Talk:Genital integrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genital integrity article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.


Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives • Edit this box

1 Comment
2 Original research
- 2.1 History
3 Problems with sources
4 First paragraph
5 Sections to be deleted
6 Sexual Reassignment Surgery
7 Original Research Tag

[edit] Comment

Jakew - you say that wikipedia is 'not a web directory' but what is your criteria for listing some organisations and not others? Perhaps the 'Positions of advocates and critics' article hit a raw nerve with your personal bias?

This is not an article worth bickering over - there is a list of 'Genital integrity organisations' and a list of anti-foreskin articles - why not complete the list of GI organisations and link to an article comparing the opposing views? This page is a service to the public, not an outlet for your ego or your own opinions 87.194.80.255 17:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#MIRROR ("There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.") and WP:EL (in particular, WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view, which states that "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views."). Jakew 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clear bias to allow links to specific articles on one side of the argument but only organisations on the other. YOU are advocating 'undue weight' by linking to GI organisations and then articles criticising them. Where are the links to articles criticising the anti-foreskin crowd? I repeat my opinion that you are targeting 'Positions of advocates and critics' because it upsets your personal stance and the one-sided way in which you wish to portray the Genital Integrity movement. Your claims of neutrality are laughable. 87.194.80.255 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no explicit decision to allow articles on one side and organisations on the other. However, links are supposed to be relevant to the subject of an article. Notable organisations are relevant, as are articles specifically about those organisations. There are currently 10 genital integrity links - twice as many as for critics - and we do not need any more. We could, in principle, replace some of the existing links, and I would welcome any suggestions you may have.

I suggest, incidentally, that you familiarise yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Jakew 18:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, I'm sorry; I'm trying to 'assume good faith' but I'm finding it difficult to do so with someone who claims to be neutral on a subject yet slurs those who have an alternative point of view ('...deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision'). Are you assuming good faith? You have a solid record of attacking the 'Genital Integrity' movement on wikipedia (anyone who wants to check that can look at various relevant history pages) and insisting that your point of view is 'neutral' - an impossible claim, especially for a man who was circumcised by his own choice. I respect your point of view but it is clearly not 'neutral'. You are for parental choice - fine - I am for individual choice. This is a difference of opinion and I respect it - do you? 87.194.80.255 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) First of all, it should be noted that the Genital Integrity movement has never claimed to be "neutral." It is the belief of those who believe in Genital Integrity as a basic human right, that there can be nothing said in favor of the forced circumcision of minors, because the facts are against it. The fact is that in newborns, the foreskin is perfectly healthy tissue, not a medical condition or birth defect.

"The principle of the law is that parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child. With no clear and present medical indication of need, no parental duty or right to consent to circumcision can exist. Medical indications for male circumcision never exist in the newborn period. The Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics has long recognized that parental permission is limited to diagnosis and treatment of disease. If no disease is present, then there is no parental power to grant permission for removal of healthy tissue."

Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England, Book I, Chapter 16: p. 434 (1765-9)

There are issues for which there cannot be a "neutral stance." Male circumcision, no, infant genital mutilation, is one of them. Why is there not a "neutral stance" for female genital mutilation? Why is female genital mutilation starkly opposed, without concidering the "potential benefits?" There is at least one "study" that suggests FGM may have prophylactic properties. No one dare argue the "pros" in this issue.

Statements to the effect that "circumcision is a parental choice" are misleading, and are used by proponents of circumcision to divert attention from questioning the fact that circumcision may indeed be a medically necessary procedure. It is misleading, not to mention fraudulent, for doctors and/or proponents of circumcision to present the genital mutilation of newborns as this "decision" which parents have to make. In reaping profit for a medically unnecessary procedure, esp. in a non-concenting individual, a doctor is committing medical FRAUD.

SECOND of all, beware of Jakew. He is most definitily NOT a "neutral" proponent of circumcision, speaking ill of defenders of individual human rights, esp. the Genital Integrity of non-concenting individuals, and citing "the benefits of circumcision" whenever he can. His only saving grace is that he is consistent, signing everything he says as "Jakew." Kogejoe 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind all participants in this discussion of WP:NPA, which, in a nutshell, states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". It seems that this discussion is beginning to veer away from improvement of the article, towards espousing personal views of the topic and of other contributors. Please, let's all take a deep breath and compose ourselves before collaborating on improving the Genital integrity article. Thank you very much. Joie de Vivre ^T 05:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kogejoe incorrectly attributes a quotation above to "Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England". In fact, it is quoted from a letter from Doctors Opposing Circumcision to Pediatrics. Geisheker JV, Denniston GC, Hill G. Use of Federal Funds for Medicaid Non-Therapeutic Circumcision is Unlawful. Pediatrics. P3R, 27 June 2007. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/119/4/821#9715 Jakew 11:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do, in fact quote from the letter. However, it should be noted that everything in that letter is properly and duely cited, and all of the sources can be properly verified. (The bibliography can be found at the end of the letter.) In fact, Blackstone was only one of the references, and Jakew is correct in stating that I incorrectly attributed the quotation, as I did forget to mention the other references in the above quote.

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402. Available at: http://www.swarb.co.uk/c/hl/1985gillick.shtml

Foetus and Newborn Committee. FN 75-01 Circumcision in the Newborn Period. CPS News Bull Suppl. 1975; 8(2):1-2.

Committee on Fetus and Newborn: Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, Sixth Edition. American Academy of Pediatrics; Evanston, IL, 1977:66-67

Joie de Vivre made a point that we should be commenting on the content, and not the contributor. Therefore, the content of the letter to Pedriatrics begs genuine concideration, and that it was written by Doctors Opposing Circumcision is irrelevant.

The subject of discussion was initially "a neutral stance."

I think that the statement of the fact that advocates of Genital Integrity have never claimed to be of "a neutral stance" begs reiteration. Those who promote ethical and legal practice need not defend offenders. It's the job of violators of human rights that need to explain why they do what they do.

Furthermore, it is a double-standard for someone to be adamant about "a neutral stance," esp. when he/she is not him/herself of a "neutral stance."Kogejoe 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that everything in DOC's letter is 'properly and duly cited' is, to say the least, questionable. Take a look at the response further down on the same page. Jakew 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean your responce done by YOU?

