Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Debate often focuses on what limits, if any, should be placed on a caregiver's ability to have a child circumcised. The procedure is irreversible, the immediate medical value is disputed and the result may not be in accordance with the child's wishes when he is an adult. Some question the apparent inconsistency of allowing male circumcision but prohibiting female genital cutting [1]. Some assert that circumcision causes sexual harm and emotional scarring later in life, or urge that the procedure should be left until a man is mature enough to make the choice for himself. Others assert that circumcision is less traumatic when performed in infancy and point out that it may disturb some religious communities and interfere with the traditional right of parents to make this decision on behalf of their child.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) said the medical benefits of circumcision are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, but that it should be the decision of informed parents.[2] The British Medical Association states "The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.” They also state that "parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."[3]

Two studies in the United States found that strong parental cultural expectations clash with deliberate informed consent, and “a significant number of parents expressed animosity toward the care provider.” Discord arises from the implication that parental desire to circumcise involves “undue risks” and provides “limited medical benefit” to their child.^{[4] [5]}

1. ^ Brown M, Brown C: Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics 1987; 80:215-219
2. ^ Rand C, Emmons C, Johnson J: The effect of an educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:64-67

Rather than copy in a bunch of text, could you explain what changes you are actually proposing to make? This would help everyone to evaluate them. Jakew 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The above text is the proposed. I've added another sentence.

TipPt 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Standards of Informed consent are not met when "nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision."[6]

Please propose changes, and explain where you want to make them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence ... The American Academy of Family Physicians states "no valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[87]

...Is not accurate, since we find several studies where circumcision alters sexual sensation and satisfaction. Specifically, Mastood, Fink, Shen, Senkul, Laumann all find changes.

You will find the sexuality textbooks/author statements attributed.TipPt 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this in the section above. It is accurate, because that is precisely what they stated. If you want to cite criticism of their statement, that's fine, but you can't just delete it because you disagree. Jakew 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Even if TipPt's claim were true, WP:V explicitly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.", and the American Academy of Familiy Physicians is certainly a notable and reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What they (the AAFP) says is refuted by better sources. The AAFP is simply surveying some research at one point in time ... which is evidently dated and/or limited in scope.TipPt 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The AAFP has been refuted? You have a source saying "The AAFP is wrong"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The metzitzah b'peh section doesn't belong because it's trivia and it's not part of the circumcision itself. Even worse, the language is purposely prejudicial, stating that "the mohel will suck on the baby's penis", when the source itself states "...mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it. And no wonder it was written that way; the editor who added it is now trying to prove that Jews control the media.[7] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the wacky conspiracy theories of the original editor, and I don't particularly care. What matters is that this is a notable aspect of the Jewish version of circumcision, so it belongs in the article in some form. The precise form, of course, it debatable. For example, if you wanted to change the text from "suck on the baby's penis" to "suck the blood fromt he wound to clean it", you won't get any flak from me. However, if you try to censor the article again, my feelings will be hurt. Al 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that your depiction of my motives here are a violation of WP:CIVIL as well. And of course it is part of the circumcision, just look at the entry for metzitzah b'peh. The language is not purposely prejudicial, this is what happens. If you don't like it, take it up with the mohels who do it. Moreover, I would point out that it appears you only found this entry by looking at the list of my edits, so if anyone should be accused of bad faith here it would appear that it should be you. And by the way, I'm not trying to prove that Jews control the media, I simply linked to a list (but you're right, it does seem to prove that though, doesn't it.) Nokilli 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "depict your motives", I described your actions; if they seem inappropriate in the harsh light of day, then re-examine what you are doing. As for your link, it proves nothing about Jews, but your claim that it does so is quite revealing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienaus, phrases like "try to censor the article again" are violations of WP:CIVIL. You in particular should be especially careful in this regard. As for metzitzah b'peh, it's done by a small minority of Jews, and even then is not part of the circumcision itself. Removing trivia is every editor's responsibility, especially when this is just a summary of the main article about Brit Milah. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alienus; if you have a problem with the language of the section, why not just change it? It seems to be an important addition to this article. And in all appearances, removing it does seem a bit like an attempt at censorship. romarin [talk ] 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read all of my comments, which explain quite fully why it doesn't belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to speak for Romarin, but it occurs to me that someone might read all of your explanations and still disagree. I certainly have and certainly do. This is another case of AGF. Al 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Romarin asked "if the problem was with the language etc.", but my first statement made it clear that the language issue was only secondary, and the primary problem was that it simply didn't belong in the first place. Thus I suggested he she read all of my comments. Your claim that "this is another case of AGF", is, of course, another case of AGF. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I meant censoring in the neutral and technically correct sense of the word, so any incivility is due to your misunderstanding. Perhaps you should WP:AGF.

