Talk:Circumcision/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

The lead

The lead is quite unbalanced, as it is supposed to be a brief summary and introduction to the main text, and yet 1/3 is about historical-cultural-religious aspects of circumcision, which only occupies a small portion of the article itself. I agree that information in the lead should be in the article under the relevant section, perhaps as the opening paragraph, but given there are already articles for religious practices, it is unnecessary in the lead. It could be reduced to one, or two short sentences that state that there have been and still are historical, cultural and religious practices that involve circumcision - but without going into detail. This is a medical article, and the use of circumcision as an initiation ritual is a different subject to medical circumcision. Only where medical circumcision has itself become part of cultural practice should there be a focus on that manifestation of circumcision as cultural practice. Mish (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a summary article about all aspects of circumcision, not just the medical ones. The medical article is at Medical analysis of circumcision. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jayjg about that. That this article focusses on Western medical male circumcision instead of worldwide circumcision of males and females is in fact a longstanding WP:NPOV issue. Blackworm (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop "agreeing" with things I haven't said. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read my above comment as: "I agree with: 'Actually, this is a summary article about all aspects of circumcision, not just the medical ones. The medical article is at Medical analysis of circumcision.' Further, [...]." Blackworm (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Recent changes have introduced some serious problems.

The first three problems involve the addition of a large amount of text in the paragraph about the KNMG statement. The text is: They went on to say that circumcision can cause complications, including infection and bleeding, and are asking doctors to insistently inform parents that the procedure lacks medical benefits and has a danger of complications. In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable, it is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives. They went on to say "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."

The first, and most severe, problem, is of undue weight. The addition would cause considerable weight to be given to the KNMG statement, which is troubling since many statements (including those of international organisations such as the WHO) are not included at all and several (such as AAFP and AUA) are given only a single sentence. This is particularly troubling as the KNMG is not even a particularly representative statement, being probably the most anti-circumcision of all position statements. So the effect is to give a large amount of weight to a statement at one extreme of the spectrum.

The second problem is that there is an obvious NPOV violation. The sentence "In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable, it is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives" is not attributed to the source (if indeed it can be; in light of the problems outlined I haven't taken the trouble to check whether the addition is accurate), but is instead presented as fact, violating WP:NPOV.

The third problem, admittedly minor, is that the prose itself is of very poor quality. For example, "they went on to say" appears twice, the sentence mentioned previously is too long and seems to lack direction, "are asking doctors" is poor form ("ask" is preferable).

The fourth problem is less severe. It involves the addition of female genital cutting, foreskin, and penis to the "see also" section. Please note that WP:SEEALSO advises that "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section" — these items should not therefore be added.

I am, incidentally, disappointed to note that Studiodan and MishMich have attempted to force through these changes in spite of the obvious lack of consensus for them. To remind everyone once again, as it suggests at the top of this page, "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them..." It is perfectly reasonable to boldly make a change, but if it is reverted please stop and discuss. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your second objection, it is a direct quote from the source. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On what page? It's entirely possible that the search facility of my PDF reader is broken, but I can't find the full sentence anywhere in the PDF. I found something vaguely similar in the first paragraph of page 4, but I couldn't find a direct quote. Where is it? Jakew (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

P.4, par 1: There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any avai lablealternatives. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the paragraph I mentioned. So it isn't a direct quote. Jakew (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the last portion, regarding putting it off; in any case, it's clearly taken from the source, which eliminates your objection. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my objection was about the fact that the sentence was asserted rather than presented as an attributed viewpoint. Jakew (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have re-written the text, and incorporated sourced material where possible. When you say undue, is this in relation to other countries? It is about the same length as Canada, and less than Australia, which are the briefest covered. Obviously the WHO statements are not included under national positions, because they are an intenational organisation. So, are you saying that KNMG is not representative of the Netherlands, or that the KNMG statement is not representative because it is not like statements of medical organisations in other countries? NPOV applies to us, not the source, if it is reliable, and we present it accurately, that is NPOV. The prose is addressed. I wasn't aware of the 'see also' issue, I'll revisit that now. Mish (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressed the "see also" issues consistently as per Jakew's comments.Mish (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, the weight is undue in relation to that given to other policy statements. Organisations, which can express opinions, rather than countries, which cannot, are of relevance in assessing due weight. I'm afraid you oversimplify somewhat when you state that "[if] we present [the source] accurately, that is NPOV". NPOV is (to quote) about "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". It is not enough to be fair and free of bias, it is also necessary to ensure that views are represented proportionately. Please see the policy for full discussion, particularly WP:UNDUE.

Regarding the fact that the WHO is not a national organisation, that is true, but it would be trivial to add the words "or international" to the section heading.

I noted that you edited the article. You seem to have addressed some, but not all, of the points raised above.

At the time of writing, the paragraph currently reads:

• In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." They explain that common complications of surgery include "bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks", so promote a policy of deterrence, expecting doctors to ensure parents thinking about circumcision are informed of the risks of complications, and lack of medical benefits. They express the view that "there are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."

The undue weight problem remains, and I find it hard to justify giving such lengthy coverage. A sentence ought to be more than sufficient, but as a compromise, I would suggest:

• In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity". Citing complications they promote a policy of deterrence, ask doctors to inform parents considering circumcision of the risks and "lack of convincing medical benefits", and suggest that legal prohibition may be justifiable.

Jakew (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the undue weight problem? Why should Holland be restricted to two lines, while most others have at least double that? Mish (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote my earlier explanation: The addition would cause considerable weight to be given to the KNMG statement, which is troubling since many statements (including those of international organisations such as the WHO) are not included at all and several (such as AAFP and AUA) are given only a single sentence. This is particularly troubling as the KNMG is not even a particularly representative statement, being probably the most anti-circumcision of all position statements. So the effect is to give a large amount of weight to a statement at one extreme of the spectrum. Jakew (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make any sense. If you want it to not have undue weight, then you shouldn't be shortening it, but should instead allow it equal weight. Nothing else needs to be said unless you have an agument that makes logical sense.--Studiodan (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Devoting a disproportionate amount of text to KNMG gives it undue weight. Shortening the paragraph therefore reduces the undue weight problem. Jakew (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's not disproportionate. In fact, shortening it makes it more disproportionate.--Studiodan (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Studiodan and MishMich. I fail to see how this is a problem except that it disagrees with the point of view that circumcision is a good and desirable thing. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the weight is appropriate than I look forward to your explanation as to why, for example, the KNMG viewpoint warrants 5x the weight given to the American Urological Association. Jakew (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

break for KNMG

Well, KNMG is 'The' Dutch medical association, so it will be representative for the Netherlands, and is obviously not extreme for Holland. It is disproportionate if you compare with the UK, which is several paragraphs of material lifted straight from the BMA, and is itself problematic - but the Dutch section is much shorter. It is less than the source used for Australia, and appx. the same length as Canada. While it is longer than any single source for the USA, it is much shorter than USA as a whole. If you look through the entire article, there are loads of references to the WHO, but no direct quotes. I'd be happy to see the UK reduced, and for all the material sourced to the WHO replaced with a single 3.5 line with quotes included, as at the moment the WHO seems to dominate this aspect of the article. You could always take the material about the WHO and place it in its own article 'The WHO and circumcision', which would hopefully address the issue that was raised earlier that there is too much about the medical issues in what is supposed to be a general 'top level' article. Mish (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mish, this article is not entitled "circumcision in Holland". It's about circumcision in general, and Holland is but one of approx. 200 countries. Consequently arguing that it is representative of its country of origin is kind of a non-argument. As previously noted, countries cannot express opinions, so for the purpose of judging due weight they are a poor choice. Organisations are the entities that express viewpoints.

I agree with you that the BMA material is problematic, being both too long and making excessive use of quotations. Jakew (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be cast as WP:UNDUE nor other than WP:NPOV. This is the most recent statement (May 2010) by a national medical association that specifically responds to the WHO's statements about HIV.

"Non therapeutic circumcision of male minors" The key points they make about circumcision of male minors are:

• There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
• Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
• Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
• Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.
• The KNMG calls on (referring) doctors to explicitly inform parents/carers who are considering non-therapeutic circumcision for male minors of the risk of complications and the lack of convincing medical benefits. The fact that this is a medically non-essential intervention with a real risk of complications makes the quality of this advice particularly important. The doctor must then record the informed consent in the medical file.
• The KNMG respects the deep religious, symbolic and cultural feelings that surround the practice of nontherapeutic circumcision. The KNMG calls for a dialogue between doctors’ organisations, experts and the religious groups concerned in order to put the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors on the agenda and ultimately restrict it as much as possible.
• There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case.[1]

This viewpoint by the KNMG is jointly endorsed by the following scientific associations: KNMG's position is endorsed by several Dutch medical associations:

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners, The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians, The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons, The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons, The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine, The Netherlands Urology Association, The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association. [2]

Mish (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're quoting page 4 in its entirety, Mish, and I would advise you to replace your post with a link, as posting such a large amount of text may be a WP:COPYVIO. I think it's safe to say that editors are capable of clicking on a link, anyway. Jakew (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said you hadn't read it. I doubt it is any violation - the document appears to have been distributed freely around several websites unconnected with the organisation that produced it. I can contact the organisation in Holland and ask if we can have permission to reproduce it if you like - but as it is not going in the article, I'm not sure there is any point. I did this with another organisation recently (different topic), and they were more than happy to write to Wikipedia confirming this. The list at the bottom is to illustrate that they are representative of Dutch medical opinion. I have broken up the text in a way that should address your concerns. Please do not attempt to censor the talk page, but focus on the issue at hand; removing material from the discussion will result in an inevitable escalation for administrator input.Mish (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I said I hadn't checked that the paragraph was an accurate representation of the source. That's not the same as not having read it — by analogy, I've read The Lord of the Rings on many occasions, but if presented with more than the briefest of plot summaries I would likely want to check carefully against the source before I could confirm that it was accurate. Regarding copyright status, the actions of other websites have very little relevance, since casual copyright violations are common. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one should assume that sources are copyrighted. It is obviously acceptable to quote short passages, but quoting an entire page is unlikely to qualify as fair use, and places the project at risk. So please don't do it. Jakew (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, NPOV does *not* mean lets pretend that outside in the real world exaclty 50% of people, experts or whatever are in favor and 50% are opposed. They are not. Out of your "200" countries perhaps 180 consider support for neonatal circumcission a fringe theory. Their medical bodies do not consider the subject worth any publication. However if you would publish your opinions on the pages of any of chiness, indain, german, french, italian, greek or whatever other wikis you would get a clear idea what NPOV means. Richiez (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cite sources in support of your claim that 180 countries "consider support for neonatal circumcission a fringe theory". Jakew (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We have lots of time, so here is a start http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/artikel.asp?src=suche&id=61273

Also, would you consider removing the statement that you are neither for nor against NC from your user page. I would clearly dispute this judging by your edits. Richiez (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Google's translation shows this to be an opinion piece by a German doctor named Putke (and a few co-authors). It does express the opinion that non-therapeutic circumcision should not be performed, but that does not appear to be national policy of even one country, let alone 180. I could not find any references to "fringe theories". In summary, then, it doesn't support your claim.