The entire premise of the responce to the letter is flawed because it is based on the assertion that circumcision, which doesn't immunize against anything, can indeed be compared to a vaccine, which does. You mistakenly assert that circumcision does indeed prevent HIV contraction, when the very conductors of the HIV/Circumcision "studies" warn that circumcision is completely useless without condoms.

There are recent findings by one E.J. Mundell that put the recent African HIV/Circumcision studies into question. The entire premise of the recent studies is that circumcision reduces HIV infection by removing the Langerhans cells found in the foreskin, which were supposed to be the "prime port of entry for HIV." If Mundell is correct, the exact opposite is true (the Langerhans cells offer PROTECTION against HIV contraction), rendering all of the above studies completely moot. One must wonder how the conductors of such studies arrived at their seemingly optimistic conclusions.

Assertions that "circumcision helps prevent HIV in the US" conflicts with reality. The fact is that despite having the highest rate of circumcision in the industrialized world, it also has the highest rate of HIV. The fact is that circumcised victims of HIV die every day. The fact is that in 1981, when the HIV epidemic struck in the US, 90% of US males were already circumcised. The fact is that circumcision did not and does not prevent HIV in the US. The question is, how do advocates of circumcision expect it to be any different in any other country?

The response to DOC's letter is flawed because it begs the question. It is based on the assumption that circumcision does indeed function like a "vaccine" that conclusively prevents HIV and/or any other STDs.Kogejoe 05:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect on several points. Firstly, 35+ observational studies and 3 randomised controlled trials provide in vivo evidence of the protective effect (in the assessment of the World Health Organisation, they "prove [it] beyond reasonable doubt"). They do not, however, establish the mechanism by which this takes place. Studies of this kind cannot do so: they can measure the difference, but they cannot explain it. If de Witte's theory (Mundell is reporting on a study, the abstract of which is here) is correct, then we might speculate that the mechanism for this protective effect may involve something other than LCs. But, much like arguing about whether rain dances work or not, when the rain comes, for whatever reason, it is wet.

Second, there is no way of knowing whether circumcision 'worked' or 'did not work' in the US, because there is no way of knowing how badly the US might have been affected if circumcision were less prevalent. Unfortunately, a simplistic cross-nation comparison of rates of circumcision and HIV is inherently flawed, and is particularly prone to confounding factors (as circumcision reduces - but does not eliminate - the risk, other factors may increase it, so any model has to take all factors into account). It is unfortunate I suppose, since if epidemiology were that simple there would be no need to conduct complex and expensive studies.

But this is becoming somewhat tangential. And I note that you say nothing about the issue which we were discussing, which was whether DOC's claims were 'properly and duly cited'. Jakew 09:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DOC's claims WERE properly and duly cited. DOC's sources can be properly verified. I'm not even sure why you mention the Fergusson study. If the conclusions were of any relevance, they would have not been withdrawn.

You can keep mentioning "studies" and "assesments," but they are at odds with reality. None of them can validate your claim that "circumcision prevents HIV," because, as evidenced "in vivo" by the countless HIV infections and deaths of men despite their circumcised status, it DOESN'T. "Studies" and "assesments" that don't correlate with reality are flawed and cannot be used to assert anything. I dare say the people at WHO have their heads up their arses.

The rain dance analogy is quite weak, but perhaps one good turn deserves another; studies that claim that "circumcision prevents HIV" are like studies that continue to assert that the earth is flat.

As a procedure that does not conclusively make one immune to any kind of disease, no, circumcision cannot be considered any form of "vaccine," so no, it is NOT a procedure doctors should be performing, let alone presenting the "decision" to parents to concent to. In gaining profit for a procedure that offers a patient absolutely no theraputic value, and questionable prophilactic value, doctors that circumcise infants are guilty of medical fraud, and should be ready to be held accountable for their actions.

So then, as DOC properly points out, federal funding for such a worthless procedure in children is unlawful.

I believe that at this point, I'm just going to keep repeating myself, so I will leave it at that. People can keep bringing up study after study (nevermind that these "studies" have been conducted by biased advocates of circumcision who have been trying to find a disease for their "cure," and who's goal has been to establish the forced circumcision of all males all along...), but those studies are inherently flawed if they cannot correlate with reality. Furthermore, even if these studies DID ever find a link from circumcision to HIV, my personal belief is that it should be up to a MAN to make this choice. It should be up to a MAN to decide whether or not to take this measure of "protection," or whether or not he wishes to forgo the procedure and use condoms instead. It should not be up to parents or doctors to make a man's sexual decisions for him.

As I've already pointed out, the Stallings study suggests a "protective measure" for girls and women. Yet, it's against the law to mutilate a girl or woman, and parents that exercise their "parental privilege" get thrown in jail.

The same should apply to parents and doctors of circumcised MALE children.

May Genital Integrity one day be an EQUAL RIGHT for BOTH genders, and belligerent doctors and parents one day get their comeupance.

Peace Kogejoe 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of the article is disputed? Joie de Vivre ° 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Jakew 10:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This article badly needs references. In particular, the lead and overview are completely lacking in references, and, I suspect, may be unsourceable. In addition, the history section appears to consist mostly of primary sources that do not directly refer to the subject of the article; instead they are presented as an original synthesis that purports to be the history of Genital Integrity.

Have any scholarly publications actually discussed and defined the subject of the article? Jakew 11:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added some references. I don't know if any scholarly publications actually have discussed the genital integrity movement and its critics. Michael Glass 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the ultimate test for whether it belongs in Wikipedia. I'll wait for another month or so, to give plenty of time to find reliable sources, and if none are found I'll nominate it for deletion. Jakew 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Genital integrity is certainly mentioned in the scholarly literature. This may be seen from Google Scholar [1]. Michael Glass 19:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Many of the results seem to be trivial usage of the phrase. However, it may be that there are sufficient substantial sources to provide a definition and meaningful content for the article. Since most of the 'sources' cited in the article don't even mention 'genital integrity', I suggest that a rewrite is needed. Jakew 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The first four paragraphs of the 'history' section seem to be a somewhat one-sided view of the history of circumcision, rather than a history of 'genital integrity' per se. Do any reliable sources establish a direct link between this material and the subject of the article? If not, I propose to delete these four paragraphs. Jakew 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem lies in the title. "History" could be taken as a history of the genital integrity movement. I see these sentences as relevant, but the section would be better labelled "Background information." The four sentences in question are well documented but the arguments of those pushing for circumcision are not mentioned. I agree that it would be more even-handed to outline these arguments.Michael Glass 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the new title is a slight improvement in terms of clarity, but we still need sources that explicitly make a direct link between this material and the subject of the article. As far as an even-handed history of circumcision goes, remember that we already have history of circumcision, and we don't need a duplicate. What we need to concentrate on is significant events in the history of (or background to) the 'genital integrity' movement, as determined by reliable sources. Perhaps a pertinent question is: do any reliable sources actually discuss this issue? Jakew 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with sources

Since it is apparently necessary to clarify my serious concerns about the sourcing in this article, the following is a breakdown of all sources cited in the article, except Darby 2005.