I don't quite see how you manage to get the conclusion that sucking the blood from the circumcision wound has nothing to do with circumcision, but it seems like you're trying to marginalize this so as to justify removing it entirely. I'd accept cleaning up any bias and maybe even dropping the part about herpes, since it's quite rare, but removing it would go too far. Thank you for understanding. Al 00:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The ceremony itself is rare, and the claim that babies have caught herpes from it disputed, and in any event vastly rarer - it is, in other words, trivia that belongs in the main article, but not in this summary. As for "censor", there are no neutral uses of it on Talk: pages when describing other editors' behavior, so refrain from using it in this way the future. In fact, you should also cease your speculating regarding other editors motivations, since that too is unnecessary and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Thank you for understanding. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's rare to we keep it down to a single cited sentence. Glad we agree. Al 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Clearly not you and User:Nokilli, who has re-inserted the prejudicial language that is not found in the source itself, apparently based on bad faith assumptions about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The language _is_ found in the source, please stop lying about this. And you've admitted your bad faith in your entry above. You are harassing me, you are going through my list of edits and changing entries based on no more than your finding them to be not "relevant". Please stop this behavior. Nokilli 01:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The source says the mohel "sucks the blood from the wound to clean it", not what you invented, I have neither practiced nor admitted bad faith, and your statement that I am "lying" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please desist from policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What's the difference? Do you honestly believe that visitors to the circumcision page don't know where this wound is? And again, it is you who are in blatant violation of numerous WP guidelines, I am amazed your account is still allowed to operate. Nokilli 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sucking blood from a wound" and "sucking on a penis" give entirely different impressions - the source said the former, not the latter. As for the "numerous WP guidelines", you have failed to cite any, and for good reason, since I have not violated any. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that the wording makes a difference here? Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be so fanatical about seeing this entry censored. Nokilli 01:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the wording makes a difference; even you think so, that's why you keep inserting "suck on the baby's penis". Though, in the bigger picture, I suppose you're right, it doesn't make a difference because it doesn't belong at all. And again, please avoid describing other editors as "fanatical" or claiming they want things "censored"; your continued violations of WP:CIVIL are against policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "sucks the baby's penis" comes from the entry for metzitzah b'peh, OK? Look and see for yourself. It isn't my being inflammatory, that's just the way it is. Now, rather than be angry with you Jayjg, I've decided I am going to pity you. How terrible it must be for you, to be so ashamed of your heritage, that you are reduced to racing around Wikipedia deleting all manner of truth about your existance. Nokilli 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, it doesn't matter because this fact clearly belongs. The only issue is how much space to dedicate to it. Al 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We're getting a parade of random editors bent on removing all mention of the procedure. As I may or may not have reached the 3RR limit at this point, depending on interpretations, I'm just going to walk away and come back when this all blows over. When I do, however, I will quite likely restore the compromise sentence, unless someone beats me to it. Al 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just like some random editors showed up to restore it. Anyway, since the addition of the material is obviously contentious, wouldn't it make more sense to get consensus for it here first? That would be best Wikipedian practice. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember any attempt by you or the others to build a consensus for deletion. I do remember an attempt by me to find a compromise. Al 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This, coming from the person who first act was to delete it? Nokilli 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The contentious and misleading trivia was recently added without discussion or consensus. This discussion should have happened first, especially on a highly disputed article like Circumcision. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not trivia, nor is it misleading. As for "contentious", I'll reserve that word for the behavior I've seen on this page. Al 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the discussion did take place, and the entry accepted, and then someone like you came along to censor it. That seems to be all you do here Jayjg, censor things. One need only look at your behavior today. All I did was link to the list of Jewish American journalists from the Media Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it's like I pissed on your mama's grave. You are so outside the spirit of Wikipedia as to defy belief that you are even permitted to participate here anymore. Nokilli 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did the discussion take place? I don't see it anywhere on this page. And please avoid your continued and grevious violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, how many times in one section can WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF be brought up before it just gets rediculous? And by the way, Jayjg, please don't assume my gender. romarin [talk ] 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times can they be violated before someone gets blocked? And my apologies for getting your gender wrong, I've corrected that above. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NY state has reaffirmed their support of allowing the practice by issuing new guidelines which can be found here: http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/communicable/herpes/newborns/circumcision_protocol.htm . Further, there has been no proof that Rabbi Fischer was the vector, as there were other caregivers involved and the state has not released the test results. See here: http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/NEWS03/606210352/1197/ There is no need for sensationalism or allegations and suppositions being couched as fact. -- Avi 01:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, actually, there are proven cases of herpes transmission: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/91/101352 Al 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I believe these are suspected cases. The article you link to itself states “Four of the mohels were available for testing, and all of them tested positive for antibodies for HSV-1, which indicated that they were carriers of the virus. Yet none had tested positive for the virus in their mouth.” Which means it is inconclusive. -- Avi 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My God, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read! Nokilli 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the article itself, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/114/2/e259.pdf and I agree that it states that the risk is real, not suspected. Although, I would politely suggest that you refer to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF 8-) . -- Avi 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the risk is real. No great shock here. Anytime a person's mouth is brought to a wound, there is some risk of disease. Al 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The risk may be real, but the occurrence is extremely rare, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is usually done with a glass tube, not by mouth. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are free to add that detail, with citations. Al 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Add trivia on top of trivia? That wouldn't be fair to the reader, would it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, because this isn't about trivia so your question makes no sense to me. Al 02:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing to me that an entry describing sucking using the mouth and that has a citation sourced to support it can be replaced by an entry that talks about sucking using a glass tube that doesn't have any supporting citation. I'm forced to wonder how often this kind of reality distortion takes place in our culture, and who profits from it, and to what extent I am still laboring under other similarly engineered falsehoods. Nokilli 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please check again, Nokilli, all statements now have references, and yes, the NYT article is there too (properly wikified using cite tags, I might add). It is often prudent to check the article before making assumptions, Nokilli, especially as I placed the references a good 17 minutes before your above post :-D -- Avi 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, Al, et al. I believe my version is both less sensational, more accurate, properly cited, and more neutral than any of the previous versions. It quotes Gesundheit, the Times, as well as the Journal News and NYSDOH; supporting FACTS and minimizing accusations. -- Avi 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the original version as posted by myself _was_ entirely neutral, the phrase "sucks on baby's penis" came from the article on metzitzah b'peh, as such, the various accusations against me and my original version were baseless and not a little bit inflammatory. I'll be back later on this too, circumcision is a brutal practice, and this particular variant is especially cruel. You will not be able to bury the truth in this matter, though I don't doubt you will try mightily to do so. Nokilli 03:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nokilli, albeit that the article may use that construction, what do you feel is the egregious harm in using "sucks the blood from the wound" instead? Both mean the same thing, and one minimizes implications of salaciousness, prurience, and deviance. The FACTS of both are the same, it is the IMPLICATION that is different. If your primary concern is the truth, as you state, then you and I should be in TOTAL agreement that my construction is accurate, and that the truth is set free. Great, we have a consensus now 8-). Am I misunderstanding you? -- Avi 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can live with your version, Avi. Al 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a tremendous amount of text - 5 sentences and 4 refs - dedicated to a practice that is a part of bris milah but not circumcision per se, and only then by a tiny fraction of Jewish people. To hazard a guess, if 1% of Jews practice mez'b'peh(*), that makes this relevant to about 0.001% of the potential audience, or 0.003% of the circumcisions performed. Notability, anyone? Undue weight? It seems to me that we're failing on both counts.