In answer to your question, no, I won't change my user page to reflect your opinion. If I considered your opinion sufficiently notable, I might be willing to add a parenthetical comment indicating that Richiez disputes it. Jakew (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of this individual means that nenonatal circumcission is essentially illegal to perform in Germany without exceptions for religious practices. He is not just one individual and if you google further you will notice that his opinion was questioned only by Mili Görüz. This is national policy. Richiez (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any evidence that it is national policy. Jakew (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

[undent]Your "undue weight" objection seems to be based on word count, which is just silly. By a similar logic, one could argue that US organizations are given far more in the article than any of the others: why are we quoting fully four US organizations compared to one or two each for the other countries? The United Kingdom -- comprising four countries -- is covered by quotes from a single organization. The diverse region of Australasia is covered by two medical associations from only two of its member countries. This means that US organizations are being given more than four times the weight of other organizations. To ensure neutrality and due weight must we create a complex formula whereby population size corresponds to number of words permitted for each country or region? No, obviously that would be silly.

This information appears in a section of the article entitled "Policies of various national medical associations." I fail to see how the undue weight argument can even apply to such a section, which is there specifically to give information about the standpoints of various organizations. Indeed, the only possible objection I can see to the Dutch source as it stands is that it is fairly strongly against circumcision, which is really no objection at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If word count doesn't contribute to effective weight, then what does? I find it difficult to imagine a plausible means of assessing relative weight that ignores the actual volume of text that discusses something. To consider an extreme, are you actually suggesting that devoting an entire screenful of text to something gives it no more weight than a short sentence?

To address your other points... First of all, by your own admission assigning quotas to different countries would be "silly", so I won't waste further time addressing that. (Also, as I've noted several times above, to do so would miss the point that organisaitons, not countries, have opinions.) Second, as you rightly state, it would be invalid to object to the KNMG source on grounds that it is against circumcision. However, as nobody has made that argument it is perplexing that you should bring it up. It is valid, however, to ask whether the viewpoint is representative; that is, if we consider the set of position statements, is their position typical of the majority of statements or an outlier? If it is an outlier (and I submit that it is, since most position statements are more neutral), then the appropriate weight is less than if it is a majority viewpoint. Jakew (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, the WHO is an outlier, since it is the only one recommending mass male circumcision programs or indeed advocating circumcision at all. And yet we devote a huge amount of text in this article to the WHO. No, our original assessment of the POV expressed should have little bearing on the weight given; the prominence of the source is the correct issue on which to focus. I generally agree that we should not devote a large amount of text to this source; the Netherlands is a small country with fewer native English speakers than the other countries where policies are more flushed out. Here's my suggested text, a variant of Jakew's suggestion that is only slightly longer, and IMO touches on the most important points:

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the risk of medical and psychological complications, and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are good reasons for a legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting, but also stated concern that prohibition could lead to more serious complications than the current case because it would be "performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed." Blackworm (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's faulty reasoning, Blackworm. Firstly, we don't have any evidence that the WHO is "the only one recommending mass male circumcision programs or indeed advocating circumcision at all", and there is evidence suggesting otherwise, since several countries have actually started circumcision programmes (which would seem improbable if their respective medical organisations were opposed). Secondly, the WHO is an international organisation with global influence, and consequently it warrants a certain amount of weight. Furthermore, your claim that "we devote a huge amount of text in this article to the WHO" is misleading, because although we cite the WHO in several places most of those citations are in the context of facts rather than recommendations. We actually devote a total of three sentences to the WHO's recommendations, I believe.

Anyway, thank you for proposing an alternative compromise. I've made a few changes:

• In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the risks, and "lack of convincing medical benefits". They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision, but also stated concern that prohibition could lead to more serious complications than the current case because it would be "performed by non-medically qualified individuals".

To explain my changes: 1) to reduce effective weight I've replaced "the risk of medical and psychological complications" with "the risks" (the word "risks" includes complications of all kinds); 2) I've inserted quotation marks around "lack of convincing medical benefits", as this is necessary to adhere to NPOV (otherwise it makes it seem as though Wikipedia is asserting that there is a lack of convincing medical benefits; using a quote makes it clear that this is their assessment); 3) I've removed "as exists for female genital cutting", again to reduce the word count; 4) I've removed "in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed", again for brevity, as I think it's fairly obvious why they would be concerned about non-medically qualified persons performing surgery. Jakew (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Word count may be a consideration in extreme cases, but here you're objecting to something being a sentence or two longer than something else; that seems unnecessarily picky.

Now then. You claim that this particular source is an "outlier" on the assertion that its position statement is different and less "neutral" than some of the others. In fact, nearly all the sources seem to agree that routine infant circumcision is unnecessary and of no discernible medical benefit:

RACP: do not recommend routine infant circumcision; reasonable to delay until subject old enough to make an informed choice. Parents must be advised of risks and benefits

AMA (AUS): would support a call to ban circumcision for non-medical, non-religious reasons

CPC: "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed"; does not recommend routine circumcision for newborns

KNMG: "no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary", "entails the risk of medical and psychological complications", parents must be informed of risks

BMA: "medical benefits previously claimed have not been convincingly proven," and it is now widely accepted that circumcision carries "medical and psychological risks"

AMA (US): "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." There are "potential benefits and risks"

AAFP: there are "potential harms and benefits"

AUA: there are potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.[202]

If anything, it is the US organizations who seem to be "outliers," because their position seems less strong than any of the others.

And regarding the fact that the KNMG source is against circumcision, I think it's relevant that there's only one person objecting to it, and on grounds which appear unsupportable and overly picky. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If we were discussing large amounts of text, adding or subtracting a sentence or two would be trivial. However, since we discuss each statement in a fairly small number of sentences (a single sentence in some cases), adding or removing a sentence makes a relatively large amount of difference. Dismissing this issue as "picky" is not the same as addressing it.

Moving on, most statements ("virtually all" according to the AMA in 1999) do not recommend routine infant circumcision (ie., that of all newborn boys), and I assume all would agree that it's not actually necessary. Your assertion that sources agree that it has no discernable medical benefit is dubious, but I'm not sure that arguing the point would get us anywhere. What is unusual about the KNMG statement is their relatively strong opposition to elective circumcision (ie., at the request of parents) of infants or children. It is for this reason that I describe them as an outlier. Jakew (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, we dont' have any more or less evidence that the statement is "unusual" than evidence that the WHO's positive position on circumcision is unusual. But it's besides the point.

I'm sorry but I don't approve of your changes on my suggested version. I don't believe my version is undue weight, and indeed it seems a compromise between your concerns and the desire of other editors for a much longer version. Re: (1) it isn't clear what kind of risks the KNMG believes exist, and since we only mention psychological risks in a few places I believe it important to specify; this change is especially troublesome since you have said that "Psychological effects are a subset of medical effects"[3], and that "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept..."[4] (2) it is already clear that this is their assessment, and in that light your modification looks like scare quotes, especially given that you personally believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the exact opposite of the quoted section; (3) I believe it important to mention the brief comparison to female genital cutting, especially since those comparisons abound in sources and are sorely lacking in this article (a longstanding WP:NPOV violation we have a perfect opportunity to address here), (4) somewhat misrepresents the KNMG since it lists only part the reason for their concern about prohibition as the whole reason. Blackworm (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the (shorter) version I propose is already a compromise; I believe the weight is appropriate in this version, but propose the somewhat lengthier paragraph as a compromise.

That said, let me consider your objections. Regarding point (1), while I continue to believe that "risks" is more than sufficient, I am willing to explore alternative wordings, cutting the words elsewhere. Re point (2), I'm not willing to sanction an NPOV violation, but we could rephrase as "of the risks and (in their assessment) lack of convincing medical benefits". Re point (3), if we cut the words elsewhere I'm happy to include it. Re (4), I'm afraid I don't understand your argument, but a possible solution may be to remove this explicit concern about prohibition, while softening the language to ensure that the reader isn't misled into thinking that they support prohibition without any concerns at all.

Taking these points into account, then:

• In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the medical and psychological risks and (in their assessment) lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there may be good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting.

Jakew (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, compromise does not mean you get your way all the time, it means sometimes you have to accept that you do not. Now, if you believe that the major medical organisations in Holland are 'outlier', then you have to provide a WP:RS that shows that there are views held by equal or more noteworthy Dutch medical associations that have a different position. This is not a page of text, it is a brief paragraph - but if you are concerned that all the major national organisations have policies that you don't agree with, then that is only unbalanced if there are national organisations that are excluded from the section - and you adress that by finding WP:RS for those statements. If you cannot do that, then the section is well balanced. If you are concerned about the length of the section - then you need to reduce the text devoted to the single organisation for the UK, as well as for the organisations covering the USA. If you are arguing that the association for Dutch medical professionals is out of step with Dutch practictioners, surgeons and pediatricians, you need a WP:RS for that. Personally, I do not see this as extreme (no more so than the position that recommends routine surgery across the board without consent of the individual concerned), and that the positioning of certain views disagreed with as extreme is reactionary rhetoric undertaken by those with vested interests in maintaining these practices (although they may well believe that this coincides with the best interests of the child). Mish (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mish, that compromise does not mean getting one's way all the time. That is why the three compromises that I have proposed ([5] [6] [7] have been longer than the version which, in my view, is appropriately weighted. It is perhaps enlightening to contrast this with your edits which, rather than reducing the word count in the spirit of compromise, have actually increased it.