The following sources are self-published:

The following sources do not even mention 'genital integrity', and thus apparently fail the requirement of no original research that sources are 'directly related' to the subject of the article:

The following sources contain trivial usage of the term only:

The following source contains some material suitable for inclusion:

http://www.menstuff.org/calendar/workshops/awareness.html

Finally, I have not checked these sources:

In short, this article has some serious sourcing and original research problems. Jakew (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks for all the work you have done here, Jake. I will go through all the sources you have cited and linked here and then make a more detailed response. Michael Glass (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael, I look forward to your comments. I hope that you can see why I'm so concerned about this article. Jakew (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, you have labelled the websites of all the genital integrity organisations as self published. The verifiability policy insists that we use reliable sources for information, and reliable sources are defined as academic articles and respected mainstream publications. However, the verifiability policy has this proviso WP:SELFPUB:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I believe that this provides enough room for us to have an article on genital integrity, its meaning and its use.

A second point that you make is that a lot of references are to articles that do not mention the term "genital integrity". My own view is that this material might be useful as background information to the genital integrity movement, but that it is mostly not about the genital integrity movement itself. For instance, Jon D. Levenson's article, "The New Enemies of Circumcision" does not mention genital integrity. My own view is that people have been praising and criticising circumcision for more than 2000 years, whereas genital integrity is a relatively new term. It is used by anti-circumcision groups, as your list shows, and it is now beginning to be used in academic articles, as you have also demonstrated.

The significance of the term, I think, is that it treats circumcision, female genital cutting and to some other surgery as a violation of human rights. This is quite explicit in genital integrity literature:

"Genital Integrity…is the principle that all human beings—whether male, female or intersexed—have a right to the genitalia they were born with." [2]
"Students for Genital Integrity (SGI) is group committed to ending the pratice of forced genital cutting; a human rights abuse perpetuated on children by adults. This abuse is often done in order to conform the body to a particular society's concepts of aesthetics and normality" [3]
"The Association for Genital Integrity is a Canadian group ... The Association seeks to promote the right of every child to bodily integrity. [4]

I believe that we could have an article on this term and do it in a way that conforms with Wikipedia policy. Michael Glass (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, thank you for your comments.

I think that SELFPUB addresses the situation where an article is about a person or organisation, and the source is published by the same person or organisation. I'm not sure that it is intended for situations where the article is about a political viewpoint, and the source is published by any person or organisation holding that viewpoint. Having said that, I think it would be within the spirit of policy to allow some self-published sources, providing that the conditions you list are met.

One of these conditions is that "the article is not based primarily on such sources". In other words, the majority of sources used in the article should not be self-published.

Your response to my second point is slightly confusing. You appear to agree that the sources I listed are mostly not about the subject of the article, which would appear to indicate that they fail no original research. However, it is unclear whether you think that they should be replaced, or that this material should be deleted.

You remark that 'genital integrity' may be a relatively new term, which is interesting, and may shed light upon the problem. If 'genital integrity' is indeed a neologism, this may explain the sourcing difficulties and may be a good argument for renaming (or deletion). Perhaps it might be better to think of some other names for the article, and/or how it relates to others in the circumcision constellation?

My main concern with the article is that if we were to remove the sources that are not directly related to the subject, the article would then be based primarily on self-published sources. And if we were then to address that issue, we would end up with a small stub of an article that cited perhaps 5 sources. In short, if the article were edited to conform to Wikipedia policy, it would almost disappear. And that's why I'm so concerned about it, and why I think that, as a minimum, a rewrite is needed.

I'm also concerned about single-viewpoint articles in general. Not only are they difficult to properly source (because sources tend to be about the subject, rather than other people's viewpoint about the subject), but they tend to easily become POV forks; consider the "background" section which is largely "history of negative statements about circumcision". I think that the same problem is true of "circumcision advocacy". Perhaps we should consider merging both into a neutrally-framed topic with a wider scope: something like 'politics of circumcision' (not the best name, I know, but I'm just thinking of ideas)? Jakew (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake, for your detailed comments. I am confused about the reach of the SELFPUB rule. If it is a strict policy that we can't use self-published material then we're bound hand and foot in writing about just about anything! There is also the problem of defining what self-published means. Is it confined to individuals or does it also cover organisations? If it covers respectable organisations, who determines respectability? Wiki policy, when pressed, can produce strange and paradoxical results. An old Bishop once advised people not to press the paps of Scripture too hard, or they will yield blood and not milk. Similarly with wiki rules, our reading of them needs to be tempered with common sense. They are guidelines to be followed, not weapons with which to fight a culture war.

Let's take, for example the History of Circumcision website [5]. It is a personal website of Dr Robert Darby, and as such, is not supposed to be used under Wiki policy. However, this website reproduces material that he and others have published in academic and other journals, so when it does that, it would, I think, be in order to provide a link to this material, provided it was a direct citation to the original material. (This is the same, as what we do with material reproduced on your website or on CIRP.)

Genital integrity is a relatively new term, and its use reflects a significantly different way of thinking about the genital cutting of children. Circumcision has long been criticised as cruel, risky and against nature. Now, however, it is being criticised as a breach of human rights. This, may mark a significant paradigm shift, such as what occurred when people put aside their considerations of orthodoxy and heresy and began to formulate the right of human conscience in matters of religion or when people threw aside medical and sociological theories of homosexuality and began thinking in terms of gay rights. Thinking about circumcision in terms of the rights of the individual puts the issue of infant male circumcision in a different light, so the term has more than passing significance. It also has significance because this term is also being used to cover female genital cutting and the sexual reassignment of intersex infants. Thus genital integrity, when used by activists, could be evidence of a different way of thinking about genital surgery.

