Talk:Circumcision/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

---

Reasons for the POV tag

PLEASE SEE TOPIC #12 BELOW.

Only one issue has been resolved, and it's not even in the list!TipPt 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the POV tag is the one edit you've made that I absolutely agree with. (To be honest, I don't know if an NPOV article is actually possible here.) Fan-1967 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One editor cannot force a POV tag onto an article forever, they are not permanent. You'll never be satisfied with the article unless it reflects your own strong anti-circumcision views, but at some point you have to respect the greater consensus and Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus here. There are about three or four editors who hang out around the article keeping it as pro-circumcision as possible, and a steady stream of editors trying to make it more anti-circumcision (most get fed up and leave quickly). ^L_Wizard @ 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-circumcision"? It doesn't promote, recommend, or suggest circumcision in any way, as far as I can tell. It does stricly adhere to the reliable source guideline, which makes it very difficult to get propagandistic material into the article. And your comment has exactly and precisely highlighted the major issue "a steady stream of editors" have here; they keep "trying to make it more anti-circumcision", in your own words, when they should be trying to make it adhere to our policies instead, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Of course, the policy-violating edits are resisted by editors who actually care about having a neutrally presented, high-quality article, and this may indeed have the effect you mentioned, where anti-circumcision activists get frustrated and leave. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I was trying to phrase things neutrally, but if you're going to be a dick about it, we can do it that way. The article is currently biased. You can cite reliable sources and not do original research and still have a bias. The article currently exaggerates the benefits of circumcision and downplays its risks and ethical issues. Frequently editors will stop by, read the article, and say to themselves "Jesus H. Christ, this is a horribly biased article. I'll fix it up a little to conform to WP:NPOV." Then someone, typically JakeW, will revert them, usually with little explanation. If pressed for explanation, he will explain that "2+2=4" is original research, and that major medical organizations are only reliable sources when they're directly quoting studies whose methods JakeW agrees with.

Here's a good guideline for NPOV: We can tell that the article is NPOV when an equal number of editors think it's biased in each direction. You've seen a steady stream of editors who think it has a pro-circ bias - how many can you name that think the current article (as reverted to by JakeW) has an anti-circ bias? ^L_Wizard @ 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would tentatively agree, in that I would personally consider the article to still have a mild to moderate bias in that it fails to give due weight to opponents of the practise and their claims of its harmfulness; though I think this can largely be understood more as a failure of conforming to a global viewpoint than a deliberate attempt at bias. (Ie., all too many of the medical organizations which have generally reliable scientific methodology happen to be in English-speaking western/westernized nations, and thus, it could be argued, share a viewpoint on the procedure which is in the world minority.)

However, please be more civil in your remarks (vis-a-vis saying others are "being a dick" etc.). It really doesn't help anything to be rude and insulting. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LW's suggestion can never be a fair test, because of the fact that there is a relatively large, active, and organised anti-circumcision activist lobby. Since many of them believe that circumcision is mutilation, a human rights abuse, and perhaps even child abuse, they are often highly motivated. In contrast, pro-circumcision(*) individuals are relatively few in number, have no real organisation, and have comparatively little motivation. Thus, we should expect to have more anti-circumcision activists trying to make the article more representative of anti-circumcision propaganda.

• - Some use this term in a very imprecise manner, meaning anything from rabidly promoting circumcision, to questioning anti-circ claims, or at another extreme, the entire set of people who are not anti-circ activists. I mean those who actually promote circumcision. Jakew 09:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Or, to put it more simply, the people LW labels as "pro-circumcision" believe the article should present both sides of the issue, and are satisified with an article that does so. The anti-circumcision group do not, and are not. Fan-1967 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You people are impossible. Everyone has some bias. Until you are willing to admit that, we can't get anywhere. ^L_Wizard @ 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely biased in favor of articles that conform to Wikipedia's content policies. Nandesuka 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course everyone has some bias. That's why all facts need to be presented, without preference. We've seen repeated attempts by some anti-circumcision advocates to minimize, or even eliminate, opposing arguments. Fan-1967 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're interested in presenting all facts and conforming to content policies, why are edits this this one reverted? ^L_Wizard @ 21:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that particular one was reverted is that it was the first of about six major edits in a row, and a later editor, rather than trying to sort every particular change, just reverted the whole lot. Maybe not the ideal way to handle it, but it was a rather agressive editing spree. I might point out though, that the first paragraph change at the top of that first page jumps out, and should have been reverted, because it's atrocious, mixing reports from three different years to take one line (with no context) from the 1975 report. The quote from the latest report in 1996 appears, as part of a much more complete statement, in the next paragraph. The full paragraph below makes numerous references to "benefits and harms" (i.e. two sides). TipPt's summary paragraph above would certainly seem to imply (by selective use of quotes) that the organization opposes neonatal circumcision, which a reading of the detail clearly does not support. On the contrary, they quite specifically state that the evidence of benefits and harms is "equally balanced". This has been a repeated issue with this editor's summaries on the positions of Canadian and US medical societies, where s/he states that an organization does not support circumcision, but leaves out the fact that they don't oppose it, either. Fan-1967 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Paediatric Society does oppose routine neonatal circumcision. "Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." DanBlackham 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since that line is not in the rather long position statement we have from them, would you care to tell us where it's from? Fan-1967 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is in the CPS position statement. It is in the abstract section of the document. The bottom line is the CPS recommends that infant circumcision should not be routinely performed. That fact needs to be included in the article. DanBlackham 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I'm sure we've been over this before. Routine circumcision is that which is done automatically, as standard practice, or as the AAP put it "The Task Force found the evidence of low incidence, high-morbidity problems not sufficiently compelling to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for all newborn males. However, the Task Force did recommend making all parents aware of the potential benefits and risks of circumcision and leaving it to the family to decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their child."[1] (emph added) So the CPS appear to have a similar recommendation: against routine circumcision, but no position on an elective basis. Jakew 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset margin) Jake, I understand that is your POV, however the American Medical Association disagrees. The AMA says, "the term 'non-therapeutic' is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States." [2] The AMA report uses the phrase "routine circumcision" to describe elective non-therapeutic circumcision. The two terms are interchangeable. DanBlackham 06:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan, the AMA report you cite does not declare that the two terms are equivalent. I'm not prepared to take their statement regarding their meaning of a different term, and your assurances that it has the same meaning, as evidence. Sorry. Jakew 09:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again Jakew, although it is probably unintended you write as though you regard this article as your personal property... "I'm not prepared" etc. Using language as though you think you are the expert peer reviewer to accept or reject anyone's contribution is not going to help this very poor quality, POV and wordy article to progress. Have you noticed how many people over a couple of months have become heated talking to you? Think about it mate. --BozMo talk 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, once again let's look at the actual language of the AMA study cited by DanBlackham: This report is confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes. In this case, the term "non-therapeutic" is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States. So, very much unlike what DanBlackham, wants to imply the AMA uses the term "non-therapeutic" in a very limited sense that explicitly excludes religiously-based circumcisions. Any attempt to use this AMA report to imply otherwise would be at best careless, possibly dishonest, and perhaps even bigoted.Dasondas 12:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Religious circumcision is elective circumcision. (Actually it is FORCED circumcision when performed on a person without their consent/before they're old enough to consent) Lordkazan 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The Bias is primarily from JakeW ramrodding censorship of any and all dissenting information from this article. Furthermore bias is introduced by the lack of comparision information that plays up the benefits of circ - such as EVEN IF EVERY MEDICAL CLAIM WAS TRUE (which several of them ARE NOT) the same benefits can be gained from non-invasive means such as wearing condoms and bathing properly! JakeW is the primary ramrod of bias into this article to the point that he says that studies that support his position are FLAWLESS and UNIMPEACHABLE even when given a list of specific criticisms including show-stopping ones. He has consistently blocked my mentioning of a study that came out at the same time as Auvert that found different results than it simply because he asserts that it is of lesser quality Lordkazan 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