(*) - I probably shouldn't abbreviate Hebrew. I'm left with a nagging worry that I've inadvertently instructed readers to perform a rude and anatomically impossible feat with a lemming, or something. My apologies if I have. Jakew 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nokilli has recently complained about the 'unsupported' reference to use of glass tubes. How about this? http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std-bris.shtml Jakew 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I already added http://www.nyp-rpc.org/pdf/2005_health_alert46.pdf , see page 3. -- Avi 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The glass tube is specifically stated by the source you provided to have nothing to do with the described procedure. I also do not appreciate having my entry described as child porn, it isn't my idea to perform this procedure. The original entry describes the procedure accurately and is NPOV. Thank you. Nokilli 00:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The original statement was not cited, the current refence is accurately cited from more than one source. Don't quote sources inaccurately. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nokilli, please check the new source. Thank you. ANd yes, highlighting phrases like "sucking on the baby's…" where a less sensational phrase would convey the same information is engaging in salaciousness and prurience for purposes known only to yourself. One could even think that you have a POV that somehow requires that you do your best to paint circumcision in a poor light; but I refuse to believe that an honest, zealous, and forthright wikipedia editor as yourself would be editing as such. WP:AGF and all. Thank you. -- Avi 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Only a person with a POV would choose to find a "less sensational phrase" to convey essential information as this. I agree that it is a monstrous act that is being performed here, however, we should relate monstrous acts with appropriate fidelity. The mohel sucks on the baby's penis. That's a fact. And it's a fact that you are seeking to prevent others from learning, solely to satisfy your own POV (which I should mention is on display throughout both this talk page as well as the article itself.) Nokilli 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Britannica <> The National Enquirer. -- Avi 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nokilli, et al., I think I am safe in presuming that you have not spent years studying Jewish law and custom behind the ritual of circumcision. The particular actions that would be able to be called metztitza b'peh is one that is argued about in Jewish responsa. Many authorities believe that only the suction needs to be created by human lung-power and thus using an intermediary tube is perfectly acceptable. Others believe that there cannot be an intervening device. Unfortunately, those who have not studied the issue from the original sources often get confused. Therefore, the Jewish Journal is correct in saying that the action of Metzirza B'peh is normally used with a glass tube. The NYS publication has as its goal to minimize the spread of herpes, and as such, is focussing on direct oral contact, therefore they are not as concerned with using the tube, even though according to Jewish ritual law, most authorities believe that it is a 100% valid performance of the metzitzah. I hope this clears up some confusion. -- Avi 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