So is genital integrity a neogolism? The fifth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the neogolism as applying to new words and concepts in theology, while the Macquarie Dictionary applies it to new words and phrases. As genital integrity is not a single word, it is not a neologlism in the primary sense of the word. Gential integrity is hardly a novel phrase. I found genital integrity used in the medical literature about the surgical treatment of cryptorchidism [6] Another example referred to nutrition and its effect on genital integrity [7]. Other papers listed in Google Scholar reveal that the term is used in psychoanalytical literature. Nor is genital integrity being used in a metaphorical sense, such as the way the phrase level playing-field is used. Rather, the term is being used in the primary and literal sense of the words, rather like the legal phrase due diligence, where the legal meaning is a specialised understanding of the literal meaning of the phrase. Therefore branding genital integrity a neogolism is questionable.

You also raise the question of what I want done with material that is not directly related to genital integrity but is about opposition to circumcision or criticism of that position. The question you ask implies that anything that is not directly relevant must go because it is original research. My position is less black and white than that. I am open to the possibility that some of it might be irrelevant, or better in another article. However, some of this material might be relevant as background material. For example, Douglas Gardiner's famous paper [8] considers the advantages and disadvantages of circumcision, but it does not ever consider that taking a child's foreskin might have human rights implications. Compare this with "We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without sexual, racial, or religious prejudice, we affirm this basic human right."[9] and it is obvious that the International Coalition for Genital Integrity is considering the question in a different way.

You have expressed concern that an article on genital integrity might become a POV fork. This is not my intention and need not be the result of dealing with the term. It may be that the whole topic would be better covered by a general article on the politics of circumcision. I am open to that possibility. However, for the moment, if we concentrate on what can be done with the article on genital integrity that question can be left until later. After all, Wikipedia has articles on Right to life and Pro Choice. i think, however, that one important thing about genital integrity is the fact that people are beginning to question infant and childhood genital cutting from a human rights perspective. Michael Glass (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the point of WP:SELFPUB is that the mere act of publishing (for example) a website does not create a reliable source. As a hypothetical example, I could easily create a website called "International Coalition Against Genital Integrity", and I could publish anything I wanted on that website. In fact, it would be no more difficult to put words on that site than to scribble on the notepad on my desk. In contrast, if I were to write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, it would be checked by the editor and by the reviewers, who would judge whether it was worthy of publication.

In the case of material that is reprinted on a personal website, we must cite the original source. We can provide a convenience link to the reprint, provided that it is an exact copy of the original, with no alterations. There is no need to provide a convenience link, and if there is doubt, it is generally best to provide only the citation.

My concern is that we seem to have a bunch of self-published sources, a bunch of sources used as original research, but very few reliable sources that actually say anything about genital integrity. You suggest that "genital integrity ... reflects a significantly different way of thinking about the genital cutting of children". If we had a source that made such an argument, it would be exactly the kind of thing we should be citing in this article. Jakew (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, thanks for your comment. Of course I agree that if there was an academic article that argued that the genital cutting of children was a human rights violation, then we should cite it. Margaret Somerville did make such an argument. Here is a link to what she wrote: [10]. I don't know who has suggested that the human rights argument is a new and different way of thinking about the circumcision of children, so I wouldn't push for this to be published on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think it would be in order to point out any evidence of the development of such thinking, and if a link could be found it would be good to include it.

You have written that as anyone could create a website saying just about anything, they are inherently unreliable. While of course that is a possibility, in practice, most websites are put up by real people who believe in what they are communicating. This, I am sure, applies to your website and also to those like Robert Darby, who put up a website saying what they believe in. By rejecting all private websites, or all websites of people we disagree with, we lose valuable information. This problem is partially covered by the use of courtesy links but it does seem paradoxical to accept second hand information about a group but not to be able to use information from their own website about their official policy. Michael Glass (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I fear that I didn't express myself clearly. If Somerville had argued that the subject of this article ('genital integrity') was a new way of thinking, it would certainly be suitable for inclusion. However, as far as I can tell, she didn't even mention the subject of the article. The point is that sources need to say something about the subject. Please see WP:NOR and WP:V (and, for background, WP:N).

As for losing valuable information, it's a possibility. But in practice, if information is truly valuable and the subject is notable, then it is likely to appear in a reliable source. So the main effect of excluding unreliable sources is to raise the average quality of the source material.

In principle, if we're writing about a group, then we can use information from their website provided that most of the article is drawn from third-party sources, which tend to be more objective. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake, for your feedback. We have reliable sources arguing that the genital cutting of children is a human rights violation. Margaret Somerville is one who argues this way [11] and Hanny Lightfoot Klein, a noted critic of female genital cutting, [12] makes a direct comparison between the reasons given for female and male genital cutting. Human rights concerns are touched on in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy on circumcision [13]. i agree that I have not found any evidence that anyone has argued that this is a new development. Such an argument is not in Douglas Gardiner's famous paper [www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/], and this fact might be noted. However, to go to the next step and argue that the human rights argument is a new development would indeed be a novel argument, and therefore against Wiki policy. If you read my previous comment you will see that I agreed with you that we would need a reliable source to state explicitly that viewing the genital cutting of children as a human rights violation is a new thing.

So I don't think we're in disagreement about how how to interpret most Wiki policy. We may disagree on how much use we can make of activist websites but I think that this is something that we can negotiate on a case by case basis. Please check out what I have written and let me know if there are any other concerns that we need to discuss and address. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I'm afraid I don't even understand why you're talking about whether the genital cutting of children is a human rights violation. I can't see what direct relevance this has to the subject of the article.

My main concerns, noted above, are that a large proportion of the sources cited in the article are not directly related to its subject, and their usage is therefore original research. After these, the second largest block of sources are self-published.

What we ought to have, however, is a substantial number of reliable, academic sources that have something to say about the subject, and the article should report what they say about 'genital integrity'.