lead section

The lead section of an article should not contain lengthy quotations, and certainly not from one specific medical association; rather, the lead should succinctly summarize an article's contents in a neutral way. Articles should also try to have a global perspective, rather than focussing exclusively on the American POV. Please don't insert this absurdly long quotation (134 words!) in the lead again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg I take your point and (basically) agree, however when I put that quote in it was in an attempt to correct the clear bias inherent in stating that the AMA, et. al. do not recommend routine circumcision without mentioning that neither do they discourage it. The "non-theraputic" qualifier does not fix this problem, and previous attempts to negotiate an editorial solution have failed. This appears to be a problem that long pre-dates my involvement with this article and represents "cherry picking" of quotations by advocates on one side of the debate. As I said, I wasn`t particularly enamored of the idea of placing that quote where I did, and I would prefer a more elegant editorial solution to the problem. I will certainly defer to your request to not reinsert the disputed quote, however I think that there is still an egregious problem with this article misrepresenting the policy of the AMA and other medical organizations and will look forward to any ideas you may have to resolve this.Dasondas 19:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you think your latest edit handles the issue? I'm fine with it, if you do. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with it for now; there may still need to be some minor tweaking on this general point, and other sections of the article do still need attention (not necessarily to correct any bias), but I think that my last edit helps and is certainly magnitudes better than my previous clumsy attempt. In any event, at this point I'm not perceiving a great deal of bias one way or the other in the article; I'd like to see comments from other interested editors (on all sides of the issue, obviously). Dasondas 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should we move the arguments for and against circumcision into a separate article and keep this article clean on what it is? Otherwise the article quality is rather low --BozMo talk 09:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea - move "medical benefits" off into circumcision advocacy and move the rebuttal to those supposed benefits to pages associated with the Genital Integrity movement Lordkazan 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that medical benefits is a function of advocacy for circumcision. Medical benefits (and risks) are supposed to be objectively established phenomena that any informed parent (or subject) should be aware of. It's that way with any other medical procedure, from the least controversial (removing a burst, infected appendix) to the most controversial (some kind of cosmetic surgery). --Leifern 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite agree. Facts exist independently of those arguing for or against. Advocates on both sides may use (or abuse) them, and this may in some cases be worthy of inclusion in the relevant articles. However, to decide to discuss such facts only in those other articles is truly bizarre, like insisting that the only mention of rain forests in Wikipedia is in a page on environmental lobbyists. Jakew 10:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Truly bizarre? Sounds a bit of a last refuge that... What you have now is an article listing in boring detail the positions which various people and professional bodies have pro and anti circumcision. Then there is the main article content lost in the mess most articles in Wikipedia are about their subject not one level of abstraction higher. --BozMo talk 11:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Leifern the bias is that the disadvantages are not adequately covered and that studies contradicting the "benefits" are kept out - I pointed out a study that came out almost simultaneously with Auvert and JakeW objects to it as "what does it say that's not already been said by cochrane review" - the same is true of Auvert - auverrt is far from conclusive, but he has no objection to auvert because it conforms to his unencylopaedic agenda. It belongs in there because it's also "more recent" like Auvert. Also the "benefits" are not put into perspective - all those "benefits" are insignificant and can be obtained through non-invasive means when they exist at all. Generally cosmetic surgery is voluntary - my circumcision was not voluntary it was performed when I was days old. Now at the age of 22 I find I would like to have used my foreskin. I was deprived of the majority of the erogenious nerves of the penis by misinformed doctors. I want this article to be truthful and in perspective. As it is a biased piece that justifies non-voluntary circumcision. Lordkazan 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No one can speak to your specific situation. I have compassion for you. In the U.S. there are no non-voluntary circumcisions. The permission of the parents is necessary, and that makes it voluntary. You can be angry at your parents for choosing to circumsize you, choosing your religion, screening and limiting your friends, all sorts of things. But trying to suggest that the medical community is mis-informed, or ethically wrong just isn't accurate. There are many people, myself included, that feel that circumcision is beneficial, and prefer to be circumsized.

You have a passion for your position, and you are a perfect candidate for being an activist for that position. Unfortunately, that isn't beneficial for being an editor with the goal of a neutral position. This article is not the proper place for activism. It can fairly balance the views, and point interested people to more information on those views. Atom 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullocks - I suggest you look up the definition of voluntary and then refrain from attempting to belittle people who disagree with you. Circumcision is the only situation still legal in the USA where healthy tissue can be removed from a minor on parental preference. You're right - this article isn't the proper place for activism. Good thing I'm notr trying to make it be such - I'm trying to enforce NPOV. Lordkazan 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh btw, I just remembered something. Don't know if it's still practice but in army hospitals they do it without parental consultation (as if parental consent was valid for this proceedure to begin with) Lordkazan 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the same is not true of Auvert. The Cochrane Review specifically draws attention to the fact that, at time of publication, no randomised controlled trials had completed. It specifically singled out the importance of these trials, stating "In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful. The results of these trials will need to be carefully considered before circumcision is implemented as a public health intervention for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV."

And Auvert's study is the first of these trials to report results. That is why organisations like the CDC, the WHO, UNAIDS are paying so much attention to it: because it isn't just another observational study, it's hard experimental evidence. Jakew 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And Auvert's study has severe methodological flaws and has been contradicted by a report almost simultaneously release. Citing Auvert without the other is a POV violation Lordkazan 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you consider the Auvert study to be flawed. However, observational studies and their findings are already covered by the Cochrane Review. Their value is "doubtful" in the light of the RCT data. Jakew 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The study in question that came out at the same time as Auvert is NEWER - you cannot dismiss a study just because of it's classification of type of study and you dislike it's result. (BTW thanks for the link fix on my userpage) Lordkazan 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is newer. So too are the first 26 abstracts in this search of the AIDS 2006 conference presentations. So too are roughly the first 50 results returned when searching PubMed for "circumcision hiv". Do you propose that we include those 76 studies too? I suspect not. I suspect that you'd agree that they offer little value to the reader over what's already there. So pray tell: what is so important about this little study that it warrants inclusion? Please explain why a) it is more important than the studies reviewed by the Cochrane Collaboration (widely considered to be the authority on evidence-based medicine), b) why it is more important than the conclusion of the Cochrane Collaboration, who described the value of such studies as "doubtful", and highlighted the importance of randomised controlled trials instead, and c) why it is more important than any of the 76 or so published or presented in the last year. Jakew 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're changing the subject. I don't particularily care WHICH study is cited that calls Auvert into question - last I checked the article made Auvert sound like it was 100% set in stone as a true result. I just want everything in this article to be put in perspective so that people don't go out and take the choice away from their little kids Lordkazan 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that you ought to review WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Our role is to provide accurate, verifiable, and neutral information. We cannot be concerned with what people will do with that information - attempting to change society is activism, and is generally incompatible with the goals of the encyclopaedia.

Returning to the subject at hand, would it satisfy your concerns if we include something like the following from the joint WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF/UNFPA/WB statement?

(existing discussion of RCT findings.) However, "UN agencies emphasize that the final results of the ongoing trials will be essential to determining the efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV infection in men in differing social and cultural settings. Once the findings of these trials have been announced and reviewed in 2007, WHO, the UNAIDS Secretariat and their partners will define specific policy and programming recommendations." [3] Jakew 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I recomment you review those. wikipedias role is to provide accurate, verifiable and neutral information. And it's failing to do all three. It's showing all the supposed benefits in detail while not covering the criticisms of those studies, not showing the disadvantages in detail, and is generally currently showing a pro-circumcision bias in the article. ALL I WANT IS A NEUTRAL FUCKING ARTICLE HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND. Lordkazan 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the article is meeting all of these goals. I've suggested a possible quote that might address the concerns you express, but you seem to have ignored it. And I'm sorry to say, but based upon your contributions (including edit summaries), you seem to be more interested in enforcing your point of view rather than helping the article to be neutral. Jakew 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullocks, look at my edit history on the article - i've made PERHAPS two edits on the article - TWO EDITS. You guys act like I'm actually editing the article without discussion. Sorry Jakew, i cannot anymore give you the benefit of the doubt that you are acting in good faith after you have implied more than 20 times that I have edited the article to add POV commentary - I came TO THIS PAGE to discuss this as a means to try and raise the quality of the article and increase it's NPOV compliance - you have no interest in being NPOV compliant, you want the article to show your POV as clearly demonstrated by your behavior and edit history that users other than myself have noticed. Lordkazan 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, please don't revise history. It's not that you can no longer AGF - you never did. You first accused me of "agenda pushing" in, I believe, our 2nd talk page interaction.[4] It's a pity, and it makes working with you more difficult, but I don't hold it against you.

As for your previous contributions, you have shown a tendency to impose your POV on articles. I refer you to edit summaries such as "Removed because the studies have fatal methodology flaws that render them junkscience," "I posted the counterevidence on the freaking talk page, this is not vandalism. There is no citation here, there is no good citation POSSIBLE here -all studies supporting are flawed," and "remove introduction of pov-pushing censorship. No medical benefit ever even suggested can justify non-voluntary genital alteration." I believe that it is therefore appropriate to remind you of actions that should be avoided; the intention is not to cause offense, and I apologise for any inadvertently caused.

