has identified Philo Judaeus as a 'circumcision advocate' or a 'promoter and defender of circumcision', then let's cite them. If not, it's a novel historical interpretation, and as such, original research.

Furthermore, I'm not claiming that no-one advocates circumcision. I'm just saying that Wikipedia is not the place to write about this if nobody has done so previously. Jakew 13:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, you have twisted the rules of Wikipedia to create a straitjacket, something that thwarts knowledge rather than promotes it. You know as well as I do that Philo Judaeus defends circumcision. We do not need the imprimatur of a learned journal to say something so obvious. Why then do you try to hinder this fact from being mentioned?

Michael Glass 13:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Michael, I have asked two people whom I respect, and who evidently the community respects, to assess whether the article is original research and both have agreed that it is. Jakew 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither you nor either of your hand picked supporters have given any evidence to back up the claim that this article is original research. All you have done is to parrot the phrase like a Dalek chanting Terminate! Terminate! I think you need to do a bit better than that to establish your case. If you look above you will see that I have made a detailed critique of the article and how I think it could be improved. All you have done is to criticise, criticise, criticise. When you raise one straw man and it falls over you find another.

• When I wanted to reference one part of the article properly you objected on the grounds of triviality.
• When I persisted you attacked the whole article as original research.
• When I pressed you on this I get a false definition of advocate and advocacy
• When I blew that out of the water, one of your supporters wanted to shoot the dictionary!
• When I challenged you to pick a more neutral term to talk about support for circumcision you still return to the mantra of original research, using it as a way to stifle knowledge.
• Finally, when I ridiculed this nonsense, you took refuge in numbers.

This account is a bit like the story of the wolf and the lamb. This has nothing to do with logic and reason. It appears you are determined to can the article and will use any argument at hand to achieve this end, regardless of logic and consistency.

Jake, you are not a disinterested observer. You are a pro-circumcision activist who is a member of Circlist. First of all, you did not want Dr Jesin linked to Circlist, even though you admitted that the information was true and accurate. Then, when I persisted on a proper attribution you widened your attack to the whole article, labelling it original research. The whole thing is ideologically driven.

I think if you would step back a moment you would see that this ideological drive to kill the article is misplaced. A properly researched article on this topic would be an asset to Wikipedia, and though it would highlight some common threads in those who argue for circumcision I do not believe that this would do your cause any harm.

What I propose is that we both have a moratorium on comments for a week. At the end of that time we both might see things a little more clearly. Michael Glass 06:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, this page was protected so that we could discuss the problem. I do not think that it would be fair to other Wikipedians to leave it protected while we stay silent for a week.

Three people have tried to explain this to you. You've ignored points, dismissed analogies as 'jokes', and avoided questions. Now you utterly fail to assume good faith on my part and try to paint this as a devious plot to censor information. This is not helpful. Please don't try to pretend that I'm the problem. Jakew 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I don't question your right to your points of view and I respect your right to promulgate it. However, there is a conflict of interest in attempting to suppress information about Circlist when you are an active member of that organisation. I have asked you repeatedly why you are trying to suppress the information that shows where Dr Jesin got his webpage and all you will say is that it is trivial or off topic, when all I am asking for is a simple and honest attribution. I keep on asking you why you are doing this to no avail. I haven't accused you of plotting; you have read that into my words. However, I have pointed out the conflict of interest inherent in your stance.

If you don't want to appear to be hiding something, I suggest that you agree to a proper attribution of information. Michael Glass 12:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, you've written a letter (possibly more) to a journal in which you've written about Circlist and how dreadful you think it is. According to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Genital_Integrity, you've infiltrated it. Neither of us are disinterested observers. Let's not pretend otherwise. Furthermore, that reference is but a tiny part of a much larger, and more important issue: original research. Jakew 13:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I can assure you I have never infiltrated Circlist and have no intention to. When I speak about Circlist it is about what is published openly. Michael Glass 20:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael, original research is original research; you can't get around that by quoting dictionary definitions and hand-waving. It doesn't matter how we got to this point, it's still a novel thesis that such a social movement exists, and that the people listed in this article belong to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, chanting original research doesn't make something original research. Nowhere in the article is there any word or expression that states or implies that there is a social movement that people belong to. The article talks about social and political activity. I don't understand why you read movement when the article clearly says activity. However, if the present wording does suggest to you something more than political activity, come up with a better wording that won't carry this implication. Michael Glass 12:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Substitute 'activity' for 'movement' and Jayjg's point is just as valid, Michael. Jakew 13:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course - that response was just a way of avoiding the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now Jayig, there is a significant difference between talking about political activity and an actual political movement. Social and political activity in defence of circumcision has been going on since the time of the Maccabees. Therefore it is reasonable to discuss it. So what is your point? Michael Glass 20:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't follow, Michael. You can't justify writing an article about some phenomenon on the basis that it exists because you say it does. Wikipedia is not for creating knowledge. It is for redistributing knowledge. That is the point of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE. Jakew 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that there has been no social and political activity in defence of circumcision in the last 2,000 years? Michael Glass 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody sent for me, this article is on my watchlist, and my question is: in which particular instances was the term Circumcision advocacy been employed by scholarly sources, a few of these would be quite helpful, necessary in fact, in order to verify the usage in this article does not amount to original research. Thanks in advance. El_C 12:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The following from WP:V seems so appropriate I'd like to quote it in full: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources." Jakew 13:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fox and Thomson use the term "evangelism" in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

"In conclusion, we suggest than two elements characterise the history of non-therapeutic male circumcision: evangelism and the diversity of justifications that evangelical champions of circumcision have mobilised. Although justifications have shifted, they have generally relied on an enduring association between the uncircumcised penis and disease and pollution."

Fox M, Thomson M. A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors. J Med Ethics. 2005 Aug;31(8):463-9. -- DanBlackham 15:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least that's a start. Do they define what they mean by circumcision evangelism or identify any evangelists? Jakew 16:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be hard to base an article on one reference from a medical journal, and you'd have to change the name of the article as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

This article has been protected for a ludicrously long period--nineteen days. I trust that frayed tempers have been mended and editors have recovered their composure after nearly three weeks. Unprotecting. Play nice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verifying

As circumcision is such a contentious subject it would be good to have every statement in this article referenced. Removing a link to "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" on the grounds that it is propaganda but leaving the information is problematic. I think we need to discuss this. Michael Glass 21:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But nothing about "Circumcision advocacy" is properly referenced here; it's all original research. You still haven't provided any links to sources discussing the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that your approach uses "original research" as a way to stifle source-based research. The words 'circumcision advocacy' are plain English. The article notes where the phrase is used and points to instances of its use in scholarly journals. Please read ijtihad as an example of what can happen when people try to stifle knowledge. Michael Glass 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in those two instances the term was merely used in passing and was not defined. The article defines and uses the term retrospectively, and the definition and use of the term is completely original to Wikipedia. The uses of the term tell us nothing about circumcision advocacy, so as a source they are completely useless. Consider this: "Isaac Newton repeatedly told irritating friends that they were 'behaving like little glibblewhips'.[30] A glibblewhip is a small bump found on the surface of a pebble." Did Isaac think of his friends as bumps on pebbles? We have no idea, because he didn't tell us - we're just imposing our own definition and interpretation on his words. Jakew 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the quibbling is just over the name itself. Are you contesting that there are groups which advocate circumcision? That's all "circumcision advocacy" means--groups or prominent (as in a prestigious doctor or well known person in the community) individuals who actively promote circumcision. Just google 'pro-circumcision group' for an idea of internet-based circumcision advocacy groups. Whether or not they use the term "circumcision advocacy" doesn't really matter, the point is whether or not they promote circumicision. There may not be a single unified term for advocates, but that doesn't negate the fact that they exist. You could change the article to Groups_and_individuals_who_actively_promote_circumicision, but this is just easier. There are articles for anti-circumcision groups, so why not pro-circumcision? If you have better name suggestion then suggest it. And no, this isn't "completely original" as a google search reveals people using the term. Nathan J. Yoder 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [Advocating Circumcision Today]

Why are we referencing this site? It appears to be a defunct site from 2003. Half of the links don't work, and it's almost certainly a personal website. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of making some blacklist of the dreaded "Anti-Circs" I am inclined to agree with you. Indigo Jones

I guess I get bundled in with the anti-circs, primarily because I fail to qualify as a pro-circ, and this is a dispute lacking a recognized neutral ground. So, as an honorary "anti", let me tell you that there's no "anti" black list. There is, however, definitely a list kept by the "pro" group. I know because I'm on it, as pubic enemy #3. Alienus 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section titled "Have advocacy efforts affected circumcision practices?"

