Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 3

• Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 1
• Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 2

Introduction dispute

The following sentence from the introduction is disputed by contributors with a pro-circumcision POV.

Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death).

In my opinion the sentence accurately summarized the policy statements of the professional medical organizations.

Also the introduction includes a short quote from the policy statements of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and the American Academy of Pediatrics. In my opinion these two statements accurately represent the range of opinions of professional medical organizations. The BC statement is the strongest in terms of saying infant circumcision is not medically necessary and the AAP statement is the weakest. However a contributor with a pro-circumcision POV repeatedly deletes the statement by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. -- DanBlackham 10:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• What dispute? You are pushing your POV and I am attempting to maintain a NPOV approach to this subject. The title of the article is Medical analysis of circumcision of which policy statements by medical bodies are but a component and not the be all and end all. If one were to include such a statement in the introduction (which I reluctantly agree with) one will do from the most influencial of such bodies. Where on earth does the BC statement suddenly deserve centre stage treatment? (unless of course it is closest to your POV). Why don't you insert links to such statements? Please try to restrain yourself. There is no dispute, there is only a problem where you are not being allowed to get away with your standard POV pushing and are the verge of throwing a tantrum. Chill out. - Robert the Bruce 11:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, Robert, you are the one who is pushing your pro-circumcision POV. The statements by professional medical organizations are the best neutral point of view summaries of the medical analysis of circumcision. They all say there is no medical indication for infant circumcision. Not one of the professional medical organizations says the small potential medical benefits of infant circumcision far outweigh the medical risks and harms, not one, not even the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians statement says, "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure." -- DanBlackham 11:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording of the above. While a few (one?) medical organisations have explicitly stated that benefits do not outweigh harms, I don't think it's appropriate for us to speak for those that haven't stated a policy on that matter. The AAP's statement also merely says that there are benefits and risks, and parents should make the decision (implicitly disagreeing with your wording). I propose the following milder (and thus more generally true) statement (emphasis added):

In their view the benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not sufficiently outweigh the risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death) to recommend that all males be circumcised. - Jakew 12:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some of the medical organizations have taken a much stronger stand, for example:

• "The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit." -- The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002. [1]
• "Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. ... Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate." -- British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003. [2]

Please note the Royal Australasian College of Physicians statement says routine or non-therapeutic circumcision is "without proven medical benefit". -- DanBlackham 13:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Well add a section a the bottom then where you can list all the statements. One word of caution though the order in which they are listed should be in accordance with the population size represented by the organisation and not according to how much they suit your anti-circumcision/pro foreskin POV. NB: Leave the introduction alone. - Robert the Bruce 15:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Introduction Cultural Bias

The current introduction says that a number of national medical organizations have placed circumcision under scrutiny. However, only the American Pediatric Society's policy is cited. This causes the article to lead off with a US-centric viewpoint, affecting the POV. Other medical associations should be cited (whether neutral, pro or con). I say this not to make the article pro- or anti-circumcision, but to curb the US focus that so often emerges in Wiki articles. I recognize, of course, that the article is slated for clean-up.--Westendgirl 18:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Winkelmann and Taylor