Now, perhaps we could discuss the article? How do you feel about including the above quote from the WHO? Does their emphasis on waiting for the results of the other two trials address your concern about parents rushing out to circumcise their children? Jakew 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lordkazan you need to chill, and recall/review WP:CIV. We understand you feel strongly about it. People who feel strongly about issues shouldn't edit those articles, that's my opinion. In this article, NPOV means expressing both sides, or all sides proportionally and appropriately. It does not mean not expressing any view that someone disagrees with. There are people who advocate, prefer, and are for circumcision. That's okay. They get to express the factual data related to their perspective here, and their opinions on the talk page. My read of the article is that in numerous places it is clearly POV against circumcision. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of effort to present both sides in a balanced fashion. Your assertion that the article "is generally currently showing a pro-circumcision bias", IMO, is just unfounded. Your strong language, and your continued efforts to bias the article in one direction, rather than let the myriad of other editors find consensus on a balanced NPOV article is innapropriate (in my opinion). Please be civil. Please try to work on the article from a non-emotional perspective that assumes the other people are working with Good Faith. Atom 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't condone the language but Atom perhaps you should look at the history of edits a bit more... I am pretty ambivalent on the issue (its a bit of a non issue in my view as long as no one with scissors comes near my kids) but the introduction of the systematic bias pro circumcision looks like it comes from a small number of very opinionated individuals who are virtually squatting long term on the article. More importantly there is far too much material about the argument on the article which should be a neutral study of the practice. Sure a series of people come in, correct the NPOV get reverted, get cross and leave: but that's a bit understandable. On basis of your "People who feel strongly about issues shouldn't edit those articles, that's my opinion" a few of the regulars on this article shoul take a holiday.--BozMo talk 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision and Culture

In the culture section I'd like to see someone add discussion on circumcision technique. For example is there any difference in the quantity of foreskin removed when comparing Jewish, Islamic and secular US circumcision? Are there any technique differences? 149.167.200.118 11:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

there is no such thing as secular circumcision, medicalized yes, but not secular. Circumcision was started in america in the late 1800s as a means to "cure" masturbation and was introduced by religious zealots. Many people still say they are doing it "for religious reasons" (even when they belong to religions that do not circumcise), and there is an example in the news recently of a man in canada who had the government pay for plastic surgery to graft skin onto his penile shaft to replace skin lost to a very henius circumcision. He was held down by two priests at approx age 8 and crudely circumcised "for his masturbatory ways" - they held him so forcefully they broke his arm and jaw and circ'ed him so severely that he couldn't get an erection without it being painful for the rest of his life (until the surgery). Lordkazan 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision and Sensitivity

It seems to me that the debate on whether circumscision affects penile sensitivity or not is missing an important distinction. In this debate one needs to distinguish between newborn circumcision and adult circumcision. The studies seem to have focussed on adult circumcision and the results are contradictory...this suggests to me that on average there is no sensitivity difference in adults.

I can believe this because in adults the glans of the penis keratises and loses sensitivity with age anyhow. Also in adults the glans has had more exposure to friction throughout its lifetime.

However in newborns and infants I suspect the situation is quite different. Uncircumcised infants have glans that are so sensitive that the penis hurts should the foreskin retract a little, allowing the glans to rub against clothing. Circumcised infants therefore must fairly rapidly lose sensitvity in order to cope with this discomfort.

Thus I suspect if one was to study circumcised versus uncircumcised sensitivity in males in their teens and early twenties I would expect to see a difference. However as these same males approach their 40s and beyond, I suspect their penile sensitivities converge to roughly the same level due to keratisation and "wear and tear."

Thus I argue that if there are any sensistivity differences to be found, one should do research into the hypothesis that it is an *early* effect that wears off with age. My question is: has any such study been carried out? If so please report it in the article. 149.167.200.118 11:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

most of the adults I know that were circed as adults say there is a fairly rapid and massive loss of sensativity. Furthermore the only "study" i've heard on this subject was Masters & Johnson and that had a fatally flawed methodology, the way it tested sensativity would not have stimulated the nerves of the foreskin and frenulum Lordkazan 13:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting hypothesis, but it seems a rather desperate attempt to cling on to the keratinisation theory - for which there has never been any evidence - in spite of evidence showing it to be more myth than a real-world phenomena. It's a little like watching a devotee of Newtonian gravity arguing that perhaps Relativistic effects might apply in special cases that have just happened to coincide with experimental data, but these are exceptions to the usual rule in which Newtonian physics apply. You can't help thinking, "well, there's always a possibility, but Occam's Razor applies here."

Anyway, this is rather off-topic, so the short answer is that there have only been four studies to investigate the issue (Masters & Johnson 1966, Bleustein et al. 2003, Bleustein et al. 2005, and one other which temporarily escapes me). Bleustein controlled for age and did not find significant differences, I'm afraid. Jakew 10:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(replies are the same level are supposed to be listed in CHRONOLOGICAL order - do not insert your replies above mine). Bleustein was a joke - it has a sample not large enough to use validly for statistical purposes - making extrapolation a stretch. Then it fatally (to any claims of validity) had a non-random sample. Bleustein was yet another piece of pro-circ junk science. Lordkazan 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do let us know when your critique has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and we can include it. Jakew 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing should be easy...look at the statistics in all those "studies", and only include statistically relevant findings. Right now, we have small study groups with poor response rates, subjective responses with low variability, and lots of statistically irrelevant but confusing junk. Most of the studies involve circs as therapy on diseased foreskins (sex was poor before the circ, and improvement is relative)...TipPt 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And how do you propose to determine 'statistical relevance' without performing OR, Tip? Jakew 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The rules for disqualifying samples from being statistically relevant are well known and well established - i'm sure there is a wikipedia article on them somewhere. If applying established rules constitutes OR then the OR rules need to be looked at. As it is I already think the OR rules give a pro-establishment bias to wikipedia's medical section. There definantly needs to be OR rules, but they shouldn't be blocking valid criticisms (especially since most scientists down bother publishing pieces solely to criticise another since publishing isn't free) Lordkazan 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR; you cannot include your own conclusions about studies. Please quote reliable sources instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

would you mind refraining from being an insulting by telling me things I already know and notice that I haven't edited the fucking article! see my above comment about the article is curretly NOT NEUTRAL. Lordkazan 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits against earlier consensus

[[5]] establishes that uncircumcised is the agreed term so why is it all being changed back to non-circumcise by the only dissenter in that discussion? --BozMo talk 15:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

without looking at the earlier discussion i could guess the user finds "uncircumcised" to be a biased term... i could see that being argued either way - I would prefer the term "intact" Lordkazan 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote intact or natural.TipPt 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On further thought I definantly think "uncircumcised" is some what a weasel word. "un-" has a subconcious implication with many that it is the opposite of the normal state, in this case that couldn't be further from the truth. Lordkazan 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The longstanding consensus is for the neutral and common English term uncircumcised. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus among a bunch of people who currently are holding the article in a pro-circ bias. Fuck longstanding consensus - that's argumentum ad populum ("consensus") and Argumentum ad antiquitatem ("longstanding"). Just becuase you agree on the term doesn't make it NOT a biased term! Lordkazan 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Please be civil.
2. Consensus is how Wikipedia operates. As with WP:NOR, if you don't like it, you can propose changes at the appropriate place, but you're unlikely to be successful.
3. The term is not biased just because you deem it so.
4. Your argument holds no water. Consider "unaltered" or "unpasteurised", for example: neither implies that the opposite is normal. Jakew 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you JakeW that uncircumcised is not POV. However your style is confrontational. We all recognise that there is a weakness in WP consensus when special interest groups stake out articles. It would be a shame if this article becames another sad example, and you should be awake to the risks. As a general remark JakeW I think you should probably try as a matter of courtesy to revert much less often and reworded other people's contributions inclusively more often... that is if you wish to encourage civlity. --BozMo talk 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Lordkazan 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com definition 3 - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=uncircumcised - "3. heathen; unregenerate." - more support for the assertion that the term, is infact, somewhat POV. I don't feel to terribly strongly about this - but the term does strike me as somewhat weaselish Lordkazan 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble here. I'm trying to imagine a situation in which a reader could conceivably read an article on circumcision and somehow make the mistake of thinking that the intended sense of the word 'uncircumcised' was in fact an obscure (and I strongly suspect mainly historical) religious term, rather than the more obvious meaning. Were this an article about 12th century religious texts, it would be just about believable. But it isn't.