Your request that I show "that there are views held by equal or more noteworthy Dutch medical associations that have a different position" is a straw man. I have not stated that such organisations exist, and in fact I've already pointed out that such an argument would be irrelevant ("[the article is] about circumcision in general, and Holland is but one of approx. 200 countries. Consequently arguing that it is representative of its country of origin is kind of a non-argument."). Once again, where I've described the KNMG policy as non-representative, that is in comparison with the entire set of policy statements, not just Dutch statements.

Moving on, I have not expressed concern that "all the major national organisations have policies that [I] don't agree with" either, and clearly my own agreement or disagreement would be irrelevant, so this is another straw man.

Moving on once more, I have not argued that "the association for Dutch medical professionals is out of step with Dutch practictioners, surgeons and pediatricians" — another straw man.

Please do not misrepresent my position again. If you are unable to address my actual arguments, a civil approach would be to graciously accept them. Pretending that I've made different arguments is neither constructive nor civil. Jakew (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(Re: our previous exchange) Jakew, thanks for the thoughtful comments. I like your changes, though I prefer to place "(in their assessment)" before "medical and psychological risks" since that too is their assessment. I also think it's a bit OR-y to soften the language from "are" (as in the source) to "may be" based on the concerns they state, and not expressing the concerns. How about: They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting, while expressing fears it could lead to unhygienic or inexpertly performed circumcisions. The "unhygienic" part seems a reasonable interpretation of "in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed" but perhaps you don't agree. I don't know how to make it any more brief without changing the gist of the source. I would abide with your version with just "may be" changed to "are," but I do feel their concerns about prohibition are worth the mention. Blackworm (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy to move "(in their assessment", and am happy to change "may be" back to "are". I appreciate that you would like to mention their concerns about prohibition, and if I could think of a way of doing so in 3-4 words I would like to do that too, but I can't (possibly because it's late at night!). Anyway, I've updated the article. Jakew (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Jakew. If I could understand your arguments, I would not be asking what you actually mean - and that is what I did, ask questions to try and work out what you meant and respond to it. So, the 'straw man' assertion is unwarranted, and I guess I could argue uncivil in its own right. Anyway, now you seem to be acting in a way that you accept that the material is legitimate for the article, all that needs to happen is to establish how that is phrased - although I don't see why citing the extracts from the statement itself is not the least problematic way of doing that (especially when this is the way the UK etc. have already been managed, and assigned much more weight).Mish (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, Mish. I have never stated that the KNMG statement should be excluded, but I have stated that it should be short to avoid undue weight. I continue to hold that position. I am prepared to compromise, as long as the article isn't harmed too much in the process. Jakew (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the "(in their assessment)" is pointless - this is their view, and we don't make out it is anything other than their view, so obviously this is their assessment. They say "The KNMG calls on (referring) doctors to explicitly inform parents/carers who are considering non-therapeutic circumcision for male minors of the risk of complications and the lack of convincing medical benefits." You could say that they are not convinced there is any evidence if you like, and if you can work into the sentence. "(in their assessment)" could read as a bit of a weasel, really. Also, rather than "caregivers", we need to say something like "parents and carers" - caregivers is a term that may be unclear to some readers. The language is pretty tortuous, and difficult to parse the way it stands at the moment. It needs to be written in a way that is easily comprehensible.Mish (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not pointless, Mish. It's necessary to avoid endorsing the view that there's a "lack of convincing medical benefits". And no, it's not obvious that this is their assessment. It's obvious that they are recommending that doctors inform caregivers, but what follows must not be presented as though it were a universally accepted truth. Jakew (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Also "In the Netherlands" is a waste of space when the subsection title is Netherlands:

• The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) addressed non-therapeutic infant male circumcision in 2010, arguing that it "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity". They called on doctors to inform parents and carers seeking such intervention of their assessment of the "risk of medical and psychological complications" involved and "lack of convincing medical benefits". They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of the practice, as there is to cover genital cutting of female infants.

When talking about genital cutting generally, and circumcision in particular, it is important to be clear this refers to infants and is limited to non-therapeutic intervention. Mish (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments:

1. You're right: "in the Netherlands" can be deleted.
2. I don't agree with the includion of "infant" in "addressed non-therapeutic infant male circumcision in 2010", as their statement was not only concerned with infant circumcision, but also childhood circumcision.
3. I don't think it's necessary to change "caregivers" to "parents and carers", but I don't object strongly to it.
4. "seeking such intervention" reads awkwardly to my eye. I suggest restoring "seeking the intervention".
5. changing "of the (in their assessment)" to "of their assessment of the" is okay.
6. I disagree with changing "medical and psychological risks" to "risk of medical and psychological complications" — it means exactly the same thing and increases the word count.
7. Adding quotes around "lack of convincing medical benefits" seems unnecessary to me, since we've already said "their assessment of the". Blackworm has also objected to quotes in a previous version.
8. I don't mind changing "They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision" to "They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of the practice".
9. I disagree with changing "as exists for female genital cutting" to "as there is to cover genital cutting of female infants". As noted above, their statement is not limited to infants. Also, this unnecessarily increases the word count. Jakew (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My response:

1. Thanks.
2. I Fine, instead of "infant" it should be "childhood" then to read "addressed non-therapeutic childhood male circumcision in 2010", although they do specificy childhood non-consent.
3. I don't think it's necessary to change "caregivers" to "parents and carers", but I don't object strongly to it. I think it is is necessary, thanks.
4. OK
5. Thanks
6. I disagree, but OK.
7. Adding quotes around "lack of convincing medical benefits" gets round the problem of plagiarism - the text coincides with the statement on this.
8. Thanks.
9. OK, Then it needs to read "as there is to cover genital cutting of female children" then. Their statement is limited to children. It may increase the word count, but there are no laws prohibiting female genital cutting, so this is inaccurate as it stands. Bervity should not be at the expense of accuracy, as that might mislead readers. There are laws covering female genital cutting of minors without their consent; adult women are free to have genital surgeries they wish, including both cosmetic and transsexual surgeries (indeed, even minors can have such surgeries in Holland, if they need it, and they are deemed competent to give consent). Mish (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have reached agreement on points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. The remaining points are 2, 7, and 9:

Regarding point 2, "addressed non-therapeutic childhood male circumcision in 2010" seems unnecessarily long. I'm prepared to go along with it (but see point 9).

Regarding point 7, this seems reasonable enough to me, though obviously I can't speak for Blackworm.

Regarding point 9, I find "as there is to cover genital cutting of female children" too much, especially as a) the source refers to "female genital mutilation" without specifying any particular age (so such a clarification would in fact be original research), and b) point 2 already limits the scope of the paragraph to childhood anyway. An alternative might be to omit mention of FGC. Jakew (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"We seem to have reached agreement on points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8". Cool

"Regarding point 2, I'm prepared to go along with it (but see point 9)." Thanks, I'm not sure we can shorten it and retain the accuracy.

"Regarding point 7, this seems reasonable enough to me." Cool.

"Regarding point 9", I agree, this is covered in point 2, which makes it unnecessary if 2 is icorporated. "An alternative might be to omit mention of FGC", I think it is an accurate reflection of the illocutionary force and the context of the statement, so "as there is for female genital cutting" would be another way of saying this. Mish (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, putting all of the above together (and if I've overlooked something please let me know):

• The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) addressed non-therapeutic childhood male circumcision in 2010, arguing that it "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform parents and carers seeking the intervention of their assessment of the medical and psychological risks and "lack of convincing medical benefits". They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of the practice as exists for female genital cutting.

Okay? Jakew (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I think the last sentence needs a comma: "They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of the practice, as exists for female genital cutting." Mish (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, shall I update the article or do you want to? Jakew (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't approve of the scare-quoting of "lack of convincing medical benefits" especially since "their assessment" is already there. It's not plagiarism to express their views using essentially the same words they do. Blackworm (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Absurdly over-wordy image captions

Can Studiodan (talk · contribs) please explain why he is inserting absurdly over-wordy image captions? What does "A penis that has been circumcised" tell us that "Circumcised penis" does not? What advantage does it bring, other than having 200% more words? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say something about this myself. Such poor writing reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Jakew (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Then change it. Just don't use the word "Uncircumcised". There is no need to use insulting language.--Studiodan (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It means "not circumcised". Hardly insulting. Jakew (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It also means heathen, unregenerate, implies not "yet" circumcised as if all should be circumcised, or that a circumcision was undone. This term is mostly only used by pro-circumcision advocates who are intentionally trying to be insulting, and is mostly only insistent upon it's use by those who are trying to be insulting (or to make the not circumcised penis sound "wrong").--Studiodan (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It can mean "heathen", but in an article about a surgical procedure the probability of a reader assuming that such a sense was intended is basically zero. Furthermore, penises don't have religious convictions, so such an interpretation of a description of a penis would be quite ridiculous. The word does not imply that all should be circumcised, or that a circumcision was undone. The prefix "un-" just means "not". I think you would find it very difficult to prove your claim that it is "mostly only used by pro-circumcision advocates". Jakew (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't use the word "mutilate" we shouldn't use the word "uncircumcised". The only exception is if the word is in the cited material. It's easy to write "not circumcised" and so there is no reason to be against this in favor of "uncircumcised" unless you are trying to taint the article with a strong bias and insulting nature. It's easy to see if this is the case by noting who is in favor of what language.--Studiodan (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "uncircumcised" is the correct English term to use when describing an uncircumcised penis. Avoidance of the term makes us look illiterate, much as if we wrote "the dangly bit between a man's legs" instead of "penis". I'm sorry that you find the word offensive, but that doesn't make the term any less appropriate. I suggest you strike out your insinsuations about other editors. Jakew (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to strike anything out, because I never spoke of other editors here. It may or may not be true that those in favor of the word here are also attempting to make a penis that has not been circumcised sound "wrong"... I'll leave that to others to decide if that adds up or not. I was speaking far more generally than about editors here.--Studiodan (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go to the archives and do a search on this, you will see it has come up before and been discussed at some length. I tend to agree that it is a problem, although I do not feel as strongly as you appear to. I appreciate it has the connotations you describe, but my concern is that it is a misleading term, because it describes the intact penis as lacking something - when obviously it is not the intact penis that is lacking, it is the circumcised penis that lacks something - the foreskin. So, uncircumcised appears to confer a sense of inferiority, or incompleteness, with circumcised a sense of completeness. You could argue that one is positive, the other negative, in a way that would be objected to if, say, complete and incomplete were substituted, on POV grounds. However, this can be objected to simpply on the basis that people do refer to penises as circumcised and uncircumcised. The thing you need to do is to establish in reliable sources that the term uncircumcised is considered derogatory by people today to whom it is applied (or about a part of their anatomy) - in a similar way to how we avoid the word 'cunt' or 'fag', as these are considered derogatory by women and gay men respectively. If you can demonstrate that it is deemed offensive, but circumcised is not, then "circumcised penis" would have to stay - and because the encyclopedia has clear guidelines about not using offensive terminology, you could argue on that basis (I have no idea whether others would accept the reasoning, however). I would support the use of "intact penis" myself, but from discussions in the past my hunch is this would be unacceptable, but perhaps something like "non-circumcised penis" would be more acceptable? I think this should be considered, if it can be shown to be received as offensive by people it is applied to. I don't think there's much point revisiting this as a lengthy discussion, as it has happened before, but didn't appear to reach any particular conclusion - just that people didn't like it, and others felt it was the best term because it is commonly used. I'm not convinced, Irish people here are often referred to as 'Micks' or 'Paddys', but in an encyclopedia we refer to them as Irish, not 'Micks' or 'Paddys'. Ditto for people from Pakistan, we avoid calling them 'Pakis'. The problem is you would find it easy to prove that 'Paki' is offensive, but not that it is commonly used (because there are laws that deter this kind of language in the mdeia). In this case, it is not a slang word that is derogatory, it has been established in a medical as well as a cultural/religious context. Medical terminology does change when it is explained that it is perceived as derogatory - "hermaphrodite", for example, has been replaced for humans by intersex and specific medical syndromes; this was because it was inaccurate, and felt to be insulting - but takes a long time to get this sort of thing through to medical people for some reason. I'm not clear whether it has been taken on board or not yet - I guess one way to assess medical sensitivity on this matter would be to look at the statements by the main medical associations cited (AMA, BMA, WHO, Canadian, Australasian & Dutch statements, and see whether they use the term, or whether they seem to avoid it. If they tend not to use it, then given we seem to rely on such sources quite a lot, we ought to try to follow to the same extent. Mish (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mish, could you please moderate your overuse of the {{outdent}} template? Using proper indentation makes it much easier for other editors to reply to earlier comments. I personally prefer to have replies in chronological order, but have had to insert my replies to Studiodan above yours so that it is obvious who I am replying to. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not. I only use it when it is appropriate. It helps to reduce the number of lines a long response will cover. Directing your response to a particular indivdual is straightforward, you use @name to indicate who you are replying to - and replies should come at the end, not be inserted in mid-discussion. Mish (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: using the word "absurd" to refer to an editor's contribution is can be considered uncivil: it is (being seen as provocative, belittling, dismissive and/or contemptuous). Mish (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