With Nokilli responding to neither my attempts at explanation here or on his talk page, and yet his constant deletion of properly sourced material, and re-writing something already properly referenced in the text with verbiage designed to titillate, imply depravity, reminiscent of child pornography, and definately unbecoming of the tone required in an encyclopædia (the NYT is in the business of selling papers, NOT being encyclopædic), I am unfortunately forced to believe that he as a particluarly biased POV that he is pushing, instead of being interested in facts and knowledge, and that his goal is vandalism instead of building the encyclopædia; which is a shame, for the zeal and fervor that he displays, if harnessed to the common good, would make a wonderful editor. I have tried on numerous occasions to assume good faith, and at this point, it seems sadly obvious that the user in question is not interested in reciprocating. I've tried. -- Avi 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The description of this procedure has been on the metzitzah b'peh page for a long time now. When I arrived here this page had no information on the procedure at all. So I added it, using the language found on the metzitzah b'peh page, along a citation from The New York Times. And nobody had a problem with it. For days, if not weeks, the entry stood on its own, despite this being a controversial subject, and many revisions taking place. Then I made the tragic mistake of linking to the list of Jewish American journalists page from the Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎ page (that was all I did, I changed no text in that article), and for that crime User:Jayjg has stalked me ever since. Go look for yourself, every page I've ever contributed to sees him at the scene either reverting or otherwise reversing my participation there (for the most humorous example of this, check out the What Really Happened AfD discussion, where he places his vote immediately after my own) or seeking to have me banned, the last time where he succeeded in doing so despite my having committed no offense.