So this hypothetical reader would have to be a) fairly literate, in order to know such an obscure meaning, and b) incredibly - unbelievably - lacking in the ability to apply contextual clues to such situations. Such a person would find daily life incredibly difficult, if not hazardous. We're talking about a mind that when told that you had a nasty habit would start to worry about your clothes. Jakew 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said - "I don't feel to terribly strongly about this - but the term does strike me as somewhat weaselish". I would prefer the term intact to be used, so I'm just pointing out various ways in which "uncircumcised" could be seen as somewhat pov-ish and weaselish. It's ability to used as a disparative is almost certainly where I get my sense of it being weasilish from. Lordkazan 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that usage is uncommon (it is listed last) and specifically refers to its usage in Old Testament quotes, where it was used as a disparaging term for non-Jews, just as the clean-shaven Romans used "barbarian" (bearded) as an insulting term for outsiders. Fan-1967 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Medical Aspects POV

Negative effects are not shown in sufficient detail, and much information is outright missing. See the following pages (which cite medical studies) http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm and http://www.noharmm.org/snip.htm Lordkazan 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the pages you cite satisfy WP:RS. Furthermore, if you bother to follow up references, you'll find that a) many are misrepresented, b) many others are merely opinion pieces, rather than scientific studies, c) several contradict each other, and d) a simple literature search often reveals that the (carefully) selected references are in fact anomalous results and/or opinions contradicted by research. Jakew 09:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jakew I give your opinion about this much weight: 0. Pulling "That violates wikipedia rule XYZ" out of thin air every five seconds is REALLY tiring. They're a reliable source because they cite their sources. Even if you say NOHARMM is unreliable they cite their sources. I'm sick and tired of you keeping this article in a pro-circ NPOV and abusing wikipedia rules to do it. Lordkazan 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more to reliable sources than merely citing other work, Lordkazan. Try reading the policy. Jakew 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Which NPOV on neonatal circumcision

It seems to me that part of the problem is the matter of which question we take an NPOV on. Where is the fulcrum of the debate? What does "pro-circumcision" mean.

I guess we should be NPOV on the question on whether neonatal circumcision (without dire medical cause) should be considered/made illegal or be left to parental choice (which it seems to me is a wide public debate, with all sorts of guidelines being issued by professional bodies). In this regard the issue is a bit like abortion or smacking. Again, in these cases few if anyone is proposing compulsion, and so one POV is pro-choice and the other is "ban it".

Do we agree the contraversial issue for neonatal circumcision pro-choice versus banning? I don't see much serious discussion anymore from people proposing more aggressively pro-circumcision positions than pro-choice so I guess this defines the left hand POV? --BozMo talk 10:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a good way to frame the argument. A lot of "intactivist" types would like to spread (what they believe is) the truth about circumcision, and then (they assume that) no one will choose it for any reasons but religious. No need to ban it. I think the issue is more comparable to smoking than abortion: it's a bad choice that people are free to make, but it's unethical the way it's pushed on children. ^L_Wizard @ 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

LizardWizard is partially wrong - "intactivists" want to to be illegal for it to be performed on someone without their consent/prior to their age of consent without clear medical need (BMA has some decent guidelines on using less invasive treatments first). So they're free to make it for themselves (like Jakew), but it is a crime to make it for others (like my parents did to me when I was merely days old) Lordkazan 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Come now, LK. "Intactivists" are not a gestalt entity, they're individuals. While they're opposed to circumcision by definition, there's a fairly wide range of views. Some desire a law against circumcision, while others would prefer to reduce the numbers of circumcisions through "educating" others. The range of views I've seen expressed includes:

1. Circumcision should be illegal (eg Lordkazan on WP, MgmBill.org).
2. Circumcision should be strongly discouraged (eg LizardWizard on WP).
3. Circumcision is up to the parents and accurate information should be provided (eg yours truly on WP, AAP)
4. Circumcision should be strongly encouraged (eg Gerald Weiss)
5. Circumcision should be mandatory (eg a journalist whose name escapes me)

Jakew 16:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How you split groups up depends on your own bias. Your bias leads to that division. Mine would be more like:

1. Circumcision should be illegal (eg Lordkazan on WP, MgmBill.org).
2. Circumcision is up to the parents and accurate information should be provided (eg yours truly on WP)
3. Circumcision should be strongly encouraged (eg JakeW)
4. Circumcision should be mandatory (eg a journalist whose name escapes me)

The difference in how they're split up probably depends on what you think the data show about advantages and disadvantages of circumcision. In my opinion, unbiased scientific data is discouragement enough. ^L_Wizard @ 22:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My position is more accurately stated as "Circumcision should be illegal until age 18, and excluding clear and direct medical need (ie a case of severe pathological phimosis". This would have to be accompanied by an education campaign in the united states and several other english speaking countries as unhealthy practices are visited upon intact infants/children out of ignorance. Such as foreably retracting the foreskin when it's developmentally non-retractable - this causes severe damage and can end up causing one of the various medical conditions that would dictate the need for a circumcision! Furthermore many causes of developmental phimosis are misdiagnosed as pathological phimosis. Lordkazan 03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is "pro-circumcision" bias? 2 to 3 paragraphs about "risks" under one heading then multiple headings for specific benefits, completely ignoring many of the observed physiological changes, not putting the supposed benefits there are into perspective (IE X can also be obtained more reliably via condom use), preventing legitimate objections to the validity of pro-circ studies from being commented on. That is pro-circumcision bias, and the wikipedia rules are being abused to keep the article that way. Lordkazan 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

my reviews of medical sections

For example - the penile cancer claim is bunk - see http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html (it cites it's sources, ANY article I think as evidence is going to cite it's sources) Lordkazan 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The activist web page you cite is not a reliable source. Jakew 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason I only cite sources that cite evidence. Just because it's an activist website doesn't mean it's wrong - especially when it's citing research. You're a biased editor who cannot keep your bias out of the article, why should I listen to you? Lordkazan 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The HPV claim is also utter garbage Lordkazan 14:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of studies is OR by definition. Jakew 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, which it's a good thing there are other studies that contradict the bullshit claims that uncircumcised wangs propagate HPV, infact an article this last week in the International Herald Tribune points out one those claims to be BS based. not to mention the entire article is about the HPV vaccine! http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/healthscience/snvaccine.php ( Lordkazan 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be some SMALL association that does exist from other evidence, however the difference is completely drown out by other risk factors such as number of partners, contact with sex workers, etc. So put it in perspective ("a small difference"). Definantly not grounds to cut a child's wang on. Lordkazan 18:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, one IHT journalist believes the association to be false. Anyway, whether it is or isn't grounds is not our role to say. We just give the facts. Jakew 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Horseshit we just give "the facts", right now the article is only giving SOME of the facts - and the ones that support your position Lordkazan 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Infectious and chronic conditions" is weasel wordy, how about you cite the difference in the rates - it's minisculue to the point of insigificance. Just like Auvert if, Auvert was correct, 1.25 per 100 means 400 people have to be circumcised to prevent 5 cases of AIDS - hardly fair to the 395. Just wear a farking condom! (Auvert is fatally flawed crap) Lordkazan 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest an alternative heading? Jakew 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the heading I was objecting to, it was the content. I want the NUMBERS of the difference in rates added Lordkazan 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Balanitis" section is good. Lordkazan 14:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbers from which study? For balanitis, we have Fakjian (adults): 2.3% (circ'd) vs 12.5% (uncirc'd), Herzog (children): 2.9% vs 5.9%, or Fergusson (children): 7.6% vs 14.4%. Jakew 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Phimosis and paraphimosis" is generally ok, there are less invasive proceedures than circumcision to solve these as should be noted. The wikipedia article on Phimosis has a fairly decent list of them with source citations. Lordkazan 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is logical for an article on condition X to list all treatments for X. This article is about circumcision. Jakew 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The balanitis section makes reference to some of the alternative treatments. I never said this should be an exhaustive list, it should just make notable reference to the fact that circumcision is not the only treatment Lordkazan 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The UTI section is good Lordkazan 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Now the completely missing list of negative effects -

Size of the adult foreskin "the mean surface area of the prepuce when folded out, was 46.7 cm2." http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/werker/

"ridged band" sensory mucosal tissue http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

Loss of mechanical "sliding" function, body image issues (admittedly small sample) http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/money/