C.f. captioning a photo taken outside a polling booth, "an un-beheaded person casting their vote", or a motorcyclist, "an un-wheelchair-bound person still riding their motorbike" etc. --Nigelj (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As would be entirely appropriate if a) the purpose was to explicitly compare such a person to one who was beheaded, wheelchair-bound, etc, and b) if such terminology was commonplace. Jakew (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dyke is commonplace - but you have to be careful how you use it in an encyclopedia. Mish (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Naturally. Encyclopaedias generally avoid slang terminology, especially slang that may be offensive. But since we're not discussing slang, that's not particularly relevant. Jakew (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is absurd to say un-cir-cumcised when you can just say "normal". Richiez (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

By "normal", do you mean a normal circumcised penis or a normal uncircumcised penis? See the problem? Jakew (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The word is intact. --Nigelj (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A very poor choice of word, even if one ignores the obvious connotations. First, one can quite accurately refer to a circumcised penis as "intact" (in the sense of not damaged or impaired), so using the word would fail to distinguish between circumcised and uncircumcised. Secondly, if a different sense of "intact" is used, an uncircumcised penis may not be intact (for example, if it is tattooed or pierced), so the term is imprecise. Jakew (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This type of extended arguing over minute details is precisely why I normally avoid this article. The argument that terms like "unwheelchair-bound" or "unbeheaded" would be appropriate if "the purpose was to explicitly compare such a person to one who was beheaded, wheelchair-bound" is really just silly. Besides the fact that those are not common English terms, what is really being compared in those examples is the state of being normal vs an abnormal state. We don't normally refer to living human beings as "undead," for instance. We use terms like able-bodied and disabled, or alive and dead, where the former indicate the normal, usual or expected state and the latter the opposite.

While "uncircumcised" is indeed a commonplace term, it has, in the context of this particular article, in which editors give a great deal of attention to and place such an enormous amount of importance on every nuance, potentially non-neutral implications. Just as with the terms discussed above, what we are actually comparing is the normal (in its neutral sense) state of the human body versus one which deviates from the norm (compare someone who his born without functioning legs) or has been modified by some artificial means (as someone who has been beheaded). Since the expected situation and, in nearly every case, the fact, is that a human male will be born with a foreskin and it is circumcision that is the artificially induced state, if we want to avoid any semblance of bias, then "intact" would surely be the appropriate choice: of a living body or its parts : having no relevant component removed or destroyed: b : not castrated[8].

Also, I don't think it's strictly correct to refer to a "body" being circumcised, as we do in the second paragraph of Cultures and religions; a penis is circumcised, not a body, just as a body is decapitated, not a head. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the post to which you replied, EB, you'll see that I explained why "intact" is inappropriate. I'm sorry if you dislike it, but "uncircumcised" is the correct term in this situation. I would also caution against imposing your own biases: whether a penis can be expected to be circumcised or not can depend upon the context, and may depend on culture. It is true that a penis has a foreskin unless it has been modified, but that doesn't imply that a foreskin is the norm: consider, by analogy, the fact that humans have very long fingernails unless they have been cut. Would it be appropriate to describe a hand with foot-long fingernails as "normal" (or something similar) and a hand with trimmed fingernails as "abnormal" (or similar)? Of course not. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I can barely believe you just compared the prepuce to fingernails. As soon as such poor analogies are made, it's a good sign that this isn't going to go anywhere.--Studiodan (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did read your comments and obviously I disagree with them. And honestly I find it absurd that you are cautioning me about imposing biases. You chose circumcision as an adult; you have made no secret of the fact that you think it's the ideal situation; and you patrol this article relentlessly (you've made twice as many edits to it as anyone else), arguing vociferously against anything that differs from that view. As for your comments about context and culture, they are obviously irrelevant. The issue is not whether the state of being circumcised is normal for a given group of people by virtue of the procedure being routinely performed on all its members, but whether or not having a foreskin is the normal and expected state for a human male at birth. Just as we expect human babies to have two arms and two legs, and five digits on each hand and foot, we expect male babies to have foreskins. Your fingernail analogy also misses the point: every physically normal human has fingernails, and trimming them does not remove them completely; but a human who completely lacks fingernails is physically abnormal. Similarly, we expect all humans to have hair on their heads; most people cut their hair, but a person who totally lacks head hair is physically abnormal, and progressive loss of hair, while common in parts of the human population, is a medical condition which anyway presupposes the initial existence of hair. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We all have biases, EB, myself included, but with all due respect I'm not the one proposing to treat one kind of penis as "normal" and the other "abnormal" — a proposal that I find quite extraordinary in an NPOV encyclopaedia. Hence my reminder to be aware of and compensate for one's own biases.

If we were discussing the state of a male's genitals at the moment of birth, then that would be the only relevant issue. In this article, however, most if not all references to the circumcision status of males relate to some time after birth. (In some cases, quite a lot after birth, as in the photos of adult genitalia that we're discussing.) Clearly, then, the state at the time of birth is not the only issue. That is why context and culture are relevant to expectations, as I stated.

Regarding fingernails, it is true that they aren't removed entirely through (competent) trimming, but then the penis is not removed entirely when circumcised, either (and for that matter many circumcisions leave some residual foreskin, too). In any case, whether removal is partial or complete seems irrelevant to the main issue, which is whether or not artificial changes can influence expectations. If your argument is taken to its logical extent, one would have to present foot-long fingernails as "normal" and trimmed fingernails as "abnormal" — a conclusion which seems a little peculiar, to say the least. Jakew (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake wrote: " I'm not the one proposing to treat one kind of penis as 'normal' and the other 'abnormal'"

But that's exactly what you are doing when you propose to use the word uncircumcised. This is precisely the reason we should avoid such a word when it's not cited in the source we are directly talking about.--Studiodan (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

[undent] We do all have biases, Jake, and I'm certainly not proposing to label one kind of penis abnormal. Obviously I don't mean "normal" in any kind of non-neutral sense, but surely you agree that the state of being born with a foreskin is normal in a human male? I'm not by extension claiming that being circumcised is "abnormal," any more than it is "abnormal" to require a wheelchair for mobility.

But the history of this article is one which has brought us to this state of hypervigilance surrounding the terms we use in it, and I agree with the editors above who say that for various reasons "uncircumcised" is problematic in the context of this article. "Intact" is absolutely the correct term: a circumcised penis is one from which a naturally occurring portion of the normal anatomy has been removed.

I'm afraid your logic fails on the fingernail analogy. You say that the entire penis is not removed during circumcision; this is (usually) true. However, in the case of fingernails the entire finger or toe is not removed by trimming its nails, which in any case continue to grow and will quickly return to their pre-trimming length, strength and functionality. Reduction in the length of the nails/claws is a process that occurs naturally in wild animals by virtue of going about their lives in their environment -- wild dogs don't need their nails trimming, for instance, because they get naturally worn down as the animal goes about its life. But the entire foreskin is (usually) removed by circumcision, and it doesn't grow back. A more apt analogy would be the complete removal of a healthy finger or toe. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, EB, I obviously misunderstood the purpose of your use of "normal". I do certainly agree that it is normal for males to be born with a foreskin, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily normal for older males to have a foreskin. That depends on the context. Expectation, too, depends on context, and is largely a product of it. Consequently, people in a country with a very low prevalence of circumcision may think of the uncircumcised penis as normal, while those who live in a country with a high prevalence of circumcision may think of the circumcised type as normal. That's why I'm concerned by arguments based on expectation, as they often betray cultural biases.