So the present sourcing in this article is inadequate. I'd like to know whether it's possible to correct this by deleting inappropriate sources and replacing them with more appropriate ones, if they are available; whether we should broaden the scope of the article by renaming and/or merging, thus increasing the number of relevant sources available; or whether we should delete the article. Jakew (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, The reason I am noting that some people like Margaret Somerville have argued that infant circumcision is a human rights violation is that this is the position taken by people and organisations that use the term genital integrity. I don't think there is a problem of quoting information from genital integrity websites to illustrate their position on what genital integrity stands for. I see no problem in pointing out that this term has been used by people in academic literature. I don't think there is a problem in pointing out that not all opponents of circumcision have argued that infant circumcision is a human rights issue. The purpose of this is to document this movement and where it stands in relation to others who might be inclined both to agrree with its position and those who might oppose it. If there has been some academic discussion of this movement, both you and I would welcome its addition to the article but even without this I think we can say something meaningful about this movement while staying within the bounds of Wiki policy. Michael Glass (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, Wikipedia's policies are essentially that we don't write about a subject unless others have already done so in reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, we limit our coverage to what has been said about the subject in those reliable sources.

I would be grateful if you would read WP:N#General notability guideline. Jakew (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, I have read the policy guideline and I also note that it is to be applied with commonsense. Now, about the notablilty of the use of the term genital integrity":

An article in the British Journal of Urology, 1999: [14]
An article in the J Law Med 301 (2000). [15]
An article in the American Journal of Bioethics [16]

Google Scholar gave about 93 hits for "genital integrity" This, I believe, is enough to establish the notability of the term according to Wiki policy. Michael Glass (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, could you please explain how the above sources constitute "significant coverage": "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"? Jakew (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, first you argued that the sources of the article were self published and therefore not to be regarded as reliable. In response I pointed out the provisos in the policy about self-published and questionable sources. Now that I have provided sources from the academic literature you challenge me to show that they are significant coverage. This begins to look like trying to answer the Irish Question: if you try to answer it, the Irish change the question. I am not here to play games. I am here to work with you and other editors to improve the article Here are other articles from the academic literature that use the term genital integrity. Taking all these articles together I believe that they provide enough evidence to establish that the term genital integrity is used.

An article in the Medical Anthropology Quarterly states "Violating the genital integrity of a child or poorly informed adult as a prophylactic against avoidable diseases is, at best, putting the cart before the horse, and at worst a breach of human rights." [17]
There's an article in a book entitled "Understanding Circumcision" entitled "Attitudes of Egyptian Intellectuals towards Genital Integrity for all." by Seham Abd el Salam Mohamed [18]
This abstract [19] mentions the International coalition for Genital Integrity
An article in the journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health uses the term genital integrity [20]. For example it describes Attorneys for the Rights of the Child as "an international network of attorneys, encourages professionals in various fields, including medical ethics, psychology, and children’s rights to incorporate genital integrity awareness into their work. In addition, they assist in legal cases when a baby is circumcised without the consent of the parents or when there is a complication or death due to a circumcision."
An article In Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2005 contains the following: " It is striking that the anti- circumcision movement speaks of ‘genital integrity.’ On March 3, 1989 the General Assembly of the First International ..." [21]

In your next response can you say something positive about improving the article? Michael Glass (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I'm trying to help you to understand policy. I've shown you that self-published sources are generally inadequate. I've shown that sources need to be directly related to the subject of the article. Then, to show you the inclusion criteria for topics in Wikipedia, I asked you to read WP:N#General notability guideline. Clearly stated in this is a requirement that sources contain significant coverage of the topic.

I'm not asking you to show that reliable sources contain trivial use of the term. I'm asking you to show that reliable sources have something meaningful to say about the term which we could actually report in the article. Jakew (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, it seems that when a website has something to say about genital integrity you brand it as unreliable. When an unquestionably reliable source mentions genital integrity you brand it as trivial. I will now illustrate why I get the feeling that you are playing games. Take one of the links I provided [22]. It is also on your own website. [23] It says:

The genital integrity movement

In 1996, Mann[50] noted that public health and human rights were undergoing major transformations, producing more dynamic and challenging linkages between them, through their association. Many years earlier, children's advocates had created non-governmental and professional organizations to protect the rights of children to their genital integrity (Appendix 1). These organizations assert the principle that, where minors are concerned, "the unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession," such interventions being "violations of human rights and a breach of the fundamental code of medical ethics"[2], and that educated professionals have an ethical duty to protect the health and rights of those with little or no social power to protect themselves[51,52]. Details of one such organization, NOHARMM, can be found at the website detailed in Appendix 1.

You cannot argue that the article is trivial, because you put it on your own website. You cannot argue that the source is unreliable because it comes from the British Journal of Urology. You cannot plead ignorance because the article is on your own website. So I ask you, does it or does it not say something meaningful about genital integrity? If so, why didn't you link it to the article yourself? Michael Glass (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I would agree that this article meets WP:RS. However, it contains only trivial usage of the term. The section you quote only uses the term once, and fails to define it. At best we could say something like this:

Hammond does not explain what he means by genital integrity, but indicates that it is something to which children may have a right.

That's exactly what I mean by 'trivial'. Jakew 13:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, Are you defining the rights of children as trivial? I suggest that we quote the passage because it explains what the genital integrity movement is about in plain English. Michael Glass 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, usage of the term is trivial in the sense that we get no important information about the term itself. The passage doesn't even mention a 'genital integrity' movement. There is a single reference to 'genital integrity', which is not presented as a movement, but as something to which one might have a right.

Suppose this article were about 'green vegetables', and we had a source that began:

What does this hypothetical passage tell us about the topic? It tells us very little about green vegetables, only that children may have a right to them. Nor does it indicate that there is such a thing as a 'green vegetables movement'. Jakew 12:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, Please stop playing games. The whole passage that I quoted is under the heading, "The genital integrity movement". The passage, together with the heading, is in the article. It explains what the movement is about. Your analogy makes about as much sense as saying that the anti-slavery movement says nothing about slavery or anti-slavery, or that gay liberation says nothing about liberation or gays or the liberation of gays. In short, your analogy is a nonsense. Michael Glass 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I am not playing games and I remind you to assume good faith.

I hadn't noticed the heading, which changes the context. I'd therefore agree that the passage is suitable for inclusion.

So that's a start. Now, are there any other reliable sources with significant coverage? Jakew 14:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I apologise for becoming annoyed when you overlooked a heading that you had yourself quoted on your own website, and that I had quoted above. Headings are not noted for being inconspicuous, but I also find it easy to overlook something if I don't want to see it. I have added references and quotations from Hammond to the introduction to the article. Michael Glass 20:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was not obvious that you had quoted a heading, Michael - it appeared to be a sentence fragment. Thank you for adding Hammond to the article. I've altered the text slightly to reflect the topic discussed by the source.