A poll on the effects found " Respondents reported wide-ranging physical consequences from their circumcisions. Among the most significant were prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%), painful skin bridges (12%), other, e.g. beveling deformities of the glans, meatal stenosis, recurrent non-specific urethritis (20%).", and "The reported sexual consequences included progressive sensory deficit in the preputial remnant and glans (61%), causing sexual dysfunction (erectile problems, ejaculatory difficulties, and/or anorgasmia); extraordinary stimulation required for orgasm (40%), with many respondents reporting that vaginal sex offered inadequate stimulation for pleasure and/or orgasm; and sexual dysfunction resulting from emotional distress (see Psychological consequences).", "Other reports suggest that some circumcised individuals compensate for a diminished sexual response with either compulsive sexual behaviors [19] or those offering greater stimulation (masturbation, oral/anal sex) [20]. A desensitized glans and the absence of the fine-touch receptors [21,22] and erogenous mobility of the prepuce may necessitate inordinate stimulation of residual penile nerve endings to achieve pleasure and orgasm. Numerous respondents described needing to resort to extraordinary, often violent, thrusting during intercourse, with some respondents (or their wives) reporting genital dryness, abrasion, pain and bleeding.", "Emotional distress, manifesting as intrusive thoughts about one’s circumcision, included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%). Many respondents (41%) reported that their physical/emotional suffering impeded emotional intimacy with partner(s), resulting in sexual dysfunction. For some, lack of compassion from parents, siblings or friends fostered bitter interpersonal conflict or alienation. Almost a third of respondents (29%) reported dependence on substances or behaviors to relieve their suffering (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, food and/or sexual compulsivity)." - these are all, admittedly, from a self-selected group with greater knowledge - the following are from generaly population , "One report suggested that 20% of circumcised men were dissatisfied with their condition, while 18%of them would rather not have been circumcised [31]. Another survey [32] canvassed 197 intact and circumcised American men, who reported their perception of their genital condition. Of intact men, 80%, 3% and 17% were satisfied, dissatisfied or ambivalent. Of the circumcised men, the respective values were 38%, 20% and 41%. Another report [33] revealed that half the respondents circumcised as infants were unhappy about it, compared with 3% of non-circumcised respondents who were unhappy being intact." http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

You can simply read the list and follow the citatios, and contrary to a certain persons assertion that this source isn't reliable - you can just cite the studies directly! Lordkazan 15:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, this poll was conducted by NOHARMM, and participants were recruited from their membership and those of foreskin restoration groups. In other words, it's a poll of male anti-circumcision activists. As for the others, Werker's of mild interest, and may be worth adding to the foreskin article. Money, as you (and he) acknowledge, is too small a sample to be meaningful (and is also contradicted by other research). As for Taylor, he merely speculated that the ridged band is sensory tissue. Jakew 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, you'll note THAT I SAID THAT and so did the source, and then they said moved onto studies of the general population, WHICH STILL showed negatively for circumcision. Your opinions carry zero weight with me Jakew, you're one of the worst offenders in here in keeping the article in a pro-circumcision bias. The article is appaulingly silent on the negative physical and phsycological effects of Male Genital Mutilation. Lordkazan 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So the author gave us the figures on the anti-circ population, and then looked for and cited figures that (he says) are from the general population and which happened to agree (though in some cases he has to twist the facts to make them appear to fit)? :-) Jakew 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, whatever, resort to "zomg!!! he twisted the facts" because you don't like the fact that the general population also showed a negative result for circ. Lordkazan 18:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, try comparing how he represents ref 31 with the online version of that source. In particular, note the absence of the comparative statements "Over three quarters were happy to be circumcised, and most were very positive about it. On the negative side, while only a few circumcised men wished they weren't, most of these felt very strongly about it. ... Natural men were less enthusiastic about their state - the majority were happy to be the way they were but nearly a quarter wished they had been circumcised, and half of these (13% of the total) said that they intended to get circumcised. Here, too, feelings ran deep..." Yet you'd never have guessed that the facts were so. From Hammond's (mis)representation, you'd think it was really damning. Jakew 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There I went back and highlighted something important you missed Lordkazan 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the fact that the ridged band contains sensory tissue is not speculation. Lordkazan 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"We postulate that the `ridged band' with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue" (emph added). Jakew 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves". It's not merely speculation, it's educated postulation based upon data. Lordkazan 18:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What a pity that he didn't choose to publish that data. Nerve counts in particular would be invaluable in assessing the plausibility of such a claim. Jakew 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm point 5 - citations 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Lordkazan 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

1 - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor (the paper we're discussing). Does not give nerve counts. 7 - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/ (largely a repeat of 1) - does not give nerve counts. 8 - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/ - does not give nerve counts. 9 - Dogiel, A. S., "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der äusseren Genitalorgane des Menschen," [Nerve endings in human genital mucosa] Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893): 585-612. (not online) - does not give nerve counts. 10 - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann2/ - does not give nerve counts. 11 - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/ - does not give nerve counts. 12 - http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/3zones.htm - does not give nerve counts. Check for yourself. Starting to see what I mean about misrepresentation yet? Jakew 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Learn to do algebra? Lordkazan 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mine's not too bad, but unless I start with 'let N = 20000', I can't seem to make the number appear. I'm therefore inclined to think that's where it came from: thin air. Jakew 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because you don't bother to read any study that disagrees with your position. Heck you cannot even be bothered to read the details of Auvert which DOES agree with your position. From this point Out I'm not responding to your comments as I've had enough of your POV-pushing censorship of the data. Right now you're fixating on a number when it's the fact that they all show it to be primary erogenious tissue is the real point. Whatever, See my comments on your talk page. I've had enough of you Lordkazan 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you think about it, the fact that I know these studies well enough to realise when they're being misrepresented is evidence that I do bother to read them, regardless of their position. Now certainly, I'm interested in this number because I think it's illustrative of how these organisations attempt to mislead the public. As for erogenous tissue, they haven't shown it to be so at all - tissue samples on microscope slides aren't known for their sexual responsiveness, after all, and a different kind of study would be needed to determine such a thing. Interestingly, none have been performed. Nor has any comparative anatomical studies been performed with hard data - just vague statements and speculation (not to mention the ridiculous assertion that the glans cannot feel a pin-prick) from people like John Taylor (who just happens to be a member of NOCIRC). But none of that seems to stop anti-circ sites from making wild claims like saying that the foreskin is the primary erogenous zone of the male body...

I guess it's fortunate that Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle. We don't have to accept these propaganda sites uncritically. We restrict ourselves to credible, peer-reviewed sources, and avoid misrepresenting them. Thus a credible encyclopaedia is produced. Jakew 19:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh stop being dishonest - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/ was good enough quality to be cited on the goddamn page for foreskin Lordkazan 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's cited honestly, representing the opinions they express, but without endorsing those opinions, without misrepresenting them as fact, and certainly without exaggerating them. That seems reasonable enough. Jakew 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That has to be the most weaselish way to try to avoid admitting that you were proven wrong I've ever heard Lordkazan 20:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong? About what? Did I ever say that people weren't allowed to have such opinions? Jakew 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the foreskin is the primary erogenious zone is not an opinion. Lordkazan 20:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Firstly, you're misreading their claim. They say it "is primary", not "is the primary". The distinction is important. Secondly, stating something does not make it a fact. Douglas Adams stated that the Earth was created for and ruled by mice. It's not a fact. But you should surely know the distinction between claim and fact. Don't you dispute Auvert and colleagues statement that "Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved", or do you accept that that is a fact now? ;-) Jakew 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

false analogy - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a work of fiction, not a work of science. There is little relevant difference between "is a primary" and "is the primary". Either way it says the foreskin is a primary erogenious zone and depriving someone of it is reducing their sexual function and sensation. Lordkazan 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not discuss fiction vs science in the context of that particular paper, eh? As for the difference, since I note that you're familiar with C, it is the difference between (x >= size_threshold) and (x == ULONG_MAX). But I agree: Cold and Taylor do indeed state that the foreskin is primary erogenous tissue. Whether or not the facts are on their side is another matter. Jakew 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And since you assert that my opinion on Auvert is completely irrelevant to inclusion in the article despite my ability to point out SPECIFIC methodological failings then that means your opinion on Cold and Taylor is especially irrelevant since you cannot even point out specifics and it's statement that "The foreskin is primary erogenious tissue" should be in the medical effect section of the article. Lordkazan 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have pointed out specifics above: without nerve counts, you cannot even predict the relative sensitivity, and without sensory testing, you cannot verify the prediction. Anyway, the available space is limited, and we can't give space to every opinion that has ever been written. Articles on more specific subjects can and do include mention of it (as you've seen). In the main article, we have to summarise and prioritise (opinions are simply not as valuable as facts). We already include the remarks of several med orgs on the subject, to which we should give precedence as per NPOVUW. Additionally, such a quote can't be included directly without performing original synthesis, since it pertains to the foreskin, rather than circumcision per se. Jakew 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and you've given priority to all the dubious pro-circumcision medical claims and given no priority to any of the information on the disadvantages of foreskin. I may be a biased editor, but I am a biased editor striving to create an unbiased article. You are a biased editor, and I see nothing from you but desperate attempts to keep the article biased and searching through the archives and your talk page reinforces my opinion. Just because you are happy with your circumcision does not mean you get to keep censoring information you consider dissenting from the articleLordkazan 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) Lordkazan, at no time during this entire discussion has JakeW personalized this issue to be about his circumcision. Please address your arguments to the debate, and not the debaters. To do otherwise is argumentum ad hominem, and is not nice. So knock it off. Nandesuka 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Penn & Teller's Bullshit

There's a decent chance this is old news, but this is a pretty good, accessible source of research (though a direct link might not be allowed?)