The word "intact" is problematic, as I said above. To explain again, this is partly because the word "intact" can be interpreted (quite legitimately in the context of the subject) as "unimpaired", implying that circumcised penes are impaired, an obvious NPOV violation. Another problem is that it is perfectly legitimate to describe a circumcised male (or his penis) as intact (and this is not hypothetical - I have witnessed this in discussion), so using the word fails to distinguish between circumcised and uncircumcised. Since that's the whole purpose, that's a serious failing! A third problem is that a penis can be uncircumcised but not intact (if it is modified in some other way), so it may be potentially inaccurate to describe a penis as "intact". Clearly, then, the word "intact" is not an appropriate term. What is needed is a word that means "not circumcised" and which cannot reasonably be interpreted in the context of this article to mean anything else. That word is "uncircumcised".

Finally, regarding the fingernails, I fail to see why it is relevant whether they grow back or not. If I look at a person's hands, I'm seeing their nails as they are now, not how they will be in the future. The question is whether an artificial change has been made; whether it will reverse itself or not in the future seems beside the point. Generally, when I look at a person's hands, I do expect to see the result of an artificial change. I don't mean to suggest that such a change is morally superior or anything, but that's what I've been conditioned to expect. Jakew (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside cultural issues, which I don't actually think are germane to the argument, I do with some reservations agree with your third point regarding the word "intact." With regard to the first, the circumcised penis can very much be described as "impaired" in view of the plain fact that it lacks its foreskin, something which we've agreed is a normal and healthy part of its anatomy, and one with which, like a specific number of fingers and toes, we expect every human male to be born -- not to mention the additional fact of the quite commonly held view (which I am not arguing for or against here) that removing the foreskin impairs sexual function to varying degrees. With regard to the second, it is not accurate to describe a circumcised male (or his penis) as intact, just as it would be inaccurate to describe a body from which any part has been amputated as intact. With regard to fingernails and hair, their shortening does not constitute amputation/excision, whereas removal of any part of the foreskin, no matter how small, necessarily constitutes amputation.

With regard to your third point about "intact," I agree that a penis can be "uncircumcised but not intact"; the reservation I alluded to is that a foreskin can still be intact even if the penis is not: for instance, a man with a subincision, meatotomy or similar form of penile modification rendering his penis not intact may still have an intact foreskin, and isn't the foreskin what we're talking about in this article?

And on a final note about fingernails, it is of course highly relevant that they grow back. The removal of something that grows back is not normally referred to as amputation; if foreskins grew back, there would be no need for this article and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That the foreskin is normal and (usually) healthy is true, but that does not imply that a penis without one is impaired. It is certainly true that some people believe that a penis is impaired if it lacks a foreskin, but that is just one of several POVs, and Wikipedia cannot assert such a POV as fact since doing so would violate NPOV. My impression is that you're trying to argue that the circumcised penis can be seen as impaired, or even that you personally believe that is is, but that's actually not the issue. The issue is whether there is room for any serious dispute. I think you'd find it difficult to argue that the circumcised penis is universally viewed as impaired, hence Wikipedia cannot imply that it is.

Moving on, it is entirely accurate to describe a circumcised male or his penis as intact. The mistake you are making, I believe, is to take one sense of "intact" ("having all the original parts") and assume that it is the only valid sense. But that is incorrect, since another, equally valid sense of "intact" is "not impaired or damaged".

Regarding the fact that a penis can be uncircumcised but not intact, while it's true that a foreskin may be intact while the penis is not, it's also true that the foreskin may be non-intact but still present (it might, for example, be divided as part of the subincision, to use your example). A penis (and a foreskin) can be uncircumcised but not intact, which makes the term "intact" insufficiently precise.

Finally, you still haven't explained why it is relevant in this particular context that fingernails grow back. Your assertion that if foreskins grew back there would be no need for this article seems inconsistent with the fact that there is an entire dedicated to the cutting of body parts that grow back. On a related point, I would question whether circumcision actually constitutes amputation, but even if it does, I fail to see why that is relevant. The question is whether an unaltered form of the body is necessarily what one would expect, whether that alteration constitutes amputation seems beside the point.Jakew (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And finally we get to the ... meat of the problem: there comes a point where there is literally nowhere we can go when an article is so jealously guarded. So far we've posted over 4100 words in a discussion about how to describe a penis that has a foreskin -- and we're 9 years in on this article. This talk page has 64 pages of archives, and the article still has a neutrality tag.

You argue above that I'm using the word "intact" in one sense while there are other senses that might be equally valid and that understanding the term in those senses may make it inappropriate to use in this article (I disagree of course: an amputated limb, for instance, may be described as healthy, but never "intact"). The trouble is that other editors have identified "uncircumcised" as having precisely the same type of problem.

Strictly speaking, a circumcised penis is impaired, i.e: "in a less than perfect or whole condition." And certainly some would argue that a circumcised penis is also "disabled or functionally defective" with regard to lost nerves, tissues, and functions of the foreskin. Certainly a penis from which the foreskin has been removed is disabled with regard to the foreskin "protect[ing] the urinary meatus." We could argue about the relative merits of those claims, but it would be silly though, I'm sure you agree, to argue against the word "impaired" on the grounds that some might understand it to mean "intoxicated." Yet this is precisely what we have been reduced to doing in this section.

I don't want to get too hung up on the fingernail example, interesting as it is, because the cutting of fingernails and hair is clearly not analogous to the removal of the foreskin, but I can't imagine how you spin the claim that circumcision isn't amputation. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the real world. Captions should use concise, clear, common terminology. "Circumcised" and "Uncircumcised" are those terms in English. "Uncircumcised" is in no way "derogatory", nor does it imply that circumcised is "normal", any more than "unambiguous" is "derogatory" or implies that "ambiguous" is normal. We are not concerned with archaic usages like "heathen", and any arguments based on that claim are dismissed as obviously spurious. "Uncircumcised" is the common, unambiguous term. It, unlike "intact", is not the specialized and ambiguous terminology of activists, and it gets over 1.2 million ghits, and over 160,000 gbook hits, and over 19,000 google scholar hits. The comparable numbers for "intact penis" are 72,000 ghits, 346 gbook hits, and 180 gscholar hits. "Uncircumcised" is 100 to 500 times more common than the "alternative". Unless someone can provide a more common, and less ambiguous term, then Wikipedia mandates its usage. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how popular something may be, if it's intetionally offensive (as we all know it is, including you), it shouldn't be used, unless we're taking it from a specific source being cited in the article. I am not interested in pushing the use of the word "intact" and I don't think anyone should be pushing the use of the words "mutilated" or "uncircumcised" either, as all of these words can be offensive. Again, if these words are in the cited source, that's fine, otherwise it's completely and utterly unwarranted! Going out of your way to push offensive lanuage is not appreciated.--Studiodan (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't proved your assertion that it's intentionally offensive, Studiodan. Jakew (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Look up.--Studiodan (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have. And until you do provide such proof, you can't expect arguments based on it to be taken seriously. Jakew (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly "offensive", much less "intentionally" so. Please provide reliable sources which support this implausible contention. Also, why have you replaced "Circumcised penis" with the ridiculously over-wordy "A penis that has been circumcised"? What additional information do the 200% more words impart? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Favor the succinct wording here. The word uncircumcised very rarely has the secondary meaning that Studiodan is claiming is relevant here. Certainly whenever I've seen it while reading the image captions that meaning didn't occur to me. I have trouble seeing how it would occur to anyone when they know they are reading an article about circumcision. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point here. "Uncircumcised" is standard English, and not in any way derogatory, and is at least 100 times more common than the alternatives proposed. You still haven't given any good rationale for changing "Circumcised penis" to "A penis that has been circumcised", and there is no consensus for the change. Please stop trying to edit-war this poorly-worded material into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself and say it's not derogatory; all you have to do is pick up a dictionary, or a history book.

Your claim that it's more than 100 times more common than in a derogatory context is ridiculous. You could have spent at least 10 seconds to verify that before making such a statement. If you Google the word, you'll find that 30-50% of the hits are in this derogatory context (meaning: infidel, heathen, not pure, etc). With such a verifiable common use in a clearly offensive context, it baffles my mind that anyone would try to say otherwise.

I've provided at least 9 good rationales, and not one has been logically disputed. Digging in your heals and ignoring the facts isn't disputing an argument.

Please stop pushing offensive language into the article. This is absolutely no better or worse than if someone changed this articles words; "Jews" to "Kikes", or "Circumcised" to "Mutilated", etc. It's completely unwarranted hate speech, and anyone pushing the use of hate speech shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, period!--Studiodan (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"If you Google the word, you'll find that 30-50% of the hits are in this derogatory context (meaning: infidel, heathen, not pure, etc)" - really? I Googled the word, and none of the hits on the first 5 pages of Google used the word that way. Please desist from "deliberately asserting false information". Also, assertions are not rationales. Please provide reliable sourcing indicating that the term is "offensive" or "hate speech". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not very difficult to conduct several types of google searches to check hit counts.

[[9]]

[[10]]

Depending on the keywords, you'll get around 1/3 (more or less) in the biblical context which is synonymous with antichristian, christless, crusted, ethnical, pagan, remorseless, infidel, heathenish, heretical, merciless, miscreant, pagan, profane, rude, undeveloped, unorthodox, barbarous, bestial, heathen, unchristian, uncharitable, etc. This is only one point of 10, none of which have been refuted (scroll down, more than sufficient reliable sourcing is avalible below.), only dismissed on a personal bias in favor of making those who have not been circumcised sound "unfinished" (which is your intention).

I've quite had it with users pushing hate speech. Jakew and yourself have chosen to ignore every point I've made (as if it even needs to be made) and push the hate speech anyhow. It's not appreciated, and it needs to stop!--Studiodan (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you manipulate Google searches, you can probably find specific rare usages. However, when one simply searches for "uncircumcised", one does not find any of the usages you have invented on the first 5 pages of results. You are simply inventing false statistics and claims here; again, please desist from "deliberately asserting false information". Also, please stop using the ridiculous hyperbole that the term "uncircumcised" is "hate speech". I have not ignored any "points" you've made, it's just that they've all been a) false (like the claim that "30-50% of the hits are in this derogatory context"), or b) ridiculous (like the claim that "uncircumcised" is "hate speech"). Please make a real argument that "uncircumcised" is "derogatory" "hate speech", providing reliable sources for the argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go in circles with you, and stop telling me I'm making false assertions when everything I've said is verifiable. Pick up a dictionary!--Studiodan (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg has a point, Studiodan... Jakew (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

what is derogatory language?