To repeat my question above: are there any other reliable sources with significant coverage? Jakew 11:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you define 'significant'? Michael Glass (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:N states that it "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". Let's say that there's enough material in a source to allow us to write at least one paragraph discussing what the source says about genital integrity. Jakew (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

I have recast the first paragraph to take account of the criticism that has been expressed. Most of the text is now sourced from peer reviewed articles. The exception is opposition to sex reassignment surgery which is mentioned by some activist organisations. This has been documented from three websites, and I believe that this conforms with Wiki policy about the use of such sources. If there are any rremaining issues with the first paragraph, please let me know. Michael Glass 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement, Michael. Jakew 11:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Remaining issues:

'They question "the tendency..."[24]' -- this appears to be original research - the source does not indicate that this viewpoint has anything to do with 'genital integrity'.
The three self-published sources you mention. Jakew 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The segregation of discussion about male and female genital cutting has been noted by Hanny Lightfoot Klein [25] and Margaret Somerville [26] as well as by Darby and Svoboda [27]' though the term 'segregation of discussion' is perhaps not the clearest way to express this different way of thinking about male and female genital cutting. I would like to go into it further, but I would prefer to discuss it here so I have removed the sentence pending further discussion. As for the activist organisations, they have websites that display their official policy, so quoting or referring to part of their official policy should pose no threat to the integrity of the article. Even by the [WP:SELFPUB] policy these points should be noted.

These are websites of organisations, not individuals.
There is nothing contentious about the statement being the policy of the organisations referred to.
There is nothing self-serving about mentioning the policy.
It doesn't involve claims about third parties, only the organisations' policies.
It doesn't involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
There is no reasonable doubt that these sources refer to the official policy of the four organisations named and linked.
The article is not primarily based on these sources.

Of course, the article does not say that the opinion expressed is right, only that it is held by the four organisations referred to. Please let me know if this answers your concerns. If it does not, please suggest a remedy. Michael Glass 11:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I don't dispute that some authors protest what they see as a "segregation of discussion about male and female genital cutting". However, that isn't the subject of this article. The topic here is "genital integrity", and we must stick to what reliable sources have to say about "genital integrity".

Regarding the four activist websites, these currently constitute 80% (4/5ths) of the distinct sources cited in the lead section. Given that the lead should effectively act as a mini-article, this violates the spirit, though perhaps not quite the letter, of the "not primarily based" requirement. And as I have commented previously, once the sources used as original research are removed from this article, it would in fact be based primarily on self-published sources.

Because I have severe doubts that the sourcing issues in this article can actually be solved, however, I think it may be more productive to ignore this problem for the time being and instead continue our search for reliable sources that have something substantial to say about the topic. Jakew 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, While 4 out of 5 of the references are to activist websites, these 4 references are there to document one fact only. The rest of the introduction, which forms the great bulk of the paragraph, is based on a peer reviewed article. The other sentence has multiple references because it needs to be documented carefully, so simply counting up the number of references gives a distorted picture, in my view. Michael Glass 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If multiple references are needed to support one fact, that's often an indicator of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Can we not use a single reliable source that comments on this fact? Jakew 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the multiple references are needed to demonstrate that the policy of opposing genital surgery on intersexed children is not confined to one or two organisations. Why do you accuse me of advancing a cause? I am not. I have no opinion about this policy and I have not expressed an opinion about it. Why, then, do you imagine I might agree or disagree with it? I myself find the policy challenging enough to record in a neutral way that neither endorses nor criticises it. Your charge that I am trying to advance a cause is utter humbug.

Nor is it a synthesis. it is not a case of A + B = C. There is nothing like the synthesis in WP:SYN. It's simply stating that several organisations oppose sexual reassignment surgery for children with ambiguous genitalia, something that is easily verifiable by following the four links that are supplied. This information does not need to be assessed and analysed by experts to understand it. Any member of the public can verify the information by following the links, Therefore any charge that this information is unverifiable is nonsense. Michael Glass (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the position that appears to be advanced is that opposition to genital surgery on intersexed children is characteristic of genital integrity organisations, and the implication that this is significant.

One can easily verify that all four of the cited pages contain the word 'the'. But to remark on that would imply that it was significant. Jakew (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, the wording of the sentence is that several genital integrity organisations take this position, not most or that this policy is characteristic of genital integrity organisations generally. Nevertheless, it is a policy of the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, MGM Bill, Students for Genital Integrity and Nocirc. I would say that this policy of the four organisations is notable. Do you feel differently? Michael Glass (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this fact more notable than the fact that these policies contain the word 'the'? Jakew (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy statements say something notable about the organisations' policies. I don't want a word game. I want to understand your reasoning if you don't consider this information notable.Michael Glass (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, this isn't supposed to be a survey of websites that we think are part of a 'genital integrity movement'. It's supposed to be a scholarly article, summarising information that has been written about genital integrity.

I think this information is only notable if it tells the reader something about genital integrity. To put that another way, I don't think a point on which four policies coincidentally agree is notable, but I do think it would be notable if this was characteristic of a position shared by the organisations. Jakew (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The four organisations are amongst the most prominent of the genital integrity organisations. To say that the policy is coincidental is a guess; to say that the policy is characteristic of genital integrity organisations is also a guess. However, to note that these four organisations have this policy is simply a statement of fact, and I believe that this fact is worthy of note in the article. Michael Glass (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What source describes them as the most prominent of genital integrity organisations, Michael? Jakew (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Googling "gential integrity" and see which organisations come up first. Michael Glass (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections to be deleted

On the basis that they are original research (the sources being indirectly related to the subject at best) and constitute little more than POV forks of the referenced main articles, I propose to delete:

The first four paragraphs of 'Background'
All of 'Sexual Functions of Intact Genitals'
The first paragraph of 'Legislation'.