Check it out: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3986639769399148778&hl=en-CA Scix 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's an oldie, but goodie :D Lordkazan 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a spectacular episode. And not least for the startling revelation when I looked up Dr. Fleiss. I think the only thing they missed was the fact that the majority of the world does not circumcize; but then, P&T is intended for an American audience, so unlike us, they can be forgiven for such a lapse. Of course, none of the specific details were anything I hadn't already learned, but the presentation was very engaging. Kasreyn 09:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN fix

In the references section, you will find the following line with an incorrect ISBN:

* Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. ''Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma.'' Boston: Vanguard, 1996. (ISBN 0-964-44895-3-8) {{Please check ISBN|0-964-44895-3-8}}

Please change the ISBN number to 0-9644895-3-8 (3rd group loses a 4, hyphenation changed to standard) and remove the template, to read as follows:

* Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. ''Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma.'' Boston: Vanguard, 1996. (ISBN 0-9644895-3-8)

Thanks. --Kevin_b_er 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. JPD (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

anti-circ bias does not exist at all

Reading through the talk pages, one gets the idea that the major problem is to create a NPOV within this article. But I believe that there may be a typical American problem regarding NPOV. NPOV refers to the idea that everything can be seen from different angles and that, combined with the constitutional Freedom of Speech, may lead to some disturbing scenarios. Just for the sake of the argument let me make one maybe inappropriate but certainly not purposely offending comparison. For example, taking the NPOV idea to it's logical extreme one may state that all those people who claim the Holocaust actually happened are biased and can also refer to FoS. Not so in Germany: For all that it's worth, we have a law forbidding people to cast doubt on the REALITY of Holocaust. End of inappropriate comparison.

Neutral Point Of View regarding circumcision necessarily means to present the question of whether it is OK to circumcise one's child as a question of personal choice of the parents. Which it is not! I do NOT regard myself biased anti-circ at all when I say that judging from my professional medical POV there is NO medical indication to circumcise EVER. It is NOT biased to say that it is a unnecessary risky operation, barbaric rape and a body assault resulting in intended permanent physical damage. It is purely rational and morally upright to get enraged by the idea of a discussion regarding NPOV when we are talking about circumcision here.

Maybe Wikipedia will eventually have to make a MORAL decision (...MPOV...) instead of fanatically clinging to NPOV, because NPOV opens the door to radicals who do such things as claiming the Holocaust never happened or that it is fine to cut something off of a healthy child's body, be it motivated religiously or otherwise.

And please don't forget the reason John Harvey Kellogg established the whole thing. He also "treated" the clitoris of young girls with acid! And you DO NOT claim that there is any kind of NPOV about THAT, or do you?

87.78.178.52 09:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia ever changed NPOV policy in such a way (abandoning NPOV for 'MPOV'), it would immediately lose any credibility that it had. It would become little more than a platform (often a war-zone) for individuals to rant about their own moral beliefs. It would be wholly inconsistent, often adopting a different moral position every day depending upon the moral beliefs of whoever had edited a page most recently (arguably this happens already, but at least policy can theoretically stop it). At various points in time, Wikipedia would vigorously oppose abortion, advocate nuking Iran, simultaneously support feminism and oppose equality for women, etc, etc. Who could take such an encyclopaedia seriously? It would be a joke!

If you feel strongly, you are of course free to propose it at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. But maybe it's better if you put your indignation aside and remember that no matter how strongly held, your POV is just one of many, and neutrality is vital to the encyclopaedia. Jakew 10:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fighting to stay calm right now. Of course it's you, hiding again behind NPOV. Of course NPOV is vital to Wikipedia. Of course it cannot be abandoned without changing the whole idea of what Wikipedia is. And there's my point: The entire NOTION of NPOV is flawed, not only within Wikipedia! Professional journalism abandoned this ideal a long time ago in favor of opinion-making. To inform always means to influence, and the basic information one can derive from reading the article or the discussion is that there are many different people with many different POVs and no one is right OR wrong, and therefore concluding that (infant) circ is not just so bad. Well, it is in that it simply takes the liberty of choice away from an unconsenting baby.

But let me get to you: For the sake of this whole discussion, I would like you to state your personal POV about circumcision. It DOES matter, I believe. So, what is YOUR personal moral offset? Are you FOR or AGAINST circumcision? Because I do not buy your NPOV bullshit. Maybe the article can obtain neutrality to some degree in the distant future. But NOT YOU, because you are an individual (a circumcised male? maybe Caucasian American?) and are therefore NOT able to be personally objective about this, it's simply impossible. And do not give me that "dedicated to Wikipedia" BS. In my opinion you are biased, not me! You are exploiting NPOV! The thought that any parents made the choice to have their baby circumcised because they looked it up on Wikipedia, and read through your oh-so-polite comments and /or NOT reading through the confusing overlength article makes me sick! And that's about it. YOU MAKE ME SICK! And that's not meant to be provocative AT ALL, it is simply true and to the point. 87.78.178.52 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You continue posting like that, you will be banned for personal attacks. -- Avi 12:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be several issues here.

• You believe NPOV to be flawed. Ok, fine, go to the appropriate page (I've given you the link already) and argue for it to be changed. But unless and until it is, NPOV is policy and non-negotiable, so you're wasting your time arguing against it here.
• You consider infant circumcision to be bad, for reasons you've stated. Again, fine, but please remember what Wikipedia is not. It's not your soapbox. It's an encyclopaedia. For purpose of discussion here, on an article's talk page, your opinion doesn't matter.
• You ask about my stance. That doesn't matter here, either, though certainly it matters (to me, at least) elsewhere. If you go to my user page, you'll find some answers you're looking for, however.
• You try to frame things in terms of who is biased. Again, it doesn't matter. As long as we adhere to policy, the article is good, and that's what counts. Indeed, I would suggest that with controversial subjects like this, it is absolutely essential that we are extra-scrupulous in making sure that we adhere to policy. It is there, after all, for a reason. Jakew 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this IS a personal attack and I do not care if I get banned. My being aggressive is a REACTION to the intrinsic aggressiveness of Jakew's comments. He SOUNDS polite, but ACTS aggressively. Whereas that MAKES me aggressive and I'm very much trying to be honest about that. And I would really like him to respond to my last posting. Isn't it true that every individual, if at all, has a BIASED POV concerning circumcision? Isn't it therefore also true, that for the sake of the whole discussion we should be straightforward about our won POV and not conceal it behind a constant bladdering about NPOV like Jakew constantly does? 87.78.178.52 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I read your Wiki-HP, Jakew, and your honesty surprised me. You are stating that you actually went on to influence the Wikipedia discussion on circumcision. You state that infant circumcision shouldn't be demonized. Well, I think it should. And you should be a lot more careful about that because you were a consenting adult. And I urge you to comment at least on this: In my opinion the worst thing about infant circumcision is that it takes away the liberty of choice (that YOU HAD) from an unconsenting baby who MAY resent the decision his parents made. 87.78.178.52 12:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My read of the article is that it is fairly well balanced. My perception is that it is more weighted against circumcision, rather than being perfectly balanced. Several places it could be worded to be more neutral, but it appears (to me) that the purpose in those sections is to not appear neutral, but to point the reader away from circumcision. But, all in all it is pretty well written, and does present both perspectives sufficiently. (It occurs to me that most of our female editors would probably not have a bias. We should let them edit for NPOV.)