So let us be clear here, it is not I who is pushing a biased POV, I am simply holding fast to the way these pages appeared prior to the arrival of User:Jayjg (and others) for whom it can be plainly said are participating here only as a means of punishing me for contributing to Wikipedia, which constitutes an agenda all its own. I dared offer substance to the allegation that Jewish representation in the media influences covered of the Jewish state, and for that, I am to pay. Anybody who looks at the edit history for these pages will see that that is so.

As to your other charges, that the description used is "designed to titillate, imply depravity, reminiscent of child pornography, and definately unbecoming of the tone required in an encyclopædia", I would just remind you that this is being said about a page that greets the user with a picture of a great big hard-on. Moreover, and I can't emphasize this enough, the description I used is what I found on metzitzah b'peh, where it has lived uncontested for a very long time now. The description is completely accurate. That it describes something that suggests the sexual abuse of a child and behavior outside the norms of acceptible human conduct is not something I have control over. This is what happens. This is what people do to little baby boys.

The citation you've provided is clearly an opinion piece and nothing more. It's substance is disputed by a variety of sources, not the least of which being the State of New York, as detailed in a reference provided here earlier in the hopes of seeing the description of this procedure watered down. I would just note for the record that if you view the history of the metzitzah b'peh page you will see that the wording has already been repeatedly watered down and that if it was my intent to "titillate" I would have reverted to the original wording.

I would also point out that the very first reaction on the part of the editors on the other side of this issue was to delete the reference altogether, declaring this procedure, incredibly, as trivia.

Finally, I would just say that the procedure almost certainly infects baby boys with sexually-transmitted diseases, and very probably results in death in many of these cases. We still have no good information as to how prevalent the occurance of the procedure is, nor can we know how many infants have died as a result of its performance. The role of any encyclopedia is to relate the truth; the truth is of utmost imperitive here given the potentially tragic consequences of this truly bizarre act. It should go without saying that if ever there was a time to be WP:NPOV, this is it.

This entry is WP:NPOV. I am sorry that my involvement has brought this collection of individuals into this page, and so it is with that regret that I shall remain committed to protecting this, and the metzitzah b'peh page, to the best of my ability. That said, I've seen now how Wikipedia works (or really, how it doesn't work), and so I am under no illusions as to what will happen next. At that point, it is out of my hands, and I shall bear no responsibility for the outcome, which I think is pretty easy to predict: information about this procedure will be stricken from the pages of Wikipedia, lessening the public outcry over what is being done to these little baby boys, and therefore allowing the procedure to continue unabated, without any regards to the fatalities that are sure to result.

There Avi, you have my reply. I have of course replied to you and others on this issue previously and at great length, only to be accused of purveying child pornography and the like. Thank you very much for that. Nokilli 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nokilli, the fact that the Brit Milah article was also incorrect has been resolved a while ago. That the articles stood in an incorrect state for any length of time is not a validation. I have seen tens and tens of Jewish ritual circumcisions, with and without tubes used. I am not providing any WP:OR, as I have brought WP:RS, but I do have expertise in this field more than the standard wikipedia editor, having studied the law (although I am not a mohel ) and attended far more than the average wikipedian. The two articles now have been corrected. This is not a matter of WP:NPOV, it is one of plain, simple facts substantiated by WP:RS. I do not believe that a self-respecting individual, who has only the truth as their goal, would feel that writing the article in as salacious a matter as possible is to the encyclopædia's benefit.