Obviously, there is no reason why similarly-named sections could not be recreated with appropriate sourcing. Jakew 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem to sorted out first is what we mean by genital integrity as a political or moral position. Under the heading, "the genital integrity movement" Hammond discusses organisations and also individuals who regard the genital cutting of children as a violation of human rights. [28]. I believe that this emphasis on human rights is the thing that distinguishes a genital integrity position from other positions that might be critical of circumcision on other grounds. For instance, Gardiner [29] was critical of circumcision, but he did not state, as far as I know, that it was a breach of human rights. Margaret Somerville, however did take this position [30]. I think that would be in order to point out these facts. Michael Glass 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, we don't need to sort out this problem first, if indeed it can be solved at all. We can and should remove OR, bearing in mind that content can always be added to the article.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, "genital integrity" means whatever reliable sources use the term to mean. We can't decide which meaning is 'correct'. As WP:NEO notes: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. ... The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we don't do that here at Wikipedia." (emph added).

Hammond describes the 'genital integrity movement' as "non-governmental and professional organizations [formed] to protect the rights of children to their genital integrity" (a curiously circular definition), but it is far from clear that he's making a distinction between a "genital integrity" position and a "opposed to circumcision but not genital integrity" position: "genital integrity movement" may simply be his preferred way of saying "movement opposed to circumcision". Neither Gairdner nor Somerville mention 'genital integrity', so unless another source has interpreted their views in this context ("Smith comments that Gairdner's views are not representative of the genital integrity position, whereas Somerville's are"), we cannot do so. Jakew 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm asking for. It's just a matter of pointing out the arguments that Gardiner and Somerville used as background to the information on the genital integrity movement. Michael Glass (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, WP:NOR requires that sources are directly related to the subject. Since neither Gairdner nor Somerville mention the subject, we need a third-party source that establishes the relationship by discussing them in the context of genital integrity. Otherwise they cannot be included. Please remember that a Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of what others have said about the subject in scholarly sources. If reliable sources have not documented the background to the genital integrity movement, we can't either. Jakew (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, are you saying that a source has to use the precise phrase, genital integrity? What if a writer used the term bodily integrity instead? What if the writer used the term genital integrity to refer to something different?

And, if you were writing about slavery, would the same rule exclude sources that talked only about servitude or bondservant or bondage? And if we were writing about female genital cutting would we be limited to sources that used this exact term, and if a source used female genital mutilation or female circumcision are you saying this wouldn't be good enough? And if we were writing about the Catholic Church could we only refer to scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals and not to the Catholic Cathechism? Or if we were writing about gay liberation, what about sources which referred only to homosexual liberation or gay rights or homosexual rights?

Please quote the precise words that, in your opinion, preclude any use of anything on a website which says it supports genital integrity. Michael Glass (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, with many Wikipedia articles we are writing about well-defined, established terms that have a clear meaning and volumes of sources available. I believe this is true of the examples you discuss. With such well-established terms, there may be well-documented, uncontested synonyms.

In this case, we don't have this luxury, which is itself an indicator of a problem. In the case of this article, the central term has "recently been coined ... [does] not appear in any dictionary ... [is] not well understood ... not clearly definable, and [has] different meanings to different people". (WP:NEO)

And since we can't determine "which meaning is the true meaning", we clearly cannot determine that a source using a different term actually means the same thing. All we can do is report on sources that use the exact phrase.

The fundamental problem is that the topic of this article is an ill-defined term with little significant coverage in reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a reasonably clear definition of the term genital integrity movement in the Hammond article. We have a number of uses of the term in the scholarly literature as Google Scholar reveals [31]. As these are two plain English words it is not surprising that the phrase is used in different senses. Therefore it would be useful to note these other uses so as to clear up any ambiguity.

As I have stated before, the argument that gential integrity is a neogolism is doubtful. The literal meaning of the word neogolism is new word but neither of the words is new. Also, if we stretch the definition to cover new usages, it is hardly that, because the words are being used in the literal sense. I really can't understand what the fuss is about. And if someone uses bodily integrity to mean the same thing, what is the problem in that? Michael Glass (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, Hammond's definition of 'genital integrity movement' is just about adequate to explain what he means by the term, but it is far from clear that everyone else means the same thing, and we can't decide that Hammond's definition is the correct one. In principle, I would agree to noting other uses, providing that definitions for these can be found. However, we should remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Although you may be technically correct that 'neologism' refers to single words, Wikipedia's policy explicitly applies to any terms: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." If there were a single, obvious meaning for the term, there might not be so much of a problem, but as you acknowledge, this is not the case. Jakew (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the usages in Google Scholar [32] are quite clearly connected to genital integrity as in the article. Seven of the first ten entries are clearly connected to the genital integrity movement. With the other three, the idea of genital wholeness or completeness is central to the way the words are used. In the next 30, 27 of them are connected, and in the next 10, 8 are connected. So in 50 citations, 42 are closely connected to the genital integrity movement, and all the others convey the idea of bodily wholeness or completeness. How much more evidence do you need to show you that the term genital integrity is used and understood? Michael Glass (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I fear you may be miscounting. The first is Hammond's paper. The second is unclear in the meaning ("the damage to bodily and functional genital integrity"), but apparently does not refer to a movement. The third, fifth, and sixth usages are not used in a descriptive manner, but merely form parts of a proper noun. The fourth reference is to "lower-genital integrity", which is apparently related to the immune system. The seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth do not appear to refer to a movement; the former two may refer to some physical quality, while the latter two appear to refer to a psychological quality.

I am not suggesting that it is impossible to guess at the intended meaning (or more accurately, meanings) in these examples, but sadly all we can do is guess. In contrast, consider as an example the term 'slavery'. It appears in pretty much every dictionary, has wide usage in scholarly sources (Google Scholar finds 610,000), and there is little doubt about its meaning. Jakew (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, all the references have some connection to bodily wholeness or completeness. As you have pointed out, some of the references form part of a name or title (a proper noun is one word). Let's look at what the words at [33] say:

"... The genital-integrity movement impugning any race or religion. ... educating their respective societies about genital integrity and the rights of children; ... " Clearly refers to the genital integrity movement and to bodily wholeness
"... of the medical literature as to the harm of circumcision from complications and otherwise, including the damage to bodily and functional genital integrity. ... " Clearly refers to bodily wholeness
"International Coalition for Genital Integrity" A name that is clearly connected to the genital integrity movement
"Effect of prenatal vitamin supplementation on lower-genital levels of HIV type 1 and interleukin... status is associated with the integrity of epithelial linings as well as with systemic and mucosal immunity, including lower-genital integrity" "Clearly refers to bodily wholeness"
" Appendix 1: Declaration of Genital Integrity" Clearly a declaration about bodily wholeness," The text of this declaration can be found at page 505 of Male and Female Circumcision etc... [34]
".. The Association for Genital Integrity reports that only 13.9% of male infants in Canada were circumcised in 2003. ..." Clearly refers to a genital integrity organisation
"... As we enter the twenty- first century, appropriate action must be taken to safeguard the physical genital integrity of male children. ... " Clearly refers to genital wholeness or completeness
"... Episiotomy has been routinely used since the middle of the 20th century, in the belief that it facilitates birth and preserves women's genital integrity. ..." Clearly refers to the idea preserving the genital integrity of women in childbirth by means of episiotomy.
"symbol of the phallus to be reintrojected and reaffirm the genital integrity of the fetishist." Unclear, though it is clearly about the feelings of the fetishist towards his or her bodily and genital wholeness
"... Time of di- agnosis and treatment, restoration of genital integrity, personality stability and famil- ial interactions are considered as elements affecting ..." Unclear. Hard to see how it can be literally true."

Apart from the two psychoanalytical papers, eight of the references are to genital integrity in the literal sense of the words. With the exception of the psychoanalytical papers, the meaning of the words is abundantly clear. If you don't get it by now, then it's pointless to spend any more of time on trying to get you to see it. Michael Glass (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, when a term is "used widely or within certain communities" and "has different meanings to different people", it should not be a surprise that those meanings are related. Even if there were clear evidence of "some connection to bodily wholeness or completeness" (not that I agree that there is), that is a case of several meanings with related themes; it is not the same as having a single, well-defined meaning. The literal sense of "genital" and "integrity" is barely relevant - we don't have articles about pairs of words unless the term is well-established in its own right, and has itself received scholarly treatment (as opposed to mere usage). Jakew (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Reassignment Surgery

If opposition to SRS is a plank of the genital integrity movement, as stated, then there needs to be more information on that. It is - without argument - a much more invasive and irreversible procedure than circumcision. As such, it deserves some more description. I don't have the knowledge to do that (I was hoping to find it here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.64.110 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Tag

Which sections of the article are presently thought by consensus to contain original research? They should be remedied so the tag may be removed. Tomyumgoong (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the long explanation in the section above. Jakew (talk) 11:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The question was regarding consensus, not your claims as previously stated. For my part, I think the current article is sufficiently referenced to remove the tag. Other editors should opine, so we may resolve the matter. Tomyumgoong (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An article can have references yet can still be original research. To quote from WP:NOR: "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Jakew (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence the need for consensus. Tomyumgoong (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One cannot have "consensus" to ignore original research, which this article clearly contains, as outlined by Jakew above. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see an explanation of "original research" in this article. Michael Glass (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid a circular discussion, I refer you to my comments in #Problems with sources.

To illustrate my comments, however, I would like to make a suggestion. Make a copy of this article in your sandbox. Now, go through each 'source' in turn, and answer two questions. First, does it say anything about the subject of the article (a prerequisite to which is that it actually mentions the subject of the article), and are we discussing what it says about the subject? If not, its use constitutes OR, so delete it. Second, is it a reliable source or is it self-published? Make a note of the answer to this.

Having done this, delete every section which lacks sources. As I outlined in #Sections to be deleted, this means deleting quite a lot of material. If the majority of the remaining sources are self-published, there is yet more work to be done before the article is verifiable. Jakew (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds so neat and easy. However, it's a trick. It's like asking about Right to Life or Gay Liberation and ruling out any source that doesn't use those exact phrases. It's a way of stifling information. Michael Glass (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever disputes there may be about the rest of the article, I believe that the first paragraph would pass muster. Does anyone have any objection to moving the warning below the first paragraph? Michael Glass (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some OR in the lead itself, Michael (eg., "Some use the more general term bodily integrity"). Moreover, these tags are intended "For placement at top of article or section" (Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes) and that is what readers will expect. Placing the tag below the lead might confuse readers into thinking that it applied only to the section immediately below it, rather than most of the article. Jakew (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jake, the easiest way to fix this is probably a little at a time. Start in one section (it doesn't really matter which), and remove any sentence sourced to an article that doesn't mention "genital integrity". This will both show the issues, and start the cleanup. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A consensus needs to be reached on the Talk page before making changes to the article. There is no consensus yet for Jakes proposed changes. -- DanBlackham (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan, policy (in this case No original research) exists because of widespread consensus. There is already a consensus that original research should not be included in articles, and that where present it should be removed. Please feel free to add material to the article that does conform to policy, but remember that per WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Jakew (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dan, there's no such rule, and policy demands that original research be removed from articles, not "discussed" for a year. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I've now removed most of the original research from the article, and have moved the tag to the only problematic section. I've also tidied up some of the refs. Now, as we can clearly see from the references, the problem is the need for reliable sources independent of the subject. Jakew (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have removed quite a bit that was referenced from reliable sources. Is it your contention that all such instances did not accurately reflect the content of their references? Tomyumgoong (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as explained above, was the fact that numerous sources had no direct relationship to the subject of the article, and their use therefore constituted original research.

Per WP:NOR: "...to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (emph. in original) and "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research; see below."

Clearly, then, to avoid original research we must reference reliable sources that are directly related to the subject of the article (ie "genital integrity"), and we must not go beyond what they say about "genital integrity". Jakew (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this argument can be seen in the editing done to the Background Information section. To trace the background of the Genital Integrity movement you have to include some material from before the time that this term became current. Otherwise, the term 'Original Research' simply becomes a means of deleting relevant background information. Michael Glass (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael, to "trace the background of the Genital Integrity movement" sounds rather like an aim that one might find in the "purpose" section of a social history paper. If such a paper exists, then we can (and should) make use of it in the article. If such a paper doesn't exist, then we should not engage in original research by trying to write it on Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise what others have written about a subject, after all. Jakew (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work so far, Jake. Maybe after this you can tackle Circumcision advocacy, which still suffers from this problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Genital integrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment

[edit] Original research

[edit] History

[edit] Problems with sources

[edit] First paragraph

[edit] Sections to be deleted

[edit] Sexual Reassignment Surgery

[edit] Original Research Tag

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search