People with strong emotional investement in the topic should step out of editing this article. Maybe proponents of both sides with, or expressing these strong sentiments should take a voluntary one month hiatus from the article, and see how the article develops without both sides pushing so hard. How could that hurt? Atom 12:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

the section on "medical benefits" (or however it's phrased right now) completely ignores the negative aspects beyond the actual operation risks - it gives the so-called "positive" long term effects (many of which are based upon dubious research) and completely ignores all the negative long term effects. In america - the largest english speaking country - the foreskin is treated as a birth defect, and the missing information from the medical section reinforces that position making it an NPOV violation. Every attempt to resolve the issues with the overstated benefits and totally ignored costs is stonewalled by User:Jakew. Lordkazan 13:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The positive effects listed seem to come from strong credible studies; where does all this negative stuff (that is currently not in the article) come from? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

studies of penis anatomy. And while some of those things do seem to come from credible sources (like the supposed claim UTIs is reduced), just because a source is realiable doesn't mean it's infallaible - like Auvert. Lordkazan 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a hard pill to swallow, but fundamentally, as a tertiary-sourced encyclopedia, Wikipedia is more concerned with "verifiability" than "truth." This sometimes leads to articles that I personally disagree with, but on the whole results in a more reliable, trustworthy, and consistent encyclopedia, because on controversial subjects we rely on reliable sources rather than the opinions of editors. Sometimes that means that minority opinions get short shrift. Nandesuka 02:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

85% of men on this planet are not altered, that would make my opinion a majority one. The information that is censored is verifiable, and some of it is even sourced elsewhere on wikipedia with sources that Jakew rejects on this talk page as "not really experts" and tries to cite RS and Verifiabiity guidelines as being against them - it's good enough for the other articles. And you're right - wikipedia is concern more with the appearance of verifiability than truth - Auvert is unverifiable, and a flawed study and get it gets on here because it was touted at World AIDS conference. Lordkazan 02:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the figure were 85%, having an uncircumcised penis does not mean that a person has anti-circumcision views. You might as well claim that most Scandinavians are Nazis because they have blond hair and blue eyes. Jakew 10:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a certain amount of credible and serious issue to be taken with the South African study but to my knowledge it has thus far been raised in print by journalists, not medical researchers, statisticians and others in a position to challenge its findings under established canons of scholarly research and publication. If you can find such discussion in scholarly journals then reference to it of course belongs in the article. But you have only challenged it on the basis of your own scepticism or that of others who have not published their misgivings in appropriately citeable publications. Why don't you do some research and find such material? Masalai 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I referenced a report released simultaneously that looked a whole group of studies on the subject that found the results inconsistent (Drawing auvert into doubt statistically) and was stonewalled by Jakew's "well that's a such-and-such study and is of lower quality" (According to whom?) - and unfortunately no scientists have had time to publish papers ripping auvert to shreds yet. Lordkazan 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means keep watch for such publication. Seems doubtful anyone will precisely rip anyone else to shreds in the world of scholarly publishing though; that's seldom how academics operate. And when they do, their vehemence alone tends to impair their credibility: see the fate of Derek Freeman's entirely reasonable critique of Margaret Mead's ethnology in American Samoa, but couched in terms of such blustering and offputting indignation that it was not met with the respect it deserved on its merits. If the report you mention is indeed published in a generally respected place then it certainly deserves mention, if only in passing as a caveat as to Auvert. Otherwise, as you must realise, not. Masalai 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The report in question hasn't yet been published (it was a presentation at a later conference), and didn't even mention Auvert's findings (the claim that it draws Auvert's study into doubt is merely LK's opinion). Unfortunately, nobody has yet explained why of the 40+ observational studies so far, most of which are already documented through the Cochrane summary, this requires special mention. Jakew 10:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

you ignoring my answer is not the same as they're BEING NO answer posted. The contents of Auvert is also covered in the Cochraine review, it's just yet again another onf ot the many contradictory studies performed on the subject - so why should it get special attention at all? Sorry Jakew, but you don't fool me. Your objection is NOT that "it's already in the cochraine review!!111111one1!1", that's just your smoke screen. Lordkazan 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is covered in the Cochrane review, which emphasises the importance of Auvert and the other RCTs. It also describes the value of non-RCT studies as "doubtful". I'm not interested in fooling anyone. That is precisely what it says: "Three randomized controlled trials are currently underway or commencing shortly. ... In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful. The results of these trials will need to be carefully considered before circumcision is implemented as a public health intervention for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV." (emph added) Jakew 10:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading this page with great interest. What I love about pro-circumcision activists like Jakew (an accurate conclusion about him, I took little time in reaching) is that they always love to say things like (paraphrasing) "parents should make an informed choice", "overwhelming evidence supports routine circumcision of males", "I lack bias of any kind", "I'm only presenting the evidence" or "I'm on science's side", etc, etc. It is so amusing to see this as these people clearly have some kind of deep irrational hatred of the normal male anatomy. At least "anti-circumcision fanatics", as they're called by Jakew's ilk, are honest and transparent about what they are saying. I find it especially hard, however, to understand Jakew's motivation for the holding the views he does. Usually one can write these people off because they are old, male, circumcised at birth and from the USA. I accept that Jakew is satisfied with his own circumcision, but what does he make of the fact (to use a phrase he might use, the "overwhelming evidence") that above 99% of intact men never need to be circumcised and would never want to be in their lives. Men with foreskins seldom elect to have this procedure done to them. Jakew is thus a rare specimen and naturally he can do what he likes with his own body, but how can he expect anyone else (outside of the US and other circumcising countries) to take him seriously? In his country, the last medical school of thought to encourage circumcision so eagerly was the Victorian one, in which he, a man of the 21st century, firmly places himself. 165.146.165.143 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Since I started this thread yesterday, a lot of nothing new has been said in direction of the strictly formal logical point I was trying to make. So I'm going to reiterate this and urge anyone to stick with the topic of the thread or go elsewhere to talk. Before I get to my argument though, let me point out that drawing a comparison like "all intact (that's the word) people are against circumcision" equals "all Scandinavians (presumably being blond and blue-eyed, which is not true at all in its own right) are Nazis" attests to very bad rhetorical and especially argumentative competence to say the very least. A more suitable comparison might be regarding "all people with two healthy eyes are against having their eyes removed at birth unconsenting despite of all the scientificly correct and profound warnings that having eyes can lead to short-sightedness or even worse stuff". Yes, I am against neonatal circumcision. Very strongly so. And still, I maintain that this is not because of any anti-circ bias. You see, just talking about (or arguiing out of the assumption of) the equality of anti-circ bias versus pro-circ bias presents a logical error: The states of "circumcised" versus "intact" are not in a symmetric dichotomy, because the "intact" state of a person's genitals continues to offer both possibilites (staying intact versus getting circumcised). Therefore, and this needs no citation whatsoever, because it is an argument strictly derived from applied logic, the voices of pro-circ people and even studies can never count as much as voices of people who resent their (involuntary) genital mutilation. This means: even if close to every circumcised man would (for whatever reasons) claim their happiness about having been circumcised, they still could have had it done later. But there is now way back (like in the second law of thermodynamics). I, for one, can state that I would eagerly give ten years of my life for not having been circumcised prior to my potential consent. So there is an asymmetric set of states and I ask you folks to defy the logic of my argument. Who tells you that (concerning Auvert, for example) some men in Africa would not think like that even in the face of an allegedly reduced risk of HIV infection? Nobody can! And therefore, Auvert and all studies proposing mass circumcision for HIV prevention are de facto invalid, even IF they eventually turned out to be supported by empirical evidence on a large scale. And so is the sheer idea of neonatal circumcision in general. And I prefer the term "intact" for a similar reason: "intact" can stand for "uncircumcised" (as in "not yet circumcised") but also for continued genital integrity (as in "never will be circumcised"). So this is not a biased choice of mine either, but is instead based on the same logic that hopefully applies to most people (as in "most people are neither circumcised nor wasting a single moment of thought towards letting themselves or their children be circumcised"). 87.78.178.102 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And let me add: This logical argument poses a serious problem to all the people (you know who I'm talking about), who constantly avoid any real dicussion and instead point to Wikipedia guidelines like NPOV. This is because IF the logic of the argument I made is valid AND IF even Wikipedia guidelines cannot possibly be more logical than logic THEN my logical argument is logically equal to any Wikipedia guideline. Stating anything else would not be adhering to logic and rational thought (as in "intact brain"). Is there a Wikipedia guideline prohibiting being illogical or irrational? 87.78.178.102 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What I love about pro-circumcision activists like Jakew (an accurate conclusion about him, I took little time in reaching) is that they always love to say things like (paraphrasing) "parents should make an informed choice"…