The findings of Winkelmann and Taylor are important and relevant to this article. Robert, please stop deleting them. Dr. Taylor found the ridged band of the foreskin has a high concentration of specialized nerves. In my opinion that is probably it single most important fact that needs to be included in the section on sexual effects of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 11:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Dan I understand just how you feel and I sympathise. But you do realise that your point of view (POV) does not deserve centre stage attention unless it is backed up by credible fact. Sadly this piece misrepresents Winkelmann and Taylor's two-page excuse for a study is an outstanding example of irresponsible speculation being taken for serious science by desperate people. Hammond showed us that at least half of foreskin restorers have a mental pathology of sorts, 30% are serious substance abusers and these sad and desperate people are being exploited by an anti-circumcision movement for their own purposes. Disgraceful actually. If you are desperate to include Winkelmann then you need to point out the difference between the Meissner and Vater Pacini corpusles both in terms of location and function. So please try to keep your eye on the ball here. Because "in your POV" you believe that something should be included in the article does not necessarily mean it has the required merit. Try your best to strive for NPOV and not just recklessly push your anti-circumcision agenda. It is not helpful. - Robert the Bruce 17:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please stop your ad hominem attacks. Dr. Taylor's article is an accurate description of the cellular anatomy of the foreskin.[3] He found that an intact male's foreskin has a high concentration of specialized nerve cells. That is a scientific fact and it should be included in the article, even though it does not agree with your pro-circumcision agenda. -- DanBlackham 08:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, describing them as specialised is deceptive. What he found was that a certain part of the foreskin (the ridged band of mucosa) was comparatively rich in Meissner corpuscles. They're no more specialised than any other nerve cell. It's true that later Taylor did speculate that these were specialised tissue, but this was pure speculation with no basis in fact. Saying that the ridged band of the foreskin is comparatively rich in superficial touch receptors is apparently factual, but I'm afraid that any poetic essays about specialised receptors inducing sexual ecstacy (etc.) must be considered junk and treated accordingly. - Jakew 11:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Describing Meissner's corpuscles as specialized nerve cells is not deceptive; it is an accurate statement. Meissner's corpuscles are especially effective in detecting light touch. As you said Dr. Taylor found that there is a high concentration of Meissner's corpuscles in the ridged band of the foreskin. There is also a high concentration of Meissner's corpuscles in the fingertips, lips, and nipples. Most people know from their own personal experience that their fingertips, lips, and nipples are more sensitive to light touch than most other parts of their body. Robert's attempt to delete Dr. Taylor's findings that the foreskin contains a high concentration of specialized nerves, called Meissner's corpuscles, which are effective in detecting light touch is deceptive and is an unacceptable attempt to insert his own pro-circumcision POV in the article. -- DanBlackham 23:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry DanB but the deception comes in through the suggestion that the because of the presence of "specialised nerves" the foreskin therefore has a sexual function. Meissner corpuscles are indeed "specialised nerves" and are found in such places as the oral cavity, the lips, the finger tips, the palms and the soles of the feet ... and the foreskin (and not the nipple as you suggest - see the Areola and Nipple section of Winkelmann - was this deliberate or just a slip?). I suggest we keep working on this DanB and together we will be able to unravel the deceit about an anatomical sexual function of the foreskin ... you do want the truth to prevail don't you Dan? - Robert the Bruce 01:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting relevant information

The following is relevant information that should be included in the article:

Van Howe (2004) examined male neonatal circumcision both from a cost perspective and a medical perspective.[4] His analysis found that male neonatal circumcision is poor health policy and cannot be justified financially or medically.

In June of 2004 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia stated that neonatal circumcision is medically unnecessary.

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention." [5]

If you do not agree that this information should be included in the article, please explain why before deleting it. -- DanBlackham 00:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The anti-circumcision activist Van Howe once again introduced a "study" in which he expressed his views. Again, he used deceptive tactics including selective - and dishonest - inclusion of figures and faulty methodology. O'Farrell and Moses gave an enlightening analysis of his previous work on HIV, and the same basic approach seems to be used by him today. It is not appropriate to include his propaganda in this article. Nor is it appropriate to include partial quotations from organisations, though a link is perfectly ok. - Jakew 01:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jake, please cite the Wikipedia guidelines that say it is not "appropriate to include partial quotations from organizations". The quote is from the section "Medical Perspectives" of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Policy Manual. The quote is relevant to the article. -- DanBlackham 02:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cost-benefit, medical utility, and cost-utility are completely relevant to the "medical analysis of circumcision". Arguments against the author are simply "ad hominem" attacks that are recognized as fallacious arguments. Ad hominem attacks are the last defence of someone who has nothing to say. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks on the author of cited papers.

Also, this file is overlong. Removing sections that are duplicated elsewhere in discrete articles is appropriate and requested. Robert Blair 12:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Who says the file is overlong? For someone who has been here since 18 November you are being aren't you pushing your luck just a little? BTW you came here in response to the call to arms on the foreskin restoration list I suppose? - Robert the Bruce 16:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert War - Request + Information

If you choose to revert changes on this page, please do not revert changes to fix syntaxes, for example my change of "Long NPOV}}" to "{{Long NPOV}}". If you would refrain from using words such as "Vandal" when referring to another user's edit, it will go a long way towards creating NPOV pages