Currently the section titled "Have advocacy efforts affected circumcision practices?" appears to be pure original research. Have there been any studies written, or authors who have written, about the effects of advocacy on circumcision practices? Or is this section merely advancing a "new analysis or synthesis of published data"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any information on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philo - is defending the same as advocating?

The article refers to Philo's defence of Jewish circumcision. Is Philo's defence of the practice against criticism the same as advocating for the practice? If so, according to whom? In general, who classifies Philo as a "circumcision advocate"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone who identifies Philo as a circumcision advocate? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revert

Recently, Alienus reverted some improvements made to the article by Jayjg. In doing so, he:

• Reintroduced discussion of Advocating Circumcision Today, which as noted above, appears to be a poorly-designed personal website that is no longer maintained.
• Reintroduced pure original research ("Circumcision advocates may undertake...") about what advocates may or may not do.
• Reintroduced off-topic discussion of the merits of masturbation, which distracts from the subject.
• Reintroduced off-topic discussion of the history of circumcision, which distracts from the subject.
• Removed wikilink to Medicaid.

Hence, I'm reverting. Jakew 19:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my suggestion by coming here to Talk instead of just reverting without explanation. I have indeed reverted some changes by Jayjg. However, these changes were not actually improvements. Briefly:

• act-now.org is brought up as an example of how "circumcision advocacy" is a term used by some advocates, whereas Jay's version makes it sound otherwise. Regardless of the subjective quality of the web site, suppressing any mention of it would be POV, hence unacceptable. WP:NPOV is not negotiable.
• The definition of circumcision advocacy is accurate and not OR. If you have some sort of specific complaints, I suggest altering the text instead of removing it.
• The article already mentions masturbation, you would like to omit the relevant and cited fact that masturbation is harmless and NOT prevented by circumcision. Omiting this would be POV and WP:NPOV is not negotiable.
• Actually, what's reintroduced is the history with regard to advocacy, which is entirely relevant.

In short, these deletions all serve to harm the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article. Therefore, I will be forced to continue restoring the text if you attempt to remove it without an acceptable explanation. Your explanations thus far are not acceptable. Thank you for understanding. Al 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• A site that is used as a source must conform to WP:RS, thus act-now cannot be included. This is not POV. If you dislike the change of wording, explain what is wrong with it.
• If the definition of circumcision advocacy is accurate and not OR, then it should be easy (or at least possible) to find sources confirming it. The fact that none were supplied even though each of the four sentences had been tagged with a {{fact}} request for some time suggests the opposite. It is difficult to alter a paragraph when WP:CITE and WP:NOR require that it is deleted.
• Masturbation is mentioned in passing as one of the arguments of advocates. Discussion of the accuracy of their claims is beyond the scope. It is ridiculous to argue that not saying something is POV.
• There is no indication that this history is remotely relevant to advocacy.

Jakew 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have addressed my concerns, so my stance remains unchanged. Al 20:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alienus, why don't you actually find some sources for the unsourced original research I've removed. Oh, and can you find someone who lists Philo as a circumcision advocate while you're at it? It's the Talk: section just above. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A research paper in The Journal of Medical Ethics [31] uses the term "circumcision advocasy" to refer to pro circumcision groups. As it is looking in general at medical procedures such as routine immunisation as well, even though the results could be taken as anti-circumcision they are not as single issue "anti" organisation as they are primarily looking at the wider child rights issue. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 14:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Authors: FM Hodges (well known activist, co-editor of the proceedings of NOCIRC's 5th, 6th, and 7th symposia[32]), JS Svoboda (activist founder of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, described on their website as "An international network of attorneys and supporters now addresses the multi-faceted issue of genital mutilation of children, particularly the practice of male circumcision."), and RS Van Howe (presenter at numerous NOCIRC symposia, as well as a Strategies for Intactivism conference). Jakew 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what point your post is making other than that the authors are anti circumcision. This is a paper published in a reputable journal thus satisfying WP:RS that uses the term "circumcision advocasy" with no special explanatory definitions. From my research paper reading experiences that usually means it is generally understood term by all sides of an issue. Have you objections to it being included to illustrate Al's point and if so why? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought that you were stating that they were not anti-circumcision. You may care to note that the article already cites that article in the introduction. It's entirely possible that the term is generally understood, but the fact remains that we need to cite a source if we're going to define it. Alternatively, we must leave it undefined, as those authors did. What we cannot do is to declare that, in using the term, they meant something that we, the Wikipedia editors, just made up. That's original research. Jakew 15:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right that OR is always a no-no. I'll be honest that in my web searches I can only find the term in context - ie it is used purely to describe a pro stance without any capitalisation - unlike for example Pro-life which is a separate well defined term. Maybe the AfD should be revisted as so far I haven't found anything to justify it as needing an article to explain what it means - it's just two words that describe something in the same way as "chocolate lover" or " tennis enthusiast". I will also admit I'm new to this topic so may be missing something! Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. If you want to nominate it for deletion a second time, I'll certainly support you. Jakew 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it further I think this article should be changed to a redirect to Circumcision#Cultures and religions which explains the reasons why circumcision takes place. What do you think of this? I have left a message on Michael Glass' talk page as he seemed to be the person most in favour of keeping this as a separate article last time. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the article in itself. However, it manages to touch on a raw nerve with some people. I am still in favour of keeping the article, but making sure that it is accurate. If defining the term 'circumcision advocacy' is a problem, then don't define it! The term sounds like Plain English to me.Michael Glass 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The "raw nerve" it seems to touch is the "Wikipedia:No original research" nerve. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The question I'm asking is why this is an article at all as it just seems to be two words of a sentence rather than a separate identifiable group. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing I can see in the term 'circumcision advocacy' that implies that an organised group of people is involved in advocating circumcision. However it is clear that there are people, who for a variety of reasons are advocating circumcision. It seems reasonable to study this phenomenon, just as it is reasonable to study the Gential Integrity movement. Michael Glass 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Circumcision advocates", a term used again and again in this article, and the research done here, implies an organized movement. And while it may seem reasonable to you to study this "phenomenon", that goes beyond the mandate of Wikipedia and into the realm of original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some obvious differences come to mind. Firstly, the G.I. movement invented that term themselves (presumably because anti-circ is too direct and doesn't sound positive). They have defined what they mean by it in numerous places (several different definitions, actually, but at least there are sources) Next, there are identifiable people and organisations associated with this movement - NOCIRC people and symposia, ICGI, NOHARMM, NORM, etc, and this fact is documented. So the principle difference here is that there is actually something to study, without having to make any interpretations or perform any original research. Jakew 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayjg - if it was a movement it would be hyphenated or capitalised as in Pro-life. We don't have a chocolate lover article even though a google search returns 14,000,000 hits [33]. Circumcision advocacy returns 251,000 [34]. I'm not attempting to trivialise the debate but show that this is not worthy of an article. If groups perform circumcision then of course they advocate circumcision otherwise they wouldn't do it. Just to clarify my motives I don't believe in tampering with someones body unless medically necessary - I don't even agree with having your tonsils out unless really necessary. If your body has something it must be there for a reason - even the appendix may have a role in the immune system and it was thought useless for many years. However I do agree with immunisation as it is medically proven to of benefit. My only interest here is article accuracy and neutrality - what have I missed - where is the group calling it's self Circumcision Advocacy or called by that by it's opponents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOPHIA (talk • contribs)

Jake, can you document your claim that "circumcision advocacy" is a term invented by the Genital Integrity movement? If so - and this would need to demonstrated - it seems clear that the term or related are quite widely used. There is, for instance, the use of the term in the Benatar article, which you included on your website. There is also the use of the term in 'Advocating Circumcision today' . Now I am aware that the website seems to have been left unmodified for the last several years. Nevertheless, the fact that the word was used on this website demonstrates that wherever the term started, it has spread to other groups in the community. Michael Glass 13:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I meant that the G.I. movement invented the term 'Genital Integrity'. I apologise for not being more clear.