— 165.146.165.143, 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, that is the medical organizations that say that. The article should not have any statements based on personal opinion. The AAP, AMA, CMAJ, etc. all say that parents should make the decision. You may disagree with that, but that is the fact from the source, and that is what the article should say. -- Avi 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe User:165.146.165.143 was actually refering to the way certain users are hiding behind Wikipedia ideas to perform an aggressive form of "clean slate vandalism". 87.78.184.150 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Actually reporting published, peer-reviewed medical studies, as opposed to the obvious truth of "I would eagerly give ten years of my life for not having been circumcised", is clearly vandalism. Fan-1967 18:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm just going to assume you are willing and intelligent enough to understand what I am trying to point out. Go to the respective discussions/histories at Gliding action and at masturbation and watch user:Jakew at work. BTW: Adding my personal POV within the discussion is not at all vandalism of the article, how could it possibly be? Please explain. 87.78.184.150 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to confine your discussion to the actual issues of the article. Your opinion of Jakew, or what he has posted on another article, is not relevant in any way. Ad hominem arguments have no value. Fan-1967 20:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why There’s a POV

Pro-circ information emphasised, but relevant factual information is blocked from the reader. We know the cast of characters. Unfortunately, the article is quite unstable. Anyway, here's some primary problems or omissions:

1. The main article is too long, but potential medical benefits are listed and detailed as though they are particularly relevant to the decision to circ (or medicine). They are not, but they are detailed again in the medical aspects main article. They are listed again in the CPS statement. The following sections should be summarized in the main (circ) topic, and then detailed in the "main article." (Medical analysis of circumcision) should be combined with the main (medical aspects) article ... 4.2 HIV 4.2.1 Studies 4.2.2 Methodology 4.3 HPV 4.4 hygiene 4.5 Infectious and chronic conditions 4.6 Penile cancer 4.7 Phimosis and paraphimosis 4.8 Urinary tract infections.

2. The medical association opinions should be edited to reflect their full (unbiased) statements and current position (reaffirmation by the CPS).

3. The sexual effects section is a joke..."They are discussed more fully in the full article." Makes me smile every time, but I digress..

We know that the frenulum is a primary erogenous zone, and it (or part of the delta zone) is generally reduced and may be removed during neonatal circs. The following information is blocked: Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum or that include a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," "very reactive," and "seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft," according to Hass and Crooks in college sexuality textbooks.ref Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100. Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129 The frenulum is a primary site for eliciting ejaculatory response.[6][7][8]

4. Given the importance of the frenulum, the article should inform the reader immediately (in sexual effects) of the following: "In 28 percent of our pediatric population undergoing elective circumcision we have demonstrated a previously undescribed ventral chordee of the glans, the result of a tethering effect of an unusually prominent frenulum ... Twenty of the 70 boys (28%) demonstrated a ventral glandular tilt (glandular chordee) due to an unusually prominent frenulum ... Persistent frenular chordee after circumcision may result in deformity of the penis on erection making sexual intercourse difficult or uncomfortable." AS. Griffin and RL. Kroovand, Frenular chordee: implications and treatment, Urology 1990 Feb;35(2):133-4

THERE MIGHT BE A ~28% CHANCE THAT A (hospital setting) NEONATAL CIRC ALSO REMOVES THE FRENULUM

5. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Hygiene [9]: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk." [10] Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”[11]. One researcher concludes that access to clean water and regular washing “should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.” [12]

6. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality) because it is a later statement, which qualifies that cited statment.[13]: A 2002 peer reviewed journal of the AAFP reported on research finding “participants reported significantly reduced erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no significant change in sexual activity, and significantly improved satisfaction after circumcision. This improved satisfaction represented a more satisfactory appearance of the penis and less pain during sexual activity. These results cannot be generalized to neonatal circumcision.”[14]

7. Any or all of the following paragraphs, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality): There are few studies on sexual partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are varied. The intromission function of the foreskin may facilitate penetration and vaginal wetness.[15][16]TipPt 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussed already. Numerous times. See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 16, etc. Jakew 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

that doesn't mean that information doesn't belong in the article Jakew - you cannot roadblock information that showsa circ to be unneeded but continue to insert information that suggests that it is. This article isn't your personal property. Lordkazan 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Lordkazan, and review the earlier discussions. Jakew 13:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Expirience with you takes precident over assumption Lordkazan 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Jakew's above remark "Discussed already. Numerous times. See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 16"...

I say, thank you for making my point Jakew. You have not, and do not act in good faith. The topic is pro-circ prejudiced.TipPt 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Look, the last thing I want to do is get involved in the opinionated battles going on here. Just because external links haven't been closely reviewd before doesn't mean that Wikipedia policy can't be enforced. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of web links. POV web sites largely consisting of opinion, supporting, or attacking either position don't belong here. If there is pertinent information, pull that into the article and properly cite it. I'm not attacking or supporitng either side by removing web links that do not meet wikipedia policy. If it is a supporting reference for information, put it in the references section. Atom 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. Jakew 14:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have put "controversy" in the introduction paragraphs Jakew. The representation (of pro and anti circ sites) is fair.

Putting a few relevant links, and maintaining NPOV is fair. However, the information should be in the article. External links that are POV based and more original research don't belong there at all. Four well balanced links is one thing. eighteen citations broken intp three sections is practically a stub artciel all by itself. Atom 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember Atom, the topic is very poorly written and biased, so leaving the reader external links is more critical (for dissemination of factual information).TipPt 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize. I don't have a desire to step on anyones toes. The goal is a well written article. We need to pull pertinent and relevant content from the web links and into the article, and properly cite them. Atom 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The topic seems quite well-written and encylopedic at this point; the exact opposite of the poorly written and propagandistic links that were recently added. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some leeway for putting some external links that are directly relevant to an article, as long as they do not disturb the balance of the NPOV of the article, and they are sites with verifiable information (not opinion/original research). In this case, in my opinion, the number of external links just seemed to be a projection of the ongoing pro/con circumcision debate on the talk page. If you disagree with my judgement call, which I respect, I am happy to discuss it and find a compromise or consensus with others. Perhaps the three or four links you added (and I am not sure what they contained) made the entire section of external links just too large. Atom 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I added only two links and you know it. And one of them is necessary because it contains links to graphical content which displays what circumcision is. So look there www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org and find out yourself if you think the link is useful. But deleting the whole link section is simple vandalism, and it happened the moment I added two (that's 2) useful links. That makes me suspicious to say the very least and I think you should reconsider your actions. 87.78.178.111 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the links. I don't have any idea which "side" of the argument you may be on. You could very well be supporting views that I agree with, I don't know, but that isn't the point. The content of the links you added had nothing to do with what I talk about above. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a collection of links. When you added a few new links (two or three) I noticed that and reverted, and then removed all the web links.

If there is content on a web site that is not acceptable on Wikipedia, then the web link is not acceptable either. Deleting the whole link section is consistent with Wikpedia policy of not collecting links. This particular article is not an article against circumcision, nor is it one supporting circumcision. It is supposed to address the subject in a neutral and scientific manner, with all facts either pro or con supported by verifiable information, per wikipedia policy.

If you have useful information that will improve the article and make it better, then please add it to the pertinent section, or add a new section, add the content, and support it with citations that meet Wikipedia standards. External web links are not provided so that you can add content that doesn't meet the standards for normal inclusions, it is for referencing web based material that DOES meet the wikipedia standards for No Original Research, and Verifiability in support of facts discussed in the article. Atom 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"nor is it one supporting circumcision" - right now it is, it's missing significant ammounts of information about the long term disincentives for circumcision, while listing every dubious benefit. Lordkazan 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What I feel like doing is going back and again removing all of the external links, per wp:EL. As I have said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of POV links. I know that this article is always controversial, and so I am discussing the topic here first, so that we can come to consensus, or at least try to. Per WP:EL web links that are opinion/original research are not applicable here. Links that support facts asserted in the articles are references, should meet Wikipedia standards for such, and be placed in the references section, not in external links. It has been asserted by some other editor that a web link exists here because the web site content is too controversial to be in the article. Well, if that is the case, then we should not have a web link to it either. It is not our job in this article to convince people that they should not have their child circumsized (or themselves) or that they should do so. It is not a page for activism, it is supposed to be a factual article supported by verifiable and acceptable citations. Those people from either side that are on a crusade should not be editing this article. Adding external web links as a continuation of the battle on the talk page to push one POV or another is not acceptable. Atom 16:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rich Winkel

Why is there a link [17] to a circumcision article written by a Systems Analyst at the Univeristy of Missouri [18]? I am open to having someone explain what Mr. Winkel's particular expertise is on this subject, but at this point I don't see the relevancy of his article for inclusion here. Dasondas 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are those citations ... could you provide the wiki link?TipPt 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

circumcision#circumcision opposition first listed link Dasondas 16:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it, along with the "Sexually Mutilated Child" link. The topic is controverisal enough, and there are lots of good links here already; we're sticking only to top quality links, as has been discussed here many times in the past. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)