Also, there is a ban against reverting a page more than 3 times a day. (Thus I, and Robert Blair, may not revert this page until tommorrow starts for wikipedia's timezone) Effective today, violation of that policy will be enforced with 24-hour period bans. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement--Josiah 04:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I requested this article be protected, because of the Revert war that was happening. In order for this article to be unprotected, we ought to discuss our differing viewpoints so that we can come to a NPOV article. --Josiah 02:59, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Well as it turns out the timing of the protection comes at the worst possible moment as it freezes the article immediately after the edit of the person who made the call-to-arms to disrupt Wikipedia [6] Read up on it.
  • Interesting. Life sucks sometimes. Hopefully we can work out a consensus version that incorporates both sides of this issue.--Josiah 06:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Now seeing you have been the cause of this protection I suggest that you take responsibility for sorting the issues out. First, is that those (who came in response to the call-to-arms) from the anti-circumcision and foreskin restoration lists want the phimosis and balanitis sections removed from this article and replaced by links to the separate articles. Any ideas why they would want to do this? - Robert the Bruce 04:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that you meant the last as a Rhetorical question. I completely agree with you that those should be included in this article.--Josiah 06:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well sadly you protected a version that specifically excluded them. What to do now? - Robert the Bruce 17:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I din't protection anything Robert. I requested a page protection. Please, let's try to work on a consensus version. For the most part, I am on your side of this issue.--Josiah 05:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • What I suggest is done then is to reinstate the sections on Phimosis and Balanitis. Then you idea of putting the proposed "Complications of Circumcision" and "Weighing the Benefits and the Costs" up in a sandbox or whatever to be workshopped by the community before allowing insertion into the main article. - Robert the Bruce 05:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

This article, medical analysis of circumcision is about a surgical operation. The article is overlong and two sections, phimosis and balanitis, have been moved to separate discrete files.

In analyzing a surgical operation one must discuss the possible benefits and the known risks and complications of the operation. That was missing from this analysis. I created a careful discussion of the risks and complications, but that was deleted without discussion.

Also, one must consider the ethics of the operation. The ethics are controversial, and a NPOV article was created to discuss that and a link was inserted into the medical analysis of circumcision file. That was also deleted by reversion. These reversions are tantamount to vandalism because they destroy good work.

Wikipedia says:

A revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. Where you think an older version of a page is better than the current version, a revert is sometimes appropriate. Sometimes, though, it is better to write a third version that takes the best bits of the other two, and combines them to get the best of both worlds.

With regard to wholesale deletions, Wikipedia says:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. Amend and edit, then it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.

Jakew and Robert the Bruce have not followed the rules. They simply delete whatever does not fit their POV. I urge that they be banned.

Robert Blair 04:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to make changes to this page which incorporate both their edits and yours, however, you instantly reverted them. After examining the recent edits (68% of your edits have been exclusively on this page, none are related to other topics) made by you and your sockpuppet IP, it appears to me that you have created this account for the sole reason of turning this into an anti-circumcision article. I'd be glad to have you prove me wrong. Preventions of Phimosis and Balanitis are examples of possible benefits from circumcision. So here's my proposal: I'll accept the removal of the paragraphs that covered them if you either do the same to possible disadvantages of being circumcized, or replace the removed material with quality articles that cover other possible benefits of circumcision. I propose this because we cannot cover only the bad, and skip the good, or only the good, and skip the bad, on such a controversial topic as this.--Josiah 06:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Josiah:

Prevention of balanitis and phimosis are indeed possible benefits of circumcision. However, they now have separate discrete files that cover that. Links were placed to those files. It is not my intention to ignore those possible benefits. But the article is way overlong and this had the effect of shortening the article and eliminating the redundancy of having duplicate discussions. We can check those files to see if they adequately mention that circumcision could prevent those conditions.

I forgot to mention in my post above that in an article on the "medical analysis of circumcision", the cost-benefits studies are a relevant and essential part of the discussion. That section had also been deleted arbitraily deleted without discussion. That is improper. Robert Blair

I disagree on the first part. Those parts ought to be covered, but they don't need to be convered as in depth. For example, the Jew page and the Karaite Judaism both cover Karaite Judaism, but the former has a brief summary of it, whilst the latter details it fairly in depth. Perhaps we could work out something like that here. I agree with you on the second part, I initially tried to include those parts. Perhaps we can make a sandbox with each of the contested areas, and work from there?--Josiah 15:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Yoshiah:

I think your proposal is reasonable. Please start the sandbox and inform me of its location.