I said "Dyke is commonplace - but you have to be careful how you use it in an encyclopedia." Jakew said "Naturally. Encyclopaedias generally avoid slang terminology, especially slang that may be offensive. But since we're not discussing slang, that's not particularly relevant." No, that is incorrect. We do not avoid words that are offensive to those on the receiving end of them only because they are slang. We avoid using words that are considered derogatory. Full stop. We may talk about 'homosexuality', but we do not refer to people as 'homosexual', because it is perceived as derogatory by many gay men and lesbians. It is not a slang term, it is precisely because of the history of medical abuse associated with the word that gay people reject it and see it as derogatory. Health authorities now avoid the term, and use 'men who have sex with men' and 'women who have sex with women' - which is would not doubt be considered as 'absurdly' wordy by some, nevertheless, it is what is used. If people do find the term derogatory, you have no right dismissing that - although they do have to demonstrate that it is considered such. If we did not do this here, we'd still be talking about 'cretins', 'morons' and 'spactics'; all of these words originated in medicine (which has as notable a pedigree in constructing demeaning taxonomies as the man-in-the-street); these words, also became taken up in ordinary discourse and applied in a derogatory way, and were dropped. Slang is not the issue. It is using language deeemed to be offensive. However, the American, Canadian & Australian statements cited appear to use it, but the British & Dutch avoid it - which suggests to me that unless the latter are more recent, the term staying could be justified. I would suggest that it would not hurt to say "non-circumcised", although obviously I would prefer either 'normal', or 'intact' penis - or 'penis with circumcision' and 'penis without circumcision'. Mish (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Remarkable. I've never known anyone to object to the term "homosexual", and I know quite a few gay people (including myself). I always assumed that the term "MSM" was used because of the inherent problem in describing behaviour (who one has sex with) using words that describe orientation: a man who has sex with another man might be a) gay, b) bisexual, c) straight but curious, d) straight but paid, e) straight but too drunk to notice, etc. This is obviously not the place to argue this particular point, but it does interest me, and if you were to cite a ref or two on my user talk it would be much appreciated. Jakew (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

GLAAD: "Avoid identifying gay people as “homosexuals” an outdated term considered derogatory and offensive to many lesbian and gay people".[11], also see [12], [13], Homosexuality#Etymology and usage, (note WP:MOS#Identity & Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines).Mish (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bloody picture is scary

That bloody picture with the needle in it is scary, at least that was my first thought. Is it necessary? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean File:Dorsal penile nerve block.jpg? It doesn't seem necessary to me. Jakew (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"I don't like it is not a good reason for removal", but, I am quite strongly motivated to eliminate all images of children's genitals from Wikipedia - we have no way of knowing whether the individual concerned has consented to such an image being used this way. Mish (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this image isn't a good addition. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any image actually depicting what male circumcision is and what it involves is infinitely preferable to the myriad images we have depicting cultural celebration of male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

removal of images

Somebody keeps removing Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg and Image:Erection Homme2.jpg, most recently because of the children (and for several other, even less compelling reasons). They've been in the article for some time with no problems. Does anybody else object to them or shall I just restore them? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Restore - There is a policy somewhere that Wikipedia does not exclude such material under the circumstances claimed. It's WP:CENSOR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Without a valid reason for removing them, restoring them seems the obvious response. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, we do not censor when there is a good reason for something being included. The images are not connected with criminal behaviour. Mish (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

MRSA

Jakew find a sometimes lethal MRSA infection in circumcised infants somehow of minor signifikans. But he problem is widly known and relativly common. The infection kan be deadly and is far more serious than mostlly benign balanitis you write så much about. Its amazing to see your removal of many additions that not share your opinion. You don´t possess any article. (yes, my English is far from perfect) jmak (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you do need to provide WP:RS to verify that it is a notable complication arising from the procedure. If it is so significant, then there should be papers that discuss this, prevention, consequences, incidence. It is up to the inserting editor to provide this, other editors do not have to prove this is not so.Mish (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no shortage of information about MRSA in the literature, but very few reliable sources have linked it to circumcision. I can think of only two published sources, Nguyen et al, who conducted an observational study and found an odds ratio of 12.2 associated with having been circumcised, and Van Howe, who published a speculative piece about the "possible role" of circumcision in this respect. By comparison, to use Jmak's chosen issue of balanitis, searching PubMed reveals 170 studies when using "circumcision balanitis" as a search string. This suggests that MRSA has not really received enough attention in the literature to warrant much weight. I would therefore suggest adding a sentence or two to the detailed article instead. Jakew (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There doesn't appear to be much about it in the literature, and if it is mentioned at all, it should be in the more detailed article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

call for feedback on consensus on 'uncircumcised'

I see, so what you are saying is that even if there is no clear consensus within 24 hours, that is irrelevant. So, why is there a call for editors to show that there is no consensus? I am not arguing it it is offensive - which again you have ignored. I am arguing it is not neutral, and inaccurate (which you ignore, presumably because you cannot account for that). More filibustering on your part, I guess?

I said I have notified several contributors to this thread who did not agree that this term was appropriate that you are suggesting there is a consensus. When there is a call for feedback, notifying interested editors is not canvassing - the person who suggested this should have done that, and notified impartially - I did not make that call, so feel no need to notify everybody; I am simply responding to it. I have only encouraged discussion, not sought to hinder it by harassing people on their talk pages, or seeking to have them banned.- MishMich - Talk - 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CANVASS, Mish. I note from your contributions that you have canvassed three editors who previously stated an objection to the word "uncircumcised".[14] [15] [16] Unfortunately one-sided canvassing is harmful to consensus, and hence is disallowed by policy (to quote the "nutshell": "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." (emph added)). Jakew (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As I stated quite clearly here, I did not place the call with a 24 hour deadline, I notified other editors here who had raised objections to the term presented as having consensus, because the assertion was that there was consensus. There would be no point notifying those who have recently come into the thread - as they are already present, and their views have been taken into account in the assumption of consensus. It is not my responsibility to notify editors of this call, that is up to the person making the call. You are free to notify people who represent what is claimed as the consensus that they do support this consensus if you like. But as you (and recently Bugs) have made clear, consensus is irrelevant if you can make what you regard as a superior argument for overriding consensus. I reject the allegation that this was canvassing. I asked for comment - and at least one of the editors does not hold views I personally subscribe to. Yourself, Jayjg and Bugs have all been active within the 24 hours prior to the call, so I saw no point notifying you or them; I can see no other editor who has been active on this thread. the only other person who has been active lately is Coppertwig, but he has not been active in this thread, so I did not contact him. If you want to fine. I am also quite disturbed that yet another contributer to this article who disagrees with you has been banned - and that editors active on this page were not only not notified that he has been banned, but were not invited to contribute to any discussion about this. That can only be described as underhanded. It seems that most editors who disagree with you and two or three other editors all end up getting banned. - MishMich - Talk - 12:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not free to "notify people who represent what is claimed as the consensus" (as you put it), because that would also violate WP:CANVASS. (And, since I have just explained that policy to you, it would be a knowing violation and it would arguably violate WP:DE as well; in any case I would not be surprised to be blocked for doing so). Furthermore, I have never claimed that "consensus is irrelevant if you can make what you regard as a superior argument for overriding consensus", and I would be grateful if you would refrain from misrepresenting my views. Also, having been "active within the 24 hours prior to the call" appears to be irrelevant (unless you're applying that criterion very strictly); Blackworm edited approximately 24 hours before you canvassed him. Finally, I cannot comprehend your accusations of "underhand" banning of unspecified editors. I presume you refer to Studiodan, who was blocked (not banned) in response to a 3RR report. He was notified on his talk page (which is courteous but not mandatory), but it is unconventional to discuss editor behaviour on an article talk page, so it was not raised here. It is often unwise to raise such issues in a highly partisan atmosphere, as what is needed is objective assessment from those external to the dispute. That's why the 3RR noticeboard is there. If you think I, or any of the involved admins, behaved inappropriately, I'd welcome criticism at my talk page or at WP:AN. Jakew (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is how I uderstood you here, when it was suggested you were in a minority...

• Jakew said: [QUOTE]As WP:CONSENSUS clearly states, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Jayjg and I gave clear, arguments explaining why the image violated applicable policy, and these arguments have not been refuted.[END QUOTE]

Given you act as gatekeeper of this page, and thus as arbiter of whether your argument is 'better' than any other on this page, I don't think the way I described this was off-the-mark. - MishMich - Talk - 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere have I proposed that consensus is irrelevant, nor have I suggested that it is legitimate to override consensus. Consensus is paramount, but it is not the same thing as a simple majority vote. I haven't suggested that consensus is irrelevant, nor that it can be overridden — quite the opposite. Please do not misrepresent my position again. I would prefer that you use an exact quote, if you must. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've wrapped it in quotes, to make it clearer that it is a quote. - MishMich - Talk - 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

break to separate

I will also re-iterate my position. Out of four of the most well-known dictionaries, in their on-line format, two give no definition for 'uncircumcised', and of two that do, one states the adjective applies to a person, not a thing, while the other gives no indication of what it applies to.

In an extensive search of Yahoo, Google, Bing and Scholar, the word 'foreskin' is more prevalent than 'uncircumcised' in connection with the 'penis', including when 'penis' is connected with 'circumcision'. I have also argued that it is strange to describe something that has not undergone a process by the negation of process it has not undegone - for instance we do not usually describe appendages that have not undergone body modification by the modification they have not had, citing an arm that has not been tattooed is not usually described as an 'unatattooed' arm. We do not generally describe things by what they are not.

I am also suggesting that where there are claims that the use of 'intact' is non-neutral, then 'uncircumcised' is no more neutral than 'intact'.

I am proposing that it would do no harm to describe the penis that has never had medical intervention as a 'penis with foreskin', and that it would avoid this article being a magnet for disruption.

Most (if any) of these points have not received any response, instead, it is repeated dogmatically that 'uncircumcised' is a normative term, which is neutral, (and by implication, I guess, that this is preferred terminology that should be used rather than any (other) neutral terminology). - MishMich - Talk - 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" is a commonly-used word that describes the situation. It is merely descriptive, it is not POV-pushing like the ambiguous term "intact", and you don't need a full sentence to describe it when a one-word synonym will do. The primary definition in the dictionary describes the status of someone, be they circumcised or uncircumcised. It's descriptive. It doesn't push an agenda the way words like "intact" do. Even if you're circumcised and had a vasectomy, you're still "intact" and "normal" unless you also got "Bobbitted". Or, if you were born with the urethra coming out the wrong place, as can happen, then that's "abnormal", but it can be fixed by surgery. Also, I don't see how "foreskin" and "uncircumcised" can be compared in a search. One is an object, the other is a condition. Apples and oranges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that rather than let this drag on forever we move to resolve it: "If there's a clear consensus, great, otherwise let's move to mediation or an RFC". TFOWR 06:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR. If people were less invested in polemic, this could move on - the problem is when activists make statements like this: "you don't need a full sentence to describe it when a one-word synonym will do". Note, "uncircumcised penis" is two words and it has 18 characters + 1 space, while "penis with foreskin" is not a sentence either, but it has three words, and is only 17 characters + 2 spaces. So, it is inaccurate to say it is any longer.