My point was that there are no shortage of organisations and persons clearly identifying themselves as 'Genital Integrity advocates'(*). However, only one web site is in existence (barely) that identifies as an advocate of circumcision, and that is not notable nor worthy of mention.

• - another interesting difference. One article is about the concept (or arguably, goal) of the persons/organisations, while the other is about the persons/organisations themselves. Is this distinction important, and could it point towards a solution? Jakew 14:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(Thanks to Jakew for signing for me above!) The research I have done so far does not support calling "Circumcision advocacy" a neologism. The example given on that page is Mental illness which a google search returns capitalised hits and many references as titles [35]. The same is not true of "circumcision advocacy [36]. In fact most worryingly it's the wikipedia article that tops the list. I know I'm new to the page and I know how I would feel if someone came along and wanted to delete an article I believed in. All i can say is I have no agenda here and am genuinely interested to see the justification for this as an article. If you have gone through this before then please point me where to read up on it. I have read the last AfD and to be honest it looks like a balance of interest groups which is not the same as NPOV. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 14:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the big problems with Wikipedia; someone decides to do some original research on a topic, and creates an article on that topic. It survives AfD, partly because the wealth of use of primary sources convinces people not familiar with WP:NOR that "there must be something to it, look at all the references", and partly because activists militate for its survival. It is then mirrored all over the internet, so that the net is filled with information about the topic, all coming from the original article. Eventually it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical text commented out

I've commented out the following (bold) text:

Historically, circumcision was argued for on religious or traditional grounds, as in Genesis 17:9-14 or Exodus 12: 43 - 49. In the Book of 1 Maccabees, the zealots went so far as to forcibly circumcise any uncircumcised boy in the land of Israel (Maccabees 2:45-48)

My reasons are as follows:

• Having reviewed the relevant sections of Genesis and Exodus carefully, I can find no arguments for circumcision. God simply ordered it. I suppose we could rephrase, but do we really want to identify God as a circumcision advocate? Except for the O.R. problem, I don't have a problem with doing so personally, but some people might find it offensive.
• Secondly, while I couldn't find Maccabees online (I didn't try terribly hard), and so I can't comment on the details, did any argument for circumcision occur? From the description, it would appear not.
• Thirdly, I have concerns about describing people as 'zealots'. It seems awfully POV. Jakew 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Even worse, it appears to be yet another attempt to use primary sources to do original research. One cannot use the Bible to "prove" the history of "Circumcision Advocacy"; rather, one must quote the views of scholars who have written on the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noted your comments and have changed the text accordingly. The Bible does present circumcision as a command from God to the sons of Abraham. However, as early as the First Century, Philo was defednig circumcision on other grounds. I think it is useful to start off from the religious base and show that circumcision advocacy quite early took on other aspects, such as health or moral questiions. I think we can do that without committing the sin of having an original thought, which, as we all know, is not allowed here. Michael Glass 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I ask again; has anyone referred to any of this as "circumcision advocacy", or the individuals as "circumcision advocates"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And what is the difference between the history of circumcision and the history section of this article? Can someone explain to me how a group who perform circumcisions for what they see a positive reasons are not circumcision advocates? In which case how can this be a separate article from circumcision? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To borrow Jayjg's brilliant analogy, "Can someone explain to me how a group who eat broccoli for what they see as positive reasons are not broccoli advocates?" Jakew 10:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's going to start the Broccolism article???? Then we can POV fork to Broccoli advocacy. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 12:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ROFL! Jakew 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually - silliness aside there is more justification for Vegan advocacy as google shows [37] but the Veganism article covers all the reasons people become vegans - there is no need for a separate article. Unless I hear a convincing argument pretty soon I'm going to refer this to AfD giving all the reasons I have above. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 13:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

When I googled vegan advocacy I got 296,000 hits and I got 216,000 for circumcision advocacy, so what's the point? I think it's quite reasonable to study circumcision advocacy for the following reasons:

Reasons given for circumcision have changed and developed over time.

There have also been recurring themes, such as claims about religion, health and sexual sensitivity.

There is abundant evidence of an emotional involvement in the procedure.

It is also reasonable to be cautious about removing the article in the light of the following:

The article deals with issues in a different way from other Wikipedia articles.

This article is contentious, and one side, but not the other, has pushed to remove it.

The question of circumcision is particularly controversial and hard-fought, with people dividing sharply on ideological grounds. Any one-sided push to remove an article may suit some ideological agenda.

In this article, content debate has been particularly detailed and hard-fought, even over apparently small details. If people find it so important to argue these points, it suggests that this article has more significance, not less.Michael Glass 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see your google list as it is significantly different to mine. Mine threw up capitalised phrases and wikipedia was not the top link. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and should not host articles that are trying to make a POV point that is not supported by the evidence. Instead of telling me why people fight over an article (which I well know) please explain why this article exists and what research supports it? I could deal with a lot of articles in a different way but they would present my POV which quite frankly no one should care about or have to read as it is precisely that - my POV. The valid points you make above such as change over time and recurring themes should be in the main Circumcision article supported by WP:RS sources. I personally would say that leaving this article standing is serving a particular POV and not doing the genuine debate any service. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, SOPHIA, if you look above you'll see that we've been over this with Michael before: Talk:Circumcision_advocacy#Original_research. For some reason he cannot seem to understand that pulling together a bunch of primary sources to create a novel narrative is original research. He seems to get stuck on the "but it's all sourced, and it's all about what I'm talking about". When that fails, he falls back on "people have an agenda for removing this". And Michael, the fact that 3 or 4 Wikipedia editors have argued about whether or not this article constitutes original research does not make it "more significant". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, I'll respond to your points in order:

I use Google from Australia and I put in the phrases without double quotation marks. Here are the links vegan advocacy circumcision advocacy.

I agree that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you feel that any part of the article makes a POV point or makes any point that is not supported by evidence, please point it out. I would be happy to work to remedy any such point or agree to its removal.

The article is to examine circumcision advocacy. The Macquarie Dictionary defines advocacy as an act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending, active espousal. and this is my understanding of the word. The article considers the history of circumcision advocacy from the time of Philo to the present day and deals with other matters such as questions of money, and the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts.

Reasons put forward for circumcision have changed over time while other arguments come up repeatedly. I am glad we agree that this is valid and that at least some of this material could be in the main article. However, when I checked the main article on circumcision, I found it is already 53 kilobytes long [38] so adding more material may not be such a good idea. It is therefore practical to keep discussion of circumcision advocacy in a separate article, as at present, and simply link it to the main article.

I note your concern that the present article is pushing a particular POV. Where is the article doing this? What POV is it pushing? Much of the article says that certain people argued for circumcision and briefly noted their reasons. I don't see anything in the presentation that is openly critical of any person's position. Is this the problem that you see? Whatever problems there are I would be happy to work on them.

If the problem is with the title of the article, then I would be glad to work on devising a better title. Michael Glass 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

JAYIG, I'll respond to your points in order:

Original research policy says research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. The article collects and organises information from existing sources. 'Pulling together a bunch of primary sources' is another way of saying the same thing, and this is what we are encouraged to do.

When we pull such sources together and write them down we get a Novel Narrative. However, the policy doesn't prohibit novel narratives. It can't, because that would stop everyone from writing anything! To be prohibited by the policy you have to do more than collecting and organising information and writing it down. If you are to establish that anything in the article is original research, you have to be able to show that it goes beyond the collecting, organising and writing down the information. This you have not done.

What objection to you have to having the article all sourced? Are you suggesting that this is a fault? Please refer to the policy on verifiability.

What does the article say that offends you? Chanting Original Research doesn't establish your point. What are you on about? What values are you pushing? How does the article threaten your values?