I am sorry that you feel that User:Jayjg has a separate issue with you regarding journalists; I have no idea about tyhe matter as I do not follow that page. My concerns currently are with this page, its horrific mess of citations, many of which themselves are incorrect, dead, or have been revised; it's tangled skein of sentences without very little attempt at a logical structure, it's constant repetition of certain facts at the most illogical times, it's excessive length in certain sections that should be there own article with a "main article" link, and its overall appearance of being a Frankenstein's monster hideously concocted by the random concatenation of thoughts, sections, and sentences. Thus, I have made it a project of mine to go through EVERY source that is listed that I can and structure this article so that ALL of the information is presented in a logical and encyclopædic fashion.

Again, I have explained to you that the state of New York paper does not contradict the opinion piece; their foci are different. Having studied the law in the original Hebrew, the term CAN apply to both. Those who use the tube do so because they believe it fulfills the requirement of metzitzah b'peh. Otherwise there is no reason for it. Those who do not use a tube feel that the tube invalidates the procedure. Is it clearer now?

I am sorry to say that it seems your only knowledge of the procedure came from a tertiary source (Wikipedia) which was incorrect at the time. The purpose of allowing anyone to edit, Nokilli, is to PREVENT these flaws from becoming enshrined in wikipedia, not to ensconce them in amber for eternity.

The article is most definitely becoming more WP:NPOV after my work on it. I am correcting and bringing sources for BOTH sides of the argument, as well as taking out the propoganda of both sides, leaving the article with SUBSTANTIATED facts, and the QUOTED reccomendations of reliable sources.

Regarding the frequency of deaths/diseases from this procedure, we have quoted the studies from Israel, and the case that happened here. It IS interesting to note that there are no other substantiated incidents. Should they occur, perhaps the statistics would need to be updated. However, it may be the very infrequency of the matter that makes the rare case so public.

Regarding the images, I too would prefer to have those images lower down, and you know what, I am going to find a fair-use or free image that is not so "frank" to place there instead, that is a good point. -- Avi 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved: 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

/sigh. Nokilli, I am afraid your personal bias is coming out here, not even moderately veiled, but in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole, WP:AGF in particular, and in the hope that you are willing to read what I write in a reasonable fashion, I will attempt to point out a few things.

I wonder, were you aware that this procedure is almost certainly responsible for the deaths of many, many thousands of Jews over the centuries?

Do I have your permission to express outrage that such an act is allowed to be performed today despite the risks entailed?

This is blatant WP:OR, WP:POV, and is also a good example of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Do you know what the statistics were for fatalities due to circumcision in antiquity? For that matter, do you know what the most recent statistics are? Not complications, but fatalities? Therefore, what you are posting here is purely supposition on your part, supposition, I might add, that is fueled by a somewhat irrational near-hatred of the process.

For example, the most recent study I could find, (Christakis 2000) brings a circumcision COMPLICATION rate of around 0.2%. Whereas, the complication rate for ear-piercing is a whopping 35%, or 175 times as severe (Simplot 1998). If you are trult concerned about the dangers of various, ostensibly SAFE, procedures, you would be well served focusing on the dangers of ear-piercing.

Ear piercing is done with the consent of the person being pierced. So that argument simply doesn't apply here. As for the death rate, the numbers you cite are incomplete, they don't include the deaths from contracting sexually-transmitted diseases, as circumcisions performed by mohels were not being looked at (and even then, the complicate rate is nearly ten times that of uncircumcised babies.) Moreover, this is the death rate in the age of antiseptics and penicillin. It has been established beyond a doubt that newborns do not possess the immune systems we adults do, and that therefore opening the skin and allowing contact with a persons mouth is a major risk. Most if not all of the diseases in circulation today were in circulation back then, but few of the medicines. Those two factors by themselves are enough to conclude that the death rate from this procedure was much higher than it is today. Add to that the fact that the procedure was practiced on a much larger percentage of the population, practiced far more frequently in the past than it is today, and that we are after all talking about a past that extends over thousands of years.