Bugs. The point of the search was to show that these engines yield diverse results, so simple statements that rely on Google searches cannot be trusted - I am not the one who tried to 'prove' that uncircumcised is widely used by doing a search on Google. What I was pointing out was that foreskin is more likely to appear in articles that mention the penis, even on the subject of circumcision, than 'uncircumcised'. I appreciate you don't understand why I did this - because it has become glaringly obvious that you do not actually read what I write, and so persistently provide responses to things I have not written, rather than things I that I have written. That is exceedingly rude and lazy, especially as I have gone to some length to construct my statements, and explain myself.

I am not calling for 'intact' to be used, because I am sensitive to the fact that people find it offensive (I do not demand sources to 'prove' this, because I understand why it might be). My point is that 'uncircumcised' can be regarded the same way, yet the good faith I have shown in this is not reciprocated. The circumcision activists Those sympathetic to the position of 'circumcision activists' and 'professional proponents of circumcision' here insist that this term is neutral and widespread, and there can be no other term - not even 'penis with foreskin'. They do not discuss what is wrong with 'penis with foreskin' - instead they use all sorts of arguments about things I have not proposed. That is because they are promoting an agenda which seeks to make circumcision normative, when in most countries it is an unusual treatment; the language chosen presents it as a medical procedure, yet hides that the process involves the removal of healthy tissue in a way that runs contrary to medical ethics. How can that ever be said to be neutral? - MishMich - Talk - 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If people were less invested in polemic, this could move on - the problem is when activists make statements like this: "you don't need a full sentence to describe it when a one-word synonym will do". I agree. Let's move on. Let's stop labelling people with counter-views as "activists". Let's take this to the applicable WP:DR board and let uninvolved editors consider everyone's views. TFOWR 09:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, discussing editors rather than edits is unacceptable. Mish, if you strike out references to "activists" and speculation about "promoting an agenda", I will tell you what is wrong with "penis with foreskin". Jakew (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to play that game. You have had plenty of time to respond to a question I have clearly laid out several times prior to that comment. When your cabal ceases being rude and dismissive of contrary views, and accommodates the same courtesy regarding use of terminology as I have, then I might consider that a sign of good faith and reciprocate; however, I have modified my statement in to be more accurate. - MishMich - Talk - 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my offer of explanation is conditional upon you following core behavioural policies and guidelines; if you insist upon labelling editors as "activists", speculating about their motives, and making claims of a "cabal", I am unwilling to discuss the issue with you. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not now, nor have I ever been, any kind of "activist" in connection with circumcision. I have my opinions on it, but in reference to the article, the term "circumcision" is clear and unambiguous. Whether I like circumcision or not doesn't figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I already changed that bit, are you saying you are not sympathetic to the views of pro-circumcision activists and professionals? I have been clear about my position as per WP:COI. I consider this a human rights issue, and am a member of three human rights organisations covering issues affecting LGBT, Christian and intersex people, one of which includes this issue specifically (although that is not the reason I am a member - I am more concerned with non-consensual intersex genital modification), and a former member of Amnesty International. Perhaps if a few others were clearer about their own WP:COI, instead of presenting themselves as neutral, this article might not engender so much bad feeling. I can categorically state that I have no personal connection with campaigning on this specific issue, but am part of an organisation that is formally associated with an organisation that supports an organisation that does. - MishMich - Talk - 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As an actual issue, I basically do not care about it. I'm a Gentile who was circumcised like most American males were in those days, typically for hygiene reasons, and when I read about smegma and such I'm glad it was done. But as far as getting on some bandwagon about it, either way, I don't care, and I don't see what the issue is. It's not like female mutilation, where they take the clit away. The equivalent would be to chop your "head" off, which is not what circumcision is (unless you get a really, really incompetent mohel). What I'm concerned about here, and how I got yanked into this, is to argue against the imposition of politically-correct terminology in wikipedia. As "human rights" issues go, this is way, way down the list of important stuff. Mass killings in the civil wars in Africa are important. Starvation is important. Degradation of women is important. The ritual removal of a smidgen of skin from a male is, by comparison, not important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is more important, but irrelevant in terms of this article, which is about circumcision and should (briefly) cover all aspects, medical and religious, as well as ethics and human rights. I have no issues about political correctness - I have no time for bigotry or derogatory/demeaning language. That is not political correctness, it is about having respect for people. - MishMich - Talk - 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" has not been demonstrated to be bigoted, derogatory, or demeaning. It is merely descriptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you've never heard the phrase "uncircumcised dog" directed at a member of a different culture, but I have. I'm sure some feel exactly as you do about the word "unwashed" when used to describe the common people (a non-pejorative meaning of "unwashed"). Then again if one tried to replace all mentions of the common people with "unwashed" across Wikipedia, pointing to its non-pejorative dictionary meaning, I'm quite convinced they would be made a laughingstock. Blackworm (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But if you were to try and repalce on A page about 'washed' 'unwashed' (when refering to someone who has not washed) with 'not had a bath' you would also be laughed off the stage.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

True. The analogy isn't a good one, due to the inversion of the original and derived meanings, and due to the fact that "unwashed" can't be applied to an identifiable culture or group. Blackworm (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Which identifiable culture or group is uncircumcised applied to?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Any culture or group outside a circumcising culture, when that circumcising culture believes those outside their culture are spiritually impure. Have a look at this if you're still unsure. Blackworm (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that if you call somebody a 'cunt', that is derogatory, but female genitalia can be called a 'cunt' in certain circumstances, and not in a way that is derogatory (although it can be derogatory in that context as well). This has gone to NPOV now, and people don't seem to think it is not neutral. The best you can do is find WP:RS that point to it being problematic, and seek to have something about that 'debate' over terminology included in the text somewhere. Personally, I have no more time. - MishMich - Talk - 23:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The wide spread belief in circumcising cultures that male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons is based in part on the definition of uncircumcised as unclean. That is one reason some people are offended by the word uncircumcised. DanBlackham (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The term 'unwashed' tended to be used (in this country, at least) in the phrase 'the great unwashed', which was a reference by some people in the aristocracy to refer the largest section of society - the 'common people'. This was a distinct cultural and socio-economic group. It reflected a situation where most people in the UK didn't tend to bathe very; homes increasingly began to have plumbing with hot and cold water installed towards the middle of the last century; before that hot water was confined to the kitchen, and a family would share a metal tub filled with hot water on one night in the week, the water having been heated over the stove). When applied to a people, it is derogatory, not when applied to a thing - I have never heard it applied to an individual; so the analogy breaks down, because while 'uncircumcised' is derogatory when used about a culture or group, it is more likely people would say that an appendage is not washed - not that it is unwashed. I'm not going to go off and find sources for that, though. - MishMich - Talk - 04:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

break

MishMich, it's rather ironic that you continue to try to classify various editors here who disagree with your views as being "activists" or "sympathetic to the views of pro-circumcision activists and professionals", while never commenting on other editors who happen to agree with your views. But if you want to see which editors here focus on a very narrow ranges of articles, it's easy to compare:

Editor	Edits	Unique pages
User:Jayjg	84212	14736
User:Avraham	43554	12678
User:Baseball Bugs	52318	5594
User:TFOWR	18371	4823
User:Jakew	11575	1432
User:MishMich	7215	520
User:Blackworm	4102	307
User:Richiez	639	135
User:Studiodan	398	32
User:Frank Koehler	59	5

Can you see any difference between the first five editors in the table and the next five? Well, apparently the editors with a very broad experience on Wikipedia, having edited from 1400 to over 14,000 Wikipedia pages, have one view of this article, and, in general, the word "uncircumcised". On the other hand, those editors who have very limited experience on Wikipedia, having edited from 5 to just over 500 pages, and, for the most part, focused mostly or exclusively on circumcision and related topics, (what are often called Single Purpose Accounts on Wikipedia), have the opposite view. So, which editors here are more likely to be using Wikipedia for the purpose of "activism" on the topic of circumcision? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a seriously erronious assertion. It is true that I am a more recent editor, but I am not primarily concerned with circumcision (or topics related to it), and came here because of its association with certain other topics I do focus on. I am primarily interested in LGBT studies and sexology, and these are the topics I tend to focus on, because that is related to the academic discipline my thesis was located (which was on medical experiences of intersex and transsexual people). However, I have edited a number of articles outside the LGBT & Sexology projects (apart from this one) such as GWR and other locomotives, because I have interests beyond LGBT studies. My background in IT (academic and professional) has led me to edit articles on IT. The only reason I am here again now is because my input was requested by one of the editors you (eventually) managed to ban. I apologise if the handful of editors who gatekeep this article are not a cabal - but it does look that way at times. Now, I have stated my background so you know, not to claim some expertise. As you will be aware, it doesn't matter how many edits on how many articles an editor has made, it does not make them a more 'superior' editor than another. I focus on fewer articles for specific reasons - my time is limited, and I would not be able to contribute productively to lots of articles, particularly ones I know nothing about. The only reason I am here (having given up on it once already because it is next to impossible to edit in any way that does not meet with Jakew's approval) is because I am concerned about the bias in it.