I believe it is significant that the people who use the original research criticism all have strong views in favour of circumcision. That's different from saying that the article is POV or biased. If you had said that the article is biased or POV I could accept that. I don't want biased or POV articles on Wikipedia, either. If you had said that parts of the article are not relevant, I could accept that. However, I can't see that the article is original research as defined in the policy and I can't accept that line of argument as legitimate. With all due respect, you appear to be using the term original research as a means of censoring verified information. Michael Glass 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which of the sources you have listed (including Biblical passages) discuss "circumcision advocacy"? The answer is simple; none. It is you who have decided that these sources are about "circumcision advocacy"; that is your "unpublished theory/argument" and "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." You want to write an article about "circumcision advocacy"? Then use sources which discuss "circumcision advocacy". You can't, of course, because there are no reputable sources that do; it's a term and a theory made up by radical activists, and which you are now using Wikipedia to promote. And please avoid the ad hominem arguments; the article does not "offend" me or "my values", it's just against policy. Moreover, though you keep claiming that I have "strong views in favor of circumcision", it is in fact the case that there are quite a number of admitted anti-circumcision activists who have edited these articles (including you), and they tend to color anyone who opposes their policy violations as "pro-circumcision" and "attempts at censorship". As I have said before, I am not "pro-circumcision", I am "pro-Wikipedia policy". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayig, thank you for explaining that you are value free and only want to promote the good of Wikipedia. You seem to be troubled by admitted anti-circumcision activists . Now that's a value-laden statement, isn't it? Do you still maintain that you are value free? I don't care if you regard me as an activist or not. I believe that in this case the difference between us is about the use of words.

I see circumcision advocate or circumcision advocacy as a simple use of plain English words. Turning these simple English words into a definition doesn't make sense to me. I agree that the words were probably first used by people who are against circumcision but the term circumcision advocate has been used in the Washington Post and in the British Medical Journal so I don't think it is legitimate to treat it as if it was newly coined or that it had any special meaning or resonance beyond the plain meaning of the words. It's not like right to life or right to choose which have taken on a life of their own or like daylight saving which has a specialised meaning. Rather, it's like the term gun control which is used quite widely by people to refer to those who want tighter controls on firearms, and it doesn't matter any more that it might have originated with people who wanted to put more restrictions on guns. In my opinion, circumcision advocate and circumcision advocacy simply refer to those who advocate circumcision. I can't see that there is a problem with the words. In fact, no-one suggested that there was any problem with the term for months and months after the article began.

Because I regard these words as plain English, I can't help but feel that your objections to them are simply a device to stifle discussion. Perhaps I am wrong, however, and you have a different term that you could suggest that could be used to refer to those who defend or plead on behalf of or promote circumcision. I emphasise once more, I am not interested in attacking circumcision advocates in this forum. The article doesn't push an anti-circumcision agenda. It gives plenty of space to the arguments of pro-circumcision advocates, which is what it should do. That's why I can't understand what the fuss is about and I can't understand why you want to can the article. Michael Glass 03:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, I am not "troubled" by "admitted anti-circumcision activists" per se, but rather by their regular and persistent attempts to violate Wikipedia policies on any article even remotely related (and even completely unrelated) to circumcision. This is also why you don't understand why I want to "can the article", because you persist in trying to frame it in pro-circumcision vs. anti-circumcision terms. My issue with the article has nothing to do with the position the article takes (pro, anti, etc.), but rather because it consists entirely of original research. You've been told this by at least four editors, yet you cannot seem to hear what they say, and instead keep insisting on framing it in your "pro vs. anti-circumcision" "trying to censor" paradigm. Until you finally come to understand that this is an issue of Wikipedia policy, not circumcision viewpoint, you will never get it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Legal and economic aspects"

Can someone explain how this section is not yet another section entirely devoted to original research? Does even one of the primary sources listed there mention "circumcision advocacy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if these points are valid they do not belong here but in the main Circumcision article. I'm also waiting for answers from someone to the points raised above.Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the "original Research" tag is a smear. On going through the section it appeared to exceptionally well referenced; there was hardly a clause without a link. The only possible objection to the whole section that I can see is that some parts are not strictly relevant to circumcision advocacy. It is certainly relevant if people are pushing circumcision to make a quick and easy buck, and this section shows that some people are doing just that. I would be happy to change the section so that it is more clearly linked to circumcision advocacy. Michael Glass 00:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree. From the evidence you cite below, it is apparent that some physicians are performing circumcision to make money, but not that they are pushing circumcision in order to do so. Jakew 10:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Profiteering from circumcision if it can be referenced should be in the main circumcision article - not here. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, profiteering from circumcision is fully referenced. Please don't take my word for it. check the links for yourself. If there's a problem with any of the links, please let me know. In the mean time, here are a few gems.

Reference 1:

In addition to cultural values and the desire to fit in, circumcision evokes another consideration—money.

I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it," says Wiswell. "Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time." [39]

Dr. Kenneth Baker, past chairman of obstetrics and pediatrics at Union County Regional Medical Center, a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Medical Director of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, says, "I just spoke to a pediatrician who said he only does it because it's easy money. It's $150 to $175 for less than five minutes' work. It doesn't get any better than that."

Dr. Oliver in Sylva agrees: "The doctors I hear are screaming that they have lost income by this ban."

In fact, recent data indicate that states whose Medicaid programs pay doctors more than $60 per circumcision have almost twice as high a circumcision rate as states that pay under $50. North Carolina pays about $200. (The national average is about $85.) Here, where one out of every two pregnant women (and their babies) is on Medicaid, one quick circumcision per week would increase a physician's income by about $10,000 a year. [40]

Reference 2

Brennan recalled interviewing one patient who claimed he underwent a circumcision after being approached by a recruiter in the men's room.

"The recruiter came in and said, 'Hey, yours looks like a Volkswagen. Do you want a Mercedes that looks like mine? Come on, I'll take you to California,' " Brennan said. "When our medical director examined him, he still had a piece of wire in him that they used to suture him up, and his girlfriend, who was doing the translating, said to me: 'It no work no more.' "

During the trip, the patient also underwent two procedures that he did not need, Brennan said.

Recruiters selected patients who had good health insurance but earned low wages, Brennan said. Their incomes made them more likely to take money for a California weekend of sun and surgery. [41]

Reference 3

Hospital Offers Cut-Rate Surgery to Boost Business

Aug 23, 8:59 am ET

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A private hospital in Hong Kong is offering discount packages and fixed prices for some operations in a bid to attract patients during the territory's crushing economic downturn.

"Currently, private hospitals have only six percent share of the market and private hospitals will need to come up with all sort of ways to fight for market share," the Union Hospital said in a statement obtained on Friday.

Most Hong Kong residents balk at seeking treatment at private hospitals, which are notorious for charging astronomical fees that shoot far beyond original estimates.

Under the new offer, circumcisions will be fixed at a price of HK$9,300 (US$1,192). Previously, they ranged from HK$8,660 to HK$18,050.

The prices include surgery fees, consultation, anaesthetic fees and hospitalization. It did not explain why prices had varied so much previously. []http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters08-23-02/]

There are other references, of course, but these are the main ones. I can't see any assertion in that section that isn't fully referenced. Therefore the label original research is a smear. I don't know who put that label there, but if it isn't gone in 24 hours I'll remove it myself. Michael Glass 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All fascinating, Michael, but the connection with the subject of this article is unclear. Doctors are the ones who perform circumcision, and like the rest of us, they have to earn a living, so it should be no surprise that they charge for it. In a free market, if something is demanded it will likely be supplied. Where is the advocacy? Nobody is identified as advocating circumcision in these links. Nobody even appears to be advocating circumcision in these links. What is the relevance? Jakew 10:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jake, I consider that these excerpts and the links that lie behind them are important. In the case of the first example quoted, doctors were quite open about their financial interest in this procedure. In the second example (lumped with the first - sorry about that) doctors were using their political connections to preserve their incomes. In that case they pushed hard to have the subsidy reinstated. The next example was one of fraud, where scouts lured vulnerable and ignorant people into having unnecessary operations to defraud insurance companies. In the last case, the cut price circumcisions were offered in a bid to attract patients. In all these examples the doctors were promoting circumcisions for monetary rather than medical reasons.

You are, of course, correct in saying that this is how the free market works. You are also correct in saying that the word 'advocacy' wasn't mentioned. Nevertheless, the implication is still clear: there are cases where circumcision is being pushed on members of the public, not for medical need but to enrich the doctors. In one of the examples this touting for business was clearly criminal; in the other cases it could hardly be said to be ethical. All of the examples that I quoted involve offfering circumcision to the public and all but the first one involve some active pushing of the procedure to the public. Therefore I would suggest that this section os relevant to an article on circumcision advocacy.