I am quite busy at the moment so I would like you to do the inital editing.

Robert Blair

• With respect Josiah you need to understand how these people work. The principle is two steps forward, one step back. Here you find yourself contemplating a trade off where in order to reinstate deletions of whole sections they get to insert whole paragraphs of POV. The first issue which should be not negotiable is the inclusion of the Phimosis and Balanitis sections. Thereafter they should motivate their POV insertions on the talk apge before just plain inserting that stuff directly into the article. - Robert the Bruce 03:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Robert, that may or may not be true. However, we must always Assume Good Faith.--Josiah 05:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Been there done that. A wiser person now. - Robert the Bruce 05:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

In interests of ending this edit war, I suggest the following proposal. Keep the cost-benefit section, as well as the phimosis and balanitis sections. Please vote "aye" (yes) or "nay" (no) below.

Wouldn't it be better to address each section by itself (phimosis, balanitis, complications, and cost-benefit)? If there is only one proposal, I think the proposal should include keeping the section on complications too. -- DanBlackham 07:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aye

1. --Josiah 06:07, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

The following section from the introduction has been repeatedly deleted from the article. In my opinion this section is accurate, has neutral POV, and should be included in the article.

Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the potential medical benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the potential medical risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death).

Every medical analysis of circumcision by professional medical organizations has concluded that neo-natal circumcision is NOT medically necessary. -- DanBlackham 08:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dan: Yes, I agree, the section on complications and the cost-benefit section are essential. I accept the introduction you propose. The present quotation from the AAP statemen should be deleted because that statement is outmoded, inaccurate, does not agree with current bioethics thought, and is not in agreement with statements from the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and Surgeons. The present AAP statement is likely to be revised soon. We have to remember that the Internet is international in nature so we should not focus on a national view. Robert Blair 16:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I believe that would do better with the cost-benefit analysis. On a side-note, does anyone actually say that it is medically neccessary?--Josiah 03:26, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

No national or international professional medical organization says neonatal circumcision is medically necessary. There has been a broad consensus in the medical community since the 1970's that there is no medical indication for circumcising baby boys. The American Academy of Pediatrics said in 1971, "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." The Canadian Paediatric Society reached the same conclusion in 1975. Currently every national and international professional medical organization that has an official policy on circumcision says that neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary. For example the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says, "After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision." -- DanBlackham 09:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I do not believe anyone -religous or secular - says otherwise. --Josiah 21:53, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Robert Blair, in my opinion it would be okay to included the quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) if a quote from another professional medical organization like the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) were also included. The AAP position on non-therapeutic circumcision is the weakest of all the major national medical organizations. Even the American Medical Association has taken a stronger stand against non-therapeutic circumcision than the AAP. In my opinion quotes from the AAP and RACP would be a good representation of the range of positions taken by professional medical organizations. -- DanBlackham 09:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

Now that this page is unprotected, Robert the Bruce restored the article to my last version, and I have just restored the Cost/Benefits section as well as the complications section. I believe this is the best compromise for both sides, as both have the issues they want covered on the page. For future edits, I request that everyone (including myself ;) ) cite a specific source when adding information. This will help alleviate any possible future "edit wars".--Josiah 21:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