I have reviewed the edits made over the past couple of months by the 'top four' editors, (excluding TFOWR from that as his is a new name to me, and I had not included him in my assumption). First, if I appeared to include Baseball_Bugs in my reference to a cabal, I must apologise - his input here is not frequent, and he has a wide-ranging scope of edits of which this page is not particularly notable. That leaves Jakew and two editors who appear to support Jakew's moderation of this page. They do not appear primarily concerned with articles associated with circumcision per se, and are primarily involved in editing articles on Judaism. The only editor amongst these three who focuses predominantly (and significantly) on circumcision and articles associated with it is Jakew, and this pattern of editing was present from the start of his time as an editor. Searching on numbers of edits and articles edited is not very revealing without statistics to show the range and frequency per article of articles edited. I do not have such tools. Rather than making hypothetical statements about editors' focus (as you have mine), it would be more helpful to utilise tools that can demonstrate the range, focus and frequency of edits. You will see from my contribution history that this is the ONLY article connected with circumcision I have attempted to edit, and does not feature significantly compared to the majority of my edits, which are within LGBT studies and Sexology projects, and only is mainly connected to these as an aspect of body modification and the parallels with genital surgery of intersex infants. You will also note that I have a very good record when it comes to editing, in terms of complaints etc., even though I edit pages that are more volatile and sensitive than this page. As I said before you posted the above, this is a page that is not a primary concern of mine; it is the gatekeeping and moderation that I have witnessed here that is the reason I am here. - MishMich - Talk - 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the two editors who are still here in the lower part of your list, Richiez is primarily interested in female medical issues, with relatively few edits on circumcision. Blackworm is the only editor who comes anywhere near as close in focus to articles associated with circumcision as Jakew, although his/her edits also indicate a range of articles that encompass other topics like FGM and bodily modification generally. - MishMich - Talk - 00:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, can we move on from this ad-hominem nonsense, as only two editors in that list are possible contenders for the characterisation you make, both with markedly different perspectives. Please focus on the request, and refrain from dragging editors who disagree with you (or Jakew) to some disciplinary board or other - for now, at least. - MishMich - Talk - 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

MishMich, it was you who started this ad-hominem nonsense, first by characterizing editors as "The circumcision activists" and then as "Those sympathetic to the position of 'circumcision activists' and 'professional proponents of circumcision'", "cabal", and "handful of editors who gatekeep this article". That's ad hominem, and you still haven't apologized for it, much less retracted it. In fact, you continue to characterize editors (rather than discussing content), even as you decry it in others. Well, if I were to characterize the editors here, I would characterize the two groups as, "five editors with a combined total of over 210,000 edits" versus "five editors with a combined total of over 12,000 edits". The first group is 17 times more experienced on Wikipedia than the second group. And, if I were to characterize editors here, I would suggest that the first group is committed to the whole Wikipedia project, and knows that uncircumcised is the most commonly used, neutral, informative, and accurate term, while the second group is here to push obfuscation in the service of some bizarre intactivist agenda, based on no reliable sources whatsoever. So it's a good thing I'm not actually characterizing editors, isn't it? From now on, I assume we'll see no more mention of editors at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. One thing that editors with a broader base of experience have is that they have seen many single-purpose or narrow-focus accounts come and go. The pattern tends to be that SPA's arrive with a specific agenda, and when they meet resistence, they accuse the more general editors of being part of some conspiracy. I've been accused of being a NASA employee; a BP employee; various other employees I can't think of just now; a conservative; a liberal; a Republican; a Democrat; a Christian; an atheist; and most recently a member of a circumcision activist cabal or some such. (It's too bad I haven't kept better track. That would be a dandy item to add to my user page.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong statistics (should use global info) and everyone knows how deceiving statistics are. Classifying me as circumcision activist is the most bizare assertion I have seen for some time. I am using my limited time to improve medical articles that need some love and do substantial edits. Regarding "uncircumcised" I see no need to use that word. I have looked over the discussion archives of that deleted entry and it is obvious that some folks were keen to have it and other to delete it merely for POV view reasons. The word has an archaic religious meaning that is not appropriate in the picture context and is ambiguous as it can denote the result of "uncircumcision". Finally there is no shortage of alternatives and I see no point to have any of the images at all in the article. Richiez (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcision" as a "restorative" process is a colloquialism not likely to be found in a dictionary. "Uncircumcised" unambiguously means "not circumcised". You may a good point about the religious definition being archaic. The modern meaning is "not circumcised". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have not removed my assertion, just as you have not removed yours - even though apart from the two at the bottom of the list, it is blatantly false. Jakew is primarily focussed on this issue, and the other two of you appear to have some issues around this article, occupy a paradigm where circumcision is seen as normative, and take that as meaning you have a NPOV on the issue - and when any editor comes here who comes from a culture where circumcision is not normative, their input is regarded as non-neutral. This has to stop, it really does. This insistence on the dominance of one form of discourse is what causes so much disruption on this article. - MishMich - Talk - 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mish, it has to stop. That really is enough. Discuss content, not contributors. Jakew (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

See Jakew's comment directly above this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so outrageous and worthy of a pointer to WP:KETTLE. Does one really need to point to Jayjg's prolonged irrelevant comment above that started this trend in this discussion -- you know, the one that ended with "So, which editors here are more likely to be using Wikipedia for the purpose of "activism" on the topic of circumcision? Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)" (And which drew deafening silence from Jakew, and everyone else agreeing with Jakew on this issue.) Blackworm (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because he's right. We've seen many activists come and go. They try to use wikipedia to give false notability to their fringe cause, and when they can't get their way, they accuse us of conspiracy. And that is hilarious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like hypocrisy to me. And by the way, you're the fringe. You claim that describing a 13-year old male as a "boy" is non-neutral POV,[17][18] and Jakew agrees with your reasoning and asks you for alternatives.[19] You're the fringe. Blackworm (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nearly as funny as the idea that there are all these activists hiding under the bed, trying to take over the encyclopedia. - MishMich - Talk - 06:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I first noticed 'activist' was a dirty word, used as a term of contempt, at a medical conference on intersex in Germany six years ago - no 'activists' had been given access to the conference, and the views of 'activists' were dismissed because they were 'activists'. Interestingly, the 'activists' would be the same people that would have been treated by the clinician concerned, or his predecessors. It was interesting, because a representative of a human rights movement was present there, and was shocked by what she saw and heard throughout the weekend. I don't know whether there was any connection, but now intersex rights are an issue within the human rights movement - and feature in both the Montreal declaration and the Yogyakarta priniciples. Now as soon as I hear somebody referred to as an 'activist', my alarm bells go off. It is like calling somebody a fascist, when they aren't. I don't see any point in activism, I prefer advocacy - and when I do use 'activist', it is an ironic way to refer to those who tend to refer to those they do not agree with as 'activists'. Activist is a rhetorical device employed by people, particularly in the medical profession, to denigrate their opponents - it is not a neutral word. - MishMich - Talk - 06:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that the term "activist" is "a dirty word", "a term of contempt", "rhetorical device employed by people, particularly in the medical profession, to denigrate their opponents". Why, then, in your comment of 09:18, 7 July 2010, did you describe those with whom you disagreed as "activists"? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am loosing illusions about wikipedia as I watch this discussion. Folks this is supposed to be a medical article. Richiez (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no illusions. I have never become involved in an article where what I have said has been so misreported and misrepresented, questions/statements ignored, instead being given answers/responses to questions/statements I have not asked/stated. - MishMich - Talk - 10:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I not explain myself well enough? I explained that when the word is used by medical professionals it is often used as a 'dirty word', a 'term of contempt', a 'rhetorical device' used to denigrate opponents. I am not a medical professional, and I understand that some people are proud to call themselves activists. To me it is not those things - although I do feel that way it is used here tends to be in the pejorative sense. I also said that my use was ironic. I know that irony is something that is better appreciated in some cultures and not in others - but I did say that for a reason. It's like when I call my partner a 'dyke' (which she is), or somebody I know calls me 'queer', it is not offensive, because it is ironic - MishMich - Talk - 09:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But now I am going to risk causing offense. Earlier I said that people who have been circumcised might want to consider not editing this article, as they may be too close to the issue. I am going to qualify that. Perhaps it would be better if people with either a penis that has been circumcised or poeple with a penis with a foreskin did not edit this article at all - because it may just be that most men are unable to approach this topic in a level-headed way. - MishMich - Talk - 09:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, I've met some women who can be very irrational about this issue, Mish. Perhaps we should limit participation to small green-skinned creatures from Alpha Centauri?

Seriously, it's not going to happen, and yes, it is offensive. It would be similarly offensive to suggest that women should refrain from editing material relating to the vagina. Or, extending the reasoning further, that only those who are asexual should edit articles relating to sexual relationships or orientations. See what I mean? Jakew (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, just funny. Men shouldn't edit the article due to assumed bias one way or another; and women shouldn't edit it either, because they can't relate. Therefore, as Jake suggests, no one should edit the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know actually. I don't have to be a paedophile to be able to edit the article on paedophilia - in fact, paedophiles tend to be discouraged from doing so. Any article that deals with abuse or assault to, or harm of, minors should apply similar standards, and people who support such practices should be discouraged from participating. Here the opposite occurs, people who do not support it are discouraged. I do not intend to discuss this further. - MishMich - Talk - 11:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mish, nobody really cares about individual editors' personal views about circumcision, unless the editor a) uses the article talk page as a soapbox for their views (good examples of which include asserting that the procedure "involves the removal of healthy tissue in a way that runs contrary to medical ethics", or describing it as "abuse" or "assault"), or b) makes edits that violate WP:NPOV. Nobody is truly neutral, so it is unrealistic to expect that editors have no position. All we ask for are NPOV edits (including talk page posts), not NPOV editors. All editors who are capable of editing in a way that conforms to NPOV are welcome to edit this encyclopaedia; those who cannot do so are, of course, discouraged. Jakew (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is primarily an article about a form of permanent body done for cultural or religious reasons, not a medical article. From a global perspective the vast majority of circumcisions are done for cultural or religious reasons. Very few circumcisions are done because there has been a diagnosis of an existing medical problem. In fact most are done because the parents of the boy are Muslim. DanBlackham (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(to Jakew) I was in the process of taking this article of my watchlist, but having considered your comment, I have to agree with you - although will qualify that. You and I are the have been pretty clear about our own 'positions'. Yours is that you distrust activists opposed to circumcision (at least that is how I read your statement on your user page), mine is that I see this article in the context of a range of issues, which include FGM and medical intervention for genital ambiguity in intersex infants, child abuse, cosmetic surgery, and other forms of bodily modification. That is because I do not come from a medical perspective, but my background is Queer Theory, Foucault, LGBT studies and Sexology. That is not a POV, it is an academic paradigm. The best way to achieve neutrality is by being completely open about one's position - but when this is not reciprocated, misinterpreted, used against you - this is very frustrating. We are called upon to be fully open about any potential COI; not stating that clearly is contrary to guidelines, but stating it does not disqualify one from editing a given article, provided one does not edit in a way that not neutral. I do not believe I have tried to edit in a way that is not neutral. - MishMich - Talk - 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)