So you may want to dismiss this as conjecture, but it is clearly a well-founded one. And we certainly can't expect mohels of the past to conclude that their tender ministrations were responsible for the deaths of all these babies, since as we can plainly see, the mohels of today won't even accept this conclusion, despite being presented with the full weight of scientific evidence that says that the child is put at risk. Which is to say that when these babies died in the past, their deaths weren't ever recorded as being due to this ghastly procedure. Nokilli 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do I have your permission to express outrage over the overt actions being taken on the part of the pro-circumcision community to censor this information so that the public not be made aware of this practice and so that many more Jewish babies can die as a consequence?

Nokilli, please investigate. Nothing is being censored; even the NYT article you are championing is quoted, with a link. It is the lurid way you are choosing to describe things to paint it in as poor a light as possible that is troubling. You have an issue with the concept of circumcision; I respect that. But that is YOUR POV. I do not have an issue with it; that is MY POV. But the articles and facts speak for themselves, and we need add neither glowing reports or diabolic intent. The sources are accessible to all. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Older articles are superceded by newer ones, and certain sources are obviously biased.

I was not the source for the original wording, and if you bother to look, you will see that he is not biased against this procedure. I note again that the wording in question survived for many months and many edits were made to the article during that time, and by many of the people here who are now expressing outrage at my participation here. You need to deal with the fact that this is the plain description of what is happening here. The mohel sucks the baby's penis. This is what happens. You may not like the image that conveys, but that is the truth. It isn't the mission of Wikipedia to promote YOUR POV, and yet that is what you are seeking to do by changing the wording here. Nokilli 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It just shocks the conscience. Look at what is going on here, and then talk to me about what is "sensationalist", what is "inflammatory". My God man, you want to talk about a "gross personal attack"? What do you call taking a knife to a newborn's penis? Nokilli 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I call it entering into a covenant with the Almighty, but that is just my belief. What it is, plain and simple, is a procedure for which there is evidence it has medical benefits (see Christakis 2000), evidence that it has complications, is a holy rite for some, and body mutilation for others. All of this is in the article.

A covenant with the Almighty. Yeah, I've read that. Here's my dilemma. I don't believe in your God, OK? So it goes without saying that I don't believe God told you or your ancestors to do this unspeakable thing to newborn babies. So I have to ask myself, why is this procedure practiced? Why would anybody do such a thing? If it isn't God's will, then it must be something else.

Then I see that mohels have been sucking the penises of little boys for thousands of years. And I ask myself... could it be that the reason we circumcize baby boys today is because a mohel who lived thousands of years ago was a homosexual pedophile who invented circumcision as a pretext to allow him access to the genitalia of newborn baby boys? Sounds bizarre to be sure, but which of the two is the more likely explanation?

I say that this is something neither you nor I can answer. That this is something that should be left to the reader to decide for himself. I am happy to work on compromise language here. I am however not inclined to accept language that glosses over the likely origins of circumcision. Nokilli 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest if you truly care about the prevalence of risk and dangers in body mutilation, you will find that ear piercing, labial piercing, penile piercing, clitoral piercing, etc. have much greater complication rates, cause more overall harm, and are much more worthy targets of your righteous anger. Thank you. -- Avi 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And again, these are all activities engaged in by adults who are capable of giving consent. That you are even willing to bring this kind of argument up demonstrates to me that you understand nothing about why so many people are upset over this.

One final word, I find it amazing that elsewhere in this conversation I and others have been accused of anti-Semitism, inciting racial hatred, engaging in racist conspiracy theories, etc., even though the argument my side is presenting would invariably save lives, esp. Jewish lives, while your side would allow needless deaths of Jewish baby boys to continue. The manner in which hatred has been twisted upside down in this culture is perhaps the most destructive trend going in the world today; the people who are doing all the killing today dare point at those who express outrage over the killing and accuse them of hatred. The other thread I am involved in is another excellent example of this as well.