Secondly, I note that you said nothing to defend the label original research. It is quite indefensible. Whatever other objections may be raised to the content of this section, no-one could fairly argue that it fits the definition of original research. Michael Glass 11:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I understand that you think that these things are important. Nevertheless, you have not made a good case for discussing it in this article. The problem is that there is little evidence of promotion of circumcision. Take the last case, for example. They set a fixed price to attract patients, but is this promotion? Come on, can you really imagine anyone suddenly deciding to get circumcised on the sole basis that the price is now predictable? It seems improbable. Yes, they might decide to use the services of that particular hospital rather than another, but it is not advocacy of the procedure itself. You might as well say that nationalising healthcare is circumcision advocacy because it ensures that it's available to all who need it.

Take the first. Wiswell says that he has friends who make money from circumcision, but do they promote/advocate it? No idea. It is quite feasible that they are urging parents to choose not to circumcise, but perform it because they demand it.

The strongest (or perhaps I should say 'least weak') evidence that you have is the Independent Weekly article, but this is poor. It does in fact mention circumcision advocates, but only in passing and to mention their position on medical benefits. Nobody quoted in the article is identified as such. It is not stated that the doctors you quote actually advocate circumcision (given the second-hand testimony and his association with NOCIRC, one must take Baker's testimony with a pinch of salt, but I digress). Two senators are quoted as saying that while they have not received correspondence from doctors in favour of the procedure. The delightfully named Rep Redwine explicitly states "In no way did the medical community [financially] influence the decision to reinstate Medicaid funding for circumcision." Senator Lee is reported as saying that he received complaints from doctors about the cut in funding, but this is not advocating circumcision but funding.

As for OR, I didn't feel that it needs defending explicitly, as it is perfectly obvious that it is. The inclusion of such text in an article on circumcision advocacy implies that it is relevant to that subject, which is a novel interpretation, prohibited by policy. Jakew 12:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Original research can be extensively referenced, but that doesn't mean it's not original research. Indeed, this is a fundamental facet of the policy, so it astonishes me that Michael still doesn't understand this. None of the sources discuss circumcision advocacy at all; Michael has merely done a bunch of reasearch from primary (and often dubious) sources, and put it together into a novel narrative. Michael, please review the WP:NOR policy carefully; perhaps this has been the problem from the start. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If people are offering cut price circumcisions as a way of boosting business, that's a promotion. Wiswell's comment is that some medicos look at a foreskin and see $175. It doesn't sound like a case where they're turning down easy money. In the Independent article - which uses the terms 'circumcision advocates' and 'funding advocates' - the lobbyists got to the Governor to restore the funding for circumcisions. the fear expressed was that poor boys wouldn't get circumcised (and some doctors wouldn't get the fees for doing it). The fourth example is about criminal behaviour. I would be happy to see this information in an article on circumcision funding. However, to say that it is original research to collect this information is simply nonsense. To imply that physicians may on occasion show an inordinate interest in money is utterly unoriginal. People have been saying that for centuries. Here are three examples:

God heals, and the doctor takes the fee.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Doctors are just the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you.

Chekhov (1860-1904)

They answered, as they took their fees,

"There is no cure for this disease."

Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) [42]

Now, about the policy that I'm supposed not to understand. This policy says:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Jayiig apparently wants to stifle source based research. This goes against both the letter and the spirit of the policy, which strongly encourages such research. Michael Glass 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No Michael, I want to stifle original research. Which of the sources you have listed discuss "circumcision advocacy"? The answer is simple; none. It is you who have decided that these sources are about "circumcision advocacy"; that is your "unpublished theory/argument" and "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." You want to write an article about "circumcision advocacy"? Then use sources which discuss "circumcision advocacy". You can't, of course, because there are no reputable sources that do; it's a term and a theory made up by radical activists, and which you are now using Wikipedia to promote. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't like Biblical passages? I removed them. Now where is the unpublished theory in saying that this person or that advocated circumcision? Where is the analysis? Where is the synthesis? You accuse me of trying to advance a position. What position? All I can see is an ad hominem attack, so please stop. Michael Glass 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, it's very simple. Who defined Philo as a "circumcision advocate"? Who defined Maimonides as a "circumcision advocate"? Was it a reliable source? Or was it User:Michael Glass? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayig, why did you make those changes if you don't agree with them. This is Loony Tunes. Please see my comments above. Michael Glass 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I made those changes so that it is abundantly clear where the original research lies. You have identified Philo and Maimonides as early circumcision advocates; please provide reliable sources for that novel theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't get out of it by trying to re-word your way away from the request for citation. You insist that they are circumcision advocates; provide reliable sources which support that novel theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't. You said it. Go play your word games with someone else. Michael Glass 04:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If they're not circumcision advocates, then what are they doing in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the term

I've removed the following from the introduction:

The term 'circumcision advocates' can be found in the Britiah Medical Journal [43], the Washington Post [44] and the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center (opposed to circumcision) [45] . One complementary medicine website talks about anti-circumcision and pro-circumcision advocates [46].

The first link is a letter to the editor from "George Hill, retired", the second is not from the Washington Post but rather from an article on a "medical news" website of unknown provenance which paraphrases a Washington Post article, the third is Ron Goldman's personal anti-circumcision website, and the fourth is again from a "complementary medicine website" of unknown provenance. None of these count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, George Hill. The retired airline pilor, co-maintainer of CIRP, and exec sec'y of DOC. Jakew 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the mistake about the Washington Post, but a letter published in the BMJ is still in the BMJ. Now I have put some more links up and I hope that this will show you that 'circumcision advocate' is part of the language. Michael Glass 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed answers.com, because it is a mirror of Wikipedia. I've also removed a mirror of dmoz, as this is not an encyclopaedic source. Jakew 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've removed this as well

Another website describes Dr Thomas Wiswell as a circumcision advocate [47]. The term also appeared in a letter published in the British Medical Journal [48]

Who is Harvey Kipnis, and why would we care what he says? Also, as said before, a letter to the editor from a retired airline pilot (even if he is an anti-circumcision activist) is simply not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What is notable is the naked prejudice displayed. To reject an example of word use in the BMJ just because the writer is a 'retired airline pilot' and an 'anti-circumcision activist' is a specacular example of bigotry, but it is also monumentally hypocritical. Jayig uses 'anti-circumcision activist' himself but questions the use of 'circumcision activist' by others. This is narrow-minded and partisan pedantry; it is not scholarship. Michael Glass 22:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, please try to deal with policy. That George Hill is an anti-circumcision activist (or, as he prefers, "advocate for genital integrity") is not in question; nor is it particularly relevant. The bottom line is that a letter to the editor from a non-medical activist simply does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Again, you need to focus on policy, not your assumptions about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If a letter to the editor from a non-medical activist simply does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, then I trust you will not object if someone removes any references in circumcision related articles to letters to the editor written by non-medical, pro-circumcision activists. -- DanBlackham 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss Jayjg's point, Dan. Activism is not particularly relevant one way or the other (though it could be argued that an anti-circumcision activist might be more inclined to identify people as circumcision advocates than a disinterested party). Jay's point, as I understand it, is that a letter to the editor is not the most reliable of sources for establishing a completely novel 'fact'.

Personally, I agree in part and disagree in part. I would say that a letter is acceptable, but must be considered on the merits. The principal problem with Hill's letter is that he simply asserts that various people are circumcision advocates, so it is merely an opinion. The value of that opinion rests entirely on his qualifications to make such a claim (apparently none). If he had made a case that they are, citing references to support his case, then it has value that is independent of his authority. But he didn't. Indeed, the first part of his letter appears to consist of little but ad hominem attacks against HIV researchers. Jakew 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm starting to go through the article and clean up the original research, since you seem unwilling to do so, or unable to understand the policy. You have personally described or defined a whole series of individuals as "circumcision advocates", but "Michael Glass, teacher" does not count as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia, even if he manages to get a letter to the editor published in an online medical journal. You need to start finding scholarly sources dealing with the topic of "circumcision advocacy"; you are not the authority on this topic, and you cannot start deciding what is or isn't Circumcision advocacy, who is or isn't a Circumcision advocate, what the positive or negative effects of "Circumcision advocacy" are, etc. I can only encourage you to read the WP:NOR policy again; we need to have sources on "Circumcision advocates" and "Circumcision advocacy" in this article. If all your sources are about Circumcision, not Circumcision advocacy, then the information belongs in an article about Circumcision. And please try to keep your response to Wikipedia policy, avoiding speculating on editors motives, beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has been cut down a lot, with much material removed for reasons that I cannot agree with. Briefly, if someone advocates circumcision, they are a circumcision advoate. I don't see why they need to use the exact term for themselves. Given this, there is no basis for removing well-cited material about these circumcision advocates. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:NOR prevents us from being the first to identify someone as a circumcision advocate, or declaring that what they are doing is advocating circumcision. It's a novel interpretation.