"anti-circumcision activist(s)" - POV

I believe that, while accurate, this title is inflammatory. It would be better replaced with "critic" (of circumcision).--Josiah 23:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Inflammatory or not, the title is descriptive. Van Howe has displayed his lack of objectivity by saying (from memory) "the true horror of the procedure [of circumcision] is better expressed by the term male genital mutilation." - Jakew 00:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article by Dr. Van Howe was published in Medical Decision Making. Obviously the editors thought Dr. Van Howe's article was worthy of publication in their journal. Referring to him as "the anti-circumcision activist" is inflammatory and represents a strong pro-circumcision POV. If a qualifier is needed, Yoshiah's suggestion "Robert Van Howe, a critic of circumcision" has a more neutral POV. -- DanBlackham 11:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bob Van Howe is undoubtedly an anti-circumcision activist. There can be little doubt about that. While it's true that - astonishingly - Med. Decis. Making published it, calling attention to it should not be done unless we want to list the journal publishing every single other journal (which, I'm sure you'll agree, would be silly). To do otherwise is to lend false credibility to Van Howe's creation. Would you be content with "Robert Van Howe, a lifelong opponent of circumcision..." - Jakew 21:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh the war of the edits: "Dr Van Howe" the critic of circumcision vs "Bob Van Howe" the anti-circumcision activist! When it comes to medical references it would be good to list the author, the name of the article and when and where it was published. This would require a lot of tedious work in editing the articles but I think it would be well worthwhile.Michael Glass 00:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That adds unnecessary bulk to the articles. It's also as ridiculous as listing the publisher of a book (who cares if Addison-Wesley published it?) The conventional way to cite an article is to name the author (and sometimes year), and provide a full citation in the references. Since we're on the net, I'd say that the references can be replaced with inline links. - Jakew 13:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an article is published in a peer reviewed journal such as Medical Decision Making, in my opinion a qualifier is not needed to describe the author. Labeling Robert Van Howe as "a lifelong opponent of circumcision" in an attempt to discredit him is not neutral POV. -- DanBlackham 12:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bob Van Howe discredits himself with his appalling scholarship and biased approach. His publications invariably oppose circumcision, and his data has a suspicious tendency to be the opposite of that obtained by serious researchers. - Jakew 13:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True or not, that does not change the fact that Wikipedia considers pro and anti to be loaded words. Many critics of circumcision only hold objections when the subject is never given a choice. That's not total opposition, but contingent on voluntary involvement. We don't call every sex act rape -- only the involuntary kind. Same goes here, and pro-mutilation attitudes do not magically change the definitions of words so that anti-circumcision means every kind of objection under the sun. DanP 23:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Dan one understands exactly where you are coming from on this. It is quite clear that you understand fully who is or isn't an anti-circumcision activist. From the message of your below (and your obvious membership of anti-circumcision groups and lists) it is quite obvious what your agenda is around here and how you wish for Wikipedia to be misused for propaganda purposes by your fringe group. From now on you will deceive no one. One is of course left wondering why some of these "eager beavers" around here have not had you up for banning due to the deliberate and coordinated attempts to misuse Wikipedia for narrow propaganda purposes. But you know who you can rely on around here don't you ;-) - Robert the Bruce 07:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Need some help on Wikipedia
Subject: Need some help on Wikipedia
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:27:55 -0700 (PDT)

Dear group,

I have been battling the pro-circumcision folks on
Wikipedia again, hoping to list "circumciser" as a
valid article entry.  I have tried to keep the article
as factual as possible and related to world cultures.

If you are active on Wikipedia, please go to that
article and give me a hand.  So far, the pro-MGM side
has been voting to delete, and I could use some
assistance.

Thanks,

Dan

"Activist" is indeed inappropriate. Its unusual use in an encyclopaedia article tends to suggest that these people have some agenda other than ordinary medical concern for their opposition to circumcision. It's easy to claim that anyone who favours circumcision is a "pro-circumcision activist" and anyone against it is an "anti-circumcision activist", and following on from that we should logically rename "circumcision advocacy" as "circumcision activism". But this is precisely the kind of POV phrasing that Wikipedia tries to avoid. —Ashley Y 08:26, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

• It is merely your opinion that the use of the word "activist" is inappropriate. It is quite obvious that when people involved in cause produce a study with findings that support their cause there will be questions asked. Sadly we see this production of predictable results coming more and more from anti-circumcision activists. One would have thought that no studies were better than questionable studies or flawed studies. - Robert the Bruce 08:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If your use of the word "activist" is based on your belief that the studies that don't happen to support circumcision for one reason or another are all flawed, then it is obviously a POV usage. —Ashley Y 08:56, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

• There are two separate issues. One is that these people are indeed activists. Second that sadly others continue to present unsubstantiated stuff as fact (like here at Wikipedia). - Robert the Bruce 09:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ashley, in my opinion it is time to try mediation in order to resolve the issue of weather or not it is appropriate to label Dr. Taylor as a "pro-circumcision activist". In my opinion Robert is trying to "poison the well". -- DanBlackham 09:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Dr Taylor I see! It has been dealt with based on his personal actions. It is self evident. Perhaps you need to explain why in you POV "activist" is an unsuitable term to be used? - Robert the Bruce 09:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I didn't particularly want to get pulled into an edit war, seeing how vicious the editing of this article is, but your continous addition of the phrase "anti-cicumcision activist So-and-So", Jakew, is hardly NPOV. Please tell me which you think sounds more NPOV:

O'Hara & O'Hara carried out a survey (1999) of women who had had sexual experience with both circumcised and intact partners reported an overwhelming preference (six out of seven) for the uncircumcised male as a sexual partner.[7] This study has been criticized for selection bias. A third study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003), however, has confirmed its findings...