You will succeed in silencing me, I have no doubt of this at all. The best that I can hope for in this system is that you all go to sleep each night knowing that you are complicit in the atrocities I am speaking out against. Nokilli 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it bears noting that I have still received no reply to the above, despite this being a conversation initiated by Avi, and on my talk page no less. Could it be that pro-circumcision editors here have nothing else to discuss but the POV held by others (while ignoring their own, of course)? Nokilli 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edits here and on Brit Mila are resembling polemics instead of discourse, rants instead of conversation, and are demonstrating that you are more interested in spreading your message of anti-circumcision in any possible way, instead of focusing on the facts of the matter. No one begrudges your right to your opinion; however, wikipedia is not a vehicle for proselytization, and I believe that you are alienating those who would work with you by your actions and words. Also, I respectfully request you point out anywhere where I accused you of anti-Semitism, inciting racial hatred, engaging in racist conspiracy theories, etc. All I have stated is that you profess to am extreme anti-circumcision belief; which is the unvarnished truth, and wikipedia is not the venue for it. This is somewhat sad, for you are obviously an intelligent individual, and working with you would have been much more desireable than what appears to be the case now. C'est la vie. -- Avi 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now the article is a hodgepodge mix of html links and cite.php footnotes. I will work on converting them all to the cite.php footnoe, with proper {{cite}} templates, but it will be a slow process. Especially becuase it is difficult to edit at work, what with the graphic images at the top of the article. -- Avi 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you use <ref></ref> instead? It's much easier to work with... Jakew 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the cite.php footnote system, Jake, which I plan on using. I personally prefer in-line citations (see Actuary or Actuarial science ) but that isn't the style in this article. -- Avi 12:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TipPt, your zeal in editing this article is complementary. However, there is a bit of an issue when original research becomes mixed in with the facts we are trying to document. You added the following information: Standards of informed consent are not met when "nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision."[8] Unfortunately, the article you quoted did not make the qualititative remark that I bolded above. The actual paragraph in question reads:

A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns. Studies from the 1980s suggested that the presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions. This finding was recently confirmed. In another contemporary study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision. Major factors in parental decision-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygiene.

Note that the portion in italics must be your source, and NO qualitative statement exists. This means that your initial sentence is your own conclusion based on your research, opinions, and point of view regarding circumcision. While NOT a WP:POV violation, as that POV should be represented, it should be one documented in a secondary source, not your own conclusion. As an aside, please look at the bolded portion of the quote; it appears that the medical issues are a minor point in decision making, even according to the AMA. Interestin, non? -- Avi 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your last remark, Avi, it is more precise to say that they were a minor point, in the 1980s. More recent studies have indicated a trend away from this - see the 5th (I think) paragraph of 'circumcision since 1950'. Jakew 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the articles should not be merged; at most there should be a {{see also}} somewhere, but even that is dicey. This article refers to a medical/ritual procedure. The other refers to perceived socio-political agendas. Is there any opposition to removing the merge tags? -- Avi 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for the suggestion have been discussed at great length in Talk:Circumcision advocacy. Basically, my feeling is that if there is anything in that article that is salvageable and can find a home here, it should be incorporated. Otherwise, delete. Jakew 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was told to wait until mediation was over to try to progress this merge. Is it now time to follow through? Sophia 20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

this page already reads like a propaganda piece in favor of the routine mutilation of male genitalia, purporting dubious claims as fact, merging it with that page would make it even more an article biased tword cutting off healthy tissue of infant males. 12.226.237.65 05:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Just for clarity of my potential bias/motives - I do not support any medical procedures on minors unless they can be shown to have benefits for the individuals concerned. As for adults it is their decision and none of my business. The bottom line however is the research - we must report that faithfully and accurately to minimise any danger of our own POV's showing through. Sophia 13:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's FASCINATING what happens when you follow the citation trail. For example, the "48%" circumcison rate in Canada