Remember that Wikipedia is here to summarise existing knowledge. This limits us to discussing what others have said about this subject, or people that have been identified by others as advocates. Jakew 08:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea of labelling 'circumcision advocate' as a new term is just a convenient excuse for removing material. Both 'circumcision and advocate are ordinary English words. Pretending that they become a definition is humbug. It is a blatant attempt of people with one point of view to control the language and thus control what can be said. It is ideologically driven drivel and is a misuse of Wikipedia policy. Michael Glass 12:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you hold this belief, Michael, but making such accusations doesn't help. Policy applies to this article, just as it does to others, and legitimate concerns have been raised. Jakew 13:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy is not something floating in the sky. It is a bunch of words that we have to interpret. And when it comes to interpretation, we don't always agree. Like Michael, I'm a bit baffled by your suggestion that it is OR or POV or otherwise against policy to call someone who advocates circumcision a "circumcision advocate".

Consider that someone who advocates abortion rights can be (and often is) called an "abortion rights advocate", and no further evidence is needed. It is logically impossible to advocate abortion rights without becoming an abortion rights advocate.

Likewise, if you were to advocate circumcisions, you would automatically become a "circumcision advocate", no matter how much or how little you protest. Think about it; WP:NOR is not intended to overrule common sense, just to stop people from inserting their own opinions as fact. If we can't come to an agreement, perhaps we could add it to our RFM. Al 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you can find examples in which others have identified these persons as 'advocating circumcision', please go ahead and include them. I just want to be sure that it is not merely the opinion of Wikipedia editors that the people or actions qualify as circumcision advocacy/advocates, because that is what is prohibited by policy. Jakew 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're going to need to explain why advocating circumcision is not sufficient to qualify someone as a circumcision advocate. I would suggest that anyone who advocates circumcision is automatically a circumcision advocate, so there is no further judgement necessary, hence no role for additional parties.

Consider that if some person were quoted as saying "I hate Jews", there would be no need to find someone else calling them an anti-semite in order for us to use that term here. By saying they hate Jews, there are inherently admitting to being anti-semites. It would be original research to just state that someone was an anti-semite, but if we cite their admission, then there is nothing original about our input.

I hope this is clear to you. Al 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What can this article add that isn't covered in Circumcision? Sophia 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Circumcision article is already 53 kilobytes long. This article adds addition information to the History of male circumcision article about people who promote or advocate male circumcision. -- DanBlackham 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we merge in stuff from here to the history article or is it mainly duplication here? Sophia 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I'm actually quite apathetic about whether this content stands alone or becomes part of the parent article. I can see how someone might not want to swell the parent any more, but that's simply a practical matter. What concerns me more is whether the content itself is balanced and neutral. Al 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, the fact is that there are no shortage of RS identifying anti-semitic actions and anti-semites. There may be disagreement on the details, but there is something meaty to write about. Books have been written on the subject. Numerous articles have been written on it. It has notability. It is not something that Wikipedia editors have just, more or less, made up.

Now, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's article on that subject, but because the subject is so well-known, the chances are good that if anyone wishes to include, say, Mr Adolf Hitler as an anti-semite, it's not original research because at least one author (ok, thousands in the case of that particular example) will have done so previously. That's because it is already a field of knowledge. Definitions exist in the literature. Where there is controversy over the inclusion of a particular person/action, it's easy (in theory) to determine the appropriate course of action according to policy.

Now here, it is not an encyclopaedic topic, and as far as I know, nobody has dedicated an article to the subject of circumcision advocacy before. A consequence of that is that there are very few RS upon which to draw. The solution to this is not to ignore policy, but to think 'hey, maybe this should be deleted or moved somewhere relevant to topics that other people have written about.' Jakew 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jake, with all due respect, you have not addressed the issues I raised and you have once again reverted to the version you prefer, without first building a consensus. I do not think your actions are as productive as they could be. The first step you can take to improve on them is to answer my questions directly.

To remind you, I am skeptical of the notion that it is somehow original research to call someone an anti-semite when there are reliable sources that have them making clearly anti-semitic remarks. Likewise, if someone makes remarks that clearly advocate for circumcision, I see no reason to censor ourselves in the name of neutrality. I can see that, in cases where there is some doubt or controversy, it might be best to avoid the label unless we can attribute it directly to a reliable sources, but I don't think this is what we're facing here. Thank you for understanding. Al 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example which should be helpful. On the National Vanguard article, we don't say it is a antisemitic, racist, neo-Nazi, and homophobic organization. Rather, we say It has been described as "anti-Semitic," [49][50][51] "racist,"[52][53][54] "neo-Nazi,"[55][56][57][58] and homophobic. [59] Even if we think facts are obvious, we don't invent our own classifications, we just report what reliable sources say. As for consensus, it already exists, that we must follow policy. I have disputed that any of these claimed "circumcision advocates" actually are "circumcision advocates"; that claim, in fact, is just a novel thesis invented by Michael Glass for this article. So, provide some reliable sources stating they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayig accuses me of calling people circumcision advocates without authority and yet has called someone an anti-circumcision advocate without quoting someone else to say this. In the example he supplies above, the National Vanguard article quotes three sources for saying that NV is anti-Semitic. The first reference doesn't use this term anti-Semitic [60]. The second reference mentions anti-Semitic material and anti-Semitic messagesl but it doesn't say directly that NV is anti-Semitic [61]. The third reference does indeed say that the National Alliance is virulently anti-Semitic and that the NV and the NA are battling over who is carrying on the anti-Semitic legacy of someone else, but once again it doesn't directly say that NV is anti-Semitic [62]. Of the three websites referred to, one is from the NV, another is from the Jewish Anti-Defamatiion League and the third one is the Jewish Exponent and depends heavily on Anti-Defamation League material. The links show quite convincingly that NV is anti-Semitic; what they do not show is that NV has been called anti-Semitic. Besides, the sources are either from NV or they are Jewish organisations, and might therefore be regarded as unreliable. In other words, Jayig is trying to tie up this article in a straitjacket that he doesn't apply to himself and that doesn't apply elsewhere on Wikipedia. Jayig's claim that you can't call someone a circumcision advocate unless someone that he approves of has already used these exact words about that person is a load of humbug. Michael Glass 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first link was sneaky vandalism introduced by a National Vanguard supporter, now removed. The third link describes them as anti-Semitic, and the second reinforces that. The ADL is not a "Jewish organization", and the intro does not say that they are anti-semitic, merely that hey have been "described as anti-semitic". You claims of "humbug" and double standard are disproved. Now, where are the reliable sources describing the various individuals you have listed as "circumcision activists" "circumcision advocates"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first link, sneaky vandalism or not, was supplied by Jayig to this discussion, so he must take responsibility for putting it there. The second link does not contain the words 'described as anti-semitic" as Jayig asserts, but, as I wrote, contains the phrases "anti-Semitic material" and "anti-Semitic messages". Here is what Wikipedia says about the ADL: 'The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an organization founded by B'nai B'rith in the United States whose stated aim is "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."' The discussion was about the phrase "circumcision advocate" not "circumcision activist". it is Jayig's, accuracy that is in question here. Michael Glass 13:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's absurd that you should try to make me responsible for the content of vandalism, and the other link provided is a reliable source which describes the group as "anti-Semitic". And what is under discussion is reliable sources which refer to these individuals as "circumcision advocates". Where are they? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Jayjg referred to this: "George Hill is a retired airline jet captain, father of an intact son, and advocate for genital integrity. He is the Executive Secretary of Doctors Opposing Circumcision http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org" [63] Jakew 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the careful analysis, Michael. I think that Jakew is simply misunderstanding WP:NOR, which is unfortunate. While I'm sure he's not intentionally trying to be biased, he may well not realize that he appears to be using a higher standard for others than he would allow to be applied to himself.

As editors, we must be impartial, but there's no need for us to play dumb. Even if not a single WP:RS actually calls the NV anti-semitic using that term, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that they are anti-semitic, so we can safely draw this uncontroversial and painfully obvious inference without running afoul of OR.