Or

Anti-circumcision activists O'Hara & O'Hara carried out a survey (1999) of female anti-circumcision activist who had had sexual experience with both circumcised and intact partners reported an overwhelming preference (six out of seven) for the uncircumcised male as a sexual partner.[8] This study has been criticized for selection bias. A third study by anti-circumcision activists Bensley & Boyle (2003), however, has confirmed its findings...

I really have no agenda in editing this article — I kept noticing reverts in the Recent Changes page and came over to see what all the fuss was about — but I really believe that your labeling of everybody else's edits as "POV-pushing" is hypocritical. In the specific paragraph in question, the articles written by psychologists Bensley & Boyle are sponsered by the NIH and published in Journal of Health Psychology and Psychological Reports, two respected peer-reviewed journals. Bensley & Boyle, furthermore, are associated with the Department of Psychology of Bond University, Queensland. Editing "psychologists" to read "anti-circumcision activists" is not only blatent POV but also smacks of a childish attempt at discrediting them.

I'm not taking any sides on the arguments going on between everyone here, I'm not even sure what they are, but unless you cite articles in journals of equal worth discrediting Bensley & Boyle for being "anti-circumcision activists", I'd suggest leaving in the NPOV term "psychologists". — Asbestos | Talk 22:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem, Asbestos, is that O'Hara is an anti-circumcision activist, and she even admits (rather dismissively) that her study participants were recruited from an anti-circumcision activist mailing list in her paper. At the very least, this latter point ought to be noted, because it is relevant (think about it: how would you answer if you were an activist?). Boyle is Executive Director of the anti-circumcision activist group, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, and Gillian Bensley is a member of the anti-circ activist group NOCIRC, and has presented at one of their symposia. There is no reason not to say "psychologists and anti-circumcision activists", but to censor such facts is simply irresponsible. I recognise that as an outsider you are probably incredulous at the idea that activists could stoop so low, but believe me (if you prefer not to, I'll provide proof) that these people are making a slow but determined effort to populate the medical literature with less than credible junk such as surveys of their own members and so on. - Jakew 23:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Never-the-less, the journals that Bensley & Boyle arr publishing in are respected, peer-reviewed journals. It doesn't matter what their "hidden agenda" is, the scientific community accepted the articles for publication. This is why I labeled it an "ad hominem" attack in the edit history — their personal views are of absolutely no consequence unless you can show me follow-up articles criticizing their methods or conclusions.

The O'Hara study, likewise, was published in the British Journal of Urology, and (he? she? one of them, anyway) also has articles in Pediatrics, Pediatric Research and Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, all peer-reviewed. There may well have been problems with the methedology, as you say, but you can't dismiss them as "anti-circrumcision activists. Our job isn't to critique the study and dismiss it, our job is to report what they say and what others say about them, if necessary. So your wish to flag the possible (and likely) biases in the research is fully covered in the existing phrase "This study has been criticized for selection bias", or, better, "It has been sugested by [citation] that the subjects were biased against circumcision from the start, however."

I'm not suggesting that we discount any evidence that the experiments were biased, but labeling respected journals as soapboxes for an agenda-driven lobby the way you are attempting to do is clearly in the domain of point-of-view until you show proper citations in journals saying otherwise, and even then should be phrased in the neutral manner that I have suggested above. — Asbestos | Talk 09:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake and Robert are pro-circumcision activists. When they label an author who does not agree with their pro-circumcision agenda as an anti-circumcision activist they are inserting their own pro-circumcision POV in the article.

Using Jake's standard to judge authors one could say pro-circumcision activists like Schoen, Wiswell, Moses, Short, and Bailey have made a determined effort to flood the medical literature with their pro-circumcision agenda for decades.

The bottom line is neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For example the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says, "After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision." [[9]] -- DanBlackham 09:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)