Again, the purpose of WP:NOR is to prevent editors from substituting their own opinions for facts, and it's not intended to stop editors from using their brains entirely. If something is genuinely uncontroversial, there is no need to cite support for it. I would also say that Jake's denial that these people who advocate circumcision are circumcision advocates does not consistute genuine controversy because it is prima facie impossible. If I were to deny that Hitler is a Nazi, insisting that he only said Nazi things without being a Nazi, why would anyone take this complaint seriously?

I'd like to offer another analogy. Let's say I have a WP:RS that says John Doe owns a dog named Spike, a dog named Rover and a dog named Pookie. Is it OR to say that John owns three dogs? Do I need to find some RS who I can quote as saying "John has three dogs" or does it suffice to support my claim by referencing the quote where John lists the names of his dogs? In other words, is analytic logic now considered OR? Because, if it is, then how can we do anything at all? Al 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, there are problems with your examples. Firstly, there are many, many sources that identify Hitler as a Nazi. I doubt that any reliable sources dispute the claim, but in the hypothetical case that there were, both could be presented in the text. There is simply no need for OR in either case because of the notability of the subject matter and the huge volumes of source material.

Similarly, if John Doe's dogs are notable enough to be discussed in an encyclopaedia, then much will doubtless have been written on the subject, and inevitably, someone will have commented on their number. Again, no OR is needed because such basic 'analytic logic' (I prefer the term 'counting') will have already been done, and can be referenced.

On the other hand, if only a couple of off-hand references can be found to his dogs, then one has to ask why on earth we should dedicate an article to the subject. The obvious answer is that we shouldn't, so again, the matter need not arise.

The problem with this article is that it is fundamentally original. Nobody else has ever (to my knowledge) written a book or article on the subject. It shouldn't, according to policy, exist. Nevertheless, it does, but that does not mean that policy can be ignored. Jakew 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jake, thank you for conceding to my argument: I think that we agree that counting is not original research. Now I'd like you to consider that recognizing that someone who advocates for circumcision is a circumcision advocate is an even smaller analytical step than counting three dogs. Al 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I didn't agree to your argument. Please read my comment again.

As I've said before, if you can find sources stating that these people advocate for circumcision, it would be a good start. What we must avoid, though, is making this interpretation ourselves. Jakew 12:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that counting is original research? If so, I wonder how high the standards are for reliable sources of counting. Al 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps John Doe owns more dogs than that; how would you know? Jake has understood the original research policy quite well, and I (and others) don't recognize any of these individuals (e.g. Philo, Maimonides, etc.) as "circumcision advocates", so you'll have to find some reliable sources which identify them that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Macquarie School Dictionary defines 'advocate' as someone who speaks in favor of a person or cause. Therefore, anyone who speaks in favour of circumcision can be fairly described as advocating circumcision, be they Philo, Maimonides or Jake Waskett. I say that all the authority you need to describe someone as a circumcision advocate is that they fit the dictiionary definition of the word advocate. nor is there a problem in doing so. Unlike such words as racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and so on, the word advocate is essentially neutral. Its use by people who are both pro and anti-circumcision demonstrates this fact. That is why i continue to assert that there is no problem in using this plain English word to describe those who publicly defend and promote circumcision. Michael Glass 14:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A "circumcision advocate" has a special meaning, which is undefined. Are they in favour of circumcision for everyone? Mandatory circumcision? Circumcision as a parental choice? Circumcision for adults? Circumcision for infants? Is anyone who responds to or refutes claims of a "genital integrity advocate", by definition, a "circumcision advocate"? Is it anyone who thinks there are benefits to circumcision? The latter is, in fact, how they are defined by "genital integrity advocates", but where are the reliable, scholarly sources which have discussed this topic? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. Various medical organisations recognise benefits. Are they advocating circumcision, even though they specifically do not recommend routine (ie universal) circumcision? I even recall Marilyn Milos of NOCIRC stating that there are rare instances in which circumcision is necessary. Taking the broadest definition, that makes her a circumcision advocate, yet surely it's absurd to say so of her. Without a specific, verifiable definition, it's a difficult subject to write about. Jakew 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it turns out it's surprisingly easy to write about, just not in a way that doesn't violate WP:NOR. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The medical consensus is that, while circumcision has some benefits in some cases, these are not sufficient to justify routine surgery. In other words, they don't forbid it, but they also don't endorse it unless there is a specific medical reason. This is not advocacy. In contrast, the people this article is aboout endorse circumcision even when there is no specific medical reason. This makes them... advocates. Pretty simple, really. Al 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, but the trouble is that this narrowing of the definition is the sole invention of User:Alienus. Jakew 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It's just using common sense. There are some people who have clearly advocated circumcision. I can see no problem in pointing this out. Michael Glass 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge with History of circumcision and Circumcision

Before I put the tags on I want to just check that there is general support that this article is a bit of an anomaly and that the content here would be better placed in the above two article. Certainly the 21st century section in the history article [64] could definitely do with some content addition. However what is most interesting is that there is no section of Circumcision where this article is referenced as the "main article on this topic". This shows its odd status and the fact that the info is better elsewhere as the chances of anyone finding it are reduced by it's apparent lack of importance to the central topic.

I think the benefits will be that all there OR/RS spats will be irrelevant as we will not be trying to pin things down to such a narrow term. We will also concentrate the information in places where it is more likely to be found by the reader and we will avoid duplication of data. Sophia 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jakew 11:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this matter, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Couldn't this also be interpreted as good reason to create a section on Circumcision that references this article as the main article on this topic? Al 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It could but for such a well established subject normal information flow would have it work the other way - a subject will swell and need to be sectioned off. To go the other way does stray into the murky world of OR. Sophia 11:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please merge. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 16:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a reasonable argument. There's no reason to suppose in advance that a section on circumcision advocacy in the circumcision article deserves to be broken out. I support integrating it, then doing the stub/fork thing if science necessitates it. Not sure it'll solve the current OR/RS problem, though. Al 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that the article should be merged with the general article on circumcision. This, hopefully, will stop valuable information from being edited out on some flimsy ground. Michael Glass 14:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify, Michael: do you mean that it should only be merged with circumcision and not history of circumcision, or are you happy with whichever is appropriate for given information? Jakew 14:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the tags are on so we should allow a day or two before we start moving stuff over to the other articles but it would be helpful if everyone could read through this and decide where they think everything important should go. Sophia 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge yet -- 90% of the work done on all of the circumcision articles (history, medical, etc.) has been done on the parent article, Circumcision. I would prefer to wait until that has been gone through at least once, and then spin off/merge/whatever. -- Avi 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Some content could be usefully merged into history of circumcision, but I honestly can't see anything that would enhance circumcision. Perhaps it's time to renominate this for AfD? Jakew 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text Jakew keeps removing

I just finished reading the text Jakew deletes, and found it interesting, well written, and pertinent. What problems do you have with that text Jakew?TipPt 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did not originally delete this text, but I support its deletion. The reasons are discussed above, so rather than repeating it, why don't you read what has already been discussed? Jakew 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important text that must not be lost in any move

The following text is important to keep. The paragraphs could go in the History of Circumcision (history) or in the general article (general) but they should not be lost. In the case of the circumcision rates, the material should be transferred to the general article except for where it duplicates material already there.

The 1st century Jewish author Philo Judaeus[65] defended Jewish circumcision on several grounds, including health, cleanliness, fertility and as a symbol of "the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure" [66] Maimonides argued that circumcision was instituted for moral reasons, 'for perfecting what is defective morally' [67] See also "Circumcision: A Jewish Inquiry," Midstream 38 (January 1992) pages 20-23 [68]. (history)

Some circumcision supporters have expressed a preference for the look of a circumcised penis [69]. One stated "Improved appearance and sexual appeal" as an advantage of circumcision [70]. Another said, "circumcision is a beautification comparable to rhinoplasty, and a circumcised penis appears in its flaccid state as an erect uncircumcised organ - a beautiful instrument of precise intent." [71]. Another stated, 'While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect." [72]. One Nineteenth Century surgeon said. "Those cases in which the glans presents a moist, semi-oily appearance, with papillae strikingly developed about the corona, long thickened foreskin, pliant and giving, large and often tortuous dorsal veins, go to make up a picture that is exceedingly tempting to the surgeon’s scissors." Dr Edgar Spratling, 1895, "Masturbation in the Adult", The Medical Record, 48:442-43 [73]. (general)

== Money ==

Some obstetricians have been accused of using circumcision as a quick and easy way of making money [74]. Medicaid funding for infant circumcision used to be universal in the United States. However, 6 states had abolished the subsidy by 2000 and by mid-August 2005, 16 of the 50 states had abolished Medicaid funding for circumcision [75], something that anti-circumcision campaigners have documented [76]. When the Medicaid funding subsidy for circumcision was abolished in North Carolina it was noted that some doctors and medical lobbyists resisted this, giving a variety of reasons, It was also noted that they stood to lose money from the subsidy cut. [77] There is a report of a Hong Kong hospital setting a fixed price for circumcisions as a way of attracting patients during an economic downturn [78]. In 2004, There are reports of health insurance fraud involving circumcisions by Paul Rubin in the Phoenix New Times, 24 April 2003 and 1 January 2004 and by Christopher Snowbeck in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 26 March 2005 [79]. Meanwhile, New Mexico legislated mandatory insurance coverage for male circumcision in 2004 [80]. (general)

A Missouri study [81] found no significant difference between uninsured and privately insured patients in regard to newborn circumcision., The study was done in the years 1997-2001, before Missouri abolished the Medicaid subsidy for newborn circumcision (2002) [82]. (general)

== Changes in circumcision rates==

While neonatal in-hospital circumcision rates in the U.S. were 64.3% in 1979 and 65.3% in 1999,[83] significant changes took place. Circumcision rates amongst Blacks rose to equal the rates amongst Whites and the circumcision rate in the Western states declined sharply. The National Center for Health Statistics attributes this partly to an increased birth rate amongst Hispanics in this region. [84] A recent study, however, using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, concluded that: "There was a significant increase in the rate of newborn circumcision between 1988 and 2000. The increase may be related to increased recognition of the potential medical benefits of circumcision. However, the increase may also result in a higher incidence of surgical complications of circumcision.[85]

In the United Kingdom circumcision rates have steadily declined since the 1930's, and non-therapeutic circumcision is now rare [86]. Circumcision is declining in Canada [87] and has declined from 95% in the 1940s to less than 1% (as of 1995) in New Zealand [88]. The circumcision rate in Australia rose slightly from 10.7% in 1996 to 12.7% in 2004 [89].

It is hard to determine how much these changes were due to lobbying for or against circumcision or to other causes. In North Carolina in 2002, opponents of circumcision urged the abolition of the Medicaid subsidy for circumcisions while some obstetricians and gynecologists lobbied hard for the retention of the subsidy. Nevertheless, the effect of immigration of people from non-circumcising cultures was also noted [90] . (Merge with the general article except for the parts which duplicate existing material.)

The pretext for removing this material was that it was not relevant to circumcision advocacy. When the material is merged that will no longer be the case. Michael Glass 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. I hope one of tthe benefits of this merge will be that problems of relevancy will go away as these quotes are obviously either about circumcision or the history of that subject. Sophia 07:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Some editing will be needed, and it's probably best to make decisions about where text belongs (if it belongs anywhere) on a case-by-case basis. In particular, we need to edit paragraphs such that the focus is the new article's topic, assess whether the information is relevant and notable in the new context and indeed whether it actually benefits the article, and ensure that it conforms to policy.

I suggest making the focus improving the articles rather than preserving text. Jakew 09:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all gone quiet here. I'm not an expert on this subject but if no one else does the merge soon I'll do it myself - you have been warned! Sophia 15:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of us are involved in that RfM, and therefore asked to limit our participation in these articles in the meantime. Al 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course - I'd forgotten I'd seen notices about that. I'll leave things be until it's all settled then as it will need everyone's agreement to wind up this article. I was just aware that I'd set the tags and then wandered off to other things and needed to check back to help if necessary. Sophia 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The time seems to be right to now merge this article so I shall start reading through and moving stuff to where I think best. I will admit to not being an expert in this area and have only suggested this merge due to the lack of supporting evidence from the on-line searches I have done. So if I mess up please be nice to me and I will have no problem if others disagree and put the info in what they consider more suitable places. Sophia 12:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research and unverified claims

I'm not aware that the article contains any unverified claims or original research at the moment. Unless someone can come up with credible evidence that it contains any such thing, I think the tags should be removed. Michael Glass 13:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As no-one has mentioned any unverified claim or original research in the article in more than two months, I have removed the 'Original Research" tag. Michael Glass 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the article as a whole, Michael. Critically, the first sentence of the article cannot be sourced. Sure, it could be removed, which would expose the real problem with the article: that the central term is neither defined nor explored in any reliable sources. Hence the OR tag is entirely appropriate. Jakew 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a semantic game. There are about 1600 hits for the term "circumcision advocacy" in Google, so the term is not unknown. Michael Glass 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As you know, Michael, most of those hits are not reliable sources. Most, if not all, of those that are RS are listed in the beginning of the article, in a manner that sadly does not inform the reader at all, but merely attempts to justify the article's existence. This problem is due to the fact that all of these sources use the term in passing, failing to explain what is meant.

If you think this is a game, you're completely missing the point. Wikipedia is supposed to summarise what others have written about a subject. Want to write an article about the history of Zaire? No problem - others have done so before. If, as in this case, you want an article about a subject so obscure and ill-defined that nobody has written about it, and it only gets mentioned a handful of times in print, then that's a clue that it does not belong here.

Right now, it like an article on "sipping grape juice on Friday afternoon." If I were sufficiently bored, I could probably find that phrase in a few books. Should Wikipedia have an article on it? Unless the subject has received scholarly attention previously (an unlikely proposition), the answer is: no, it could only be OR. Jakew 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Sipping grape juice on Friday afternoon" scores no hits on Google, so that analogy falls down. The terms 'circumcision advocacy' and 'circumcision advocate' are not defined because these are plain English expressions. The fact that they are used in passing is evidence that they are used naturally in English discourse. The 'failure' to explain what is meant is evidence that the meaning is taken as self-evident. Of course, that would not appeal to an elitist mindset. As for the individual words, they are defined in any good dictionary. Finally, it is not "Original Research" to collect information. Michael Glass 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. Collecting information is not necessarily OR. Indeed, if suitable sources discussing the subject matter were available, it would be expected that we should summarise them. But they don't exist, and that, my friend, is the problem. Jakew 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But isn't this exactly what is done in this article? It's a collectiion of information about circumcision advocates and their advocacy of circumcision. What, then, is the original research? Where, if any, are there unverified claims in the article? Michael Glass 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Michael, is that it is a collection of information about people (who Wikipedia identifies as 'circumcision advocates') and their activities (which Wikipedia identifies as 'circumcision advocacy'). That is what is original research, and without secondary sources, it is unverifiable. Jakew 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jake, if you read the first paragraph of the article you will see that the term 'circumcision advocate' is used in scholarly and academic circles. The term is plain English and carries no negative connotations that I can detect. Your objection to using the term is akin to saying that Wikipedia can't say a chair is a chair unless an authority has said that that particular chair is a chair. Quite simply, it is a nonsense. Michael Glass 10:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, your analogy is a poor one. Try going to any online bookstore and searching for 'chair.' You'll find no shortage of suitable scholarly material. Chairs are documented well in academia (indeed, I was somewhat surprised to learn how well).

The first paragraph of this article is a problem, because it serves little purpose other than to attempt to justify the article's very existence. The reader is served poorly by it: (s)he is unlikely to care who has used the term, but (s)he is much more likely to be interested in what the relevant authors had to say about it. We fail him/her in this respect. The reason for that - and I'm sorry to repeat myself - is that virtually nothing has been said about the subject. That is the problem. Jakew 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of the first paragraph is to demonstrate and document the fact that 'circumcision advocate' is used in newspapers and scholarly journals. There is no lack of material about circumcision advocacy. Michael Glass 22:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, why do you think that the article should demonstrate and document this fact? Why is it important to do so in the first paragraph? What I'm trying to say is that the only apparent purpose of doing so is to say "this article deserves to exist," and I'm not convinced that an article needs to justify its own existence. That should be obvious from the content. Have I misunderstood the first pg? Jakew 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for drawing attention to the usage is to demonstrate that the terms 'circumcision advocate' and 'circumcision advocacy' are in current usage. this was disputed by some contributors. Michael Glass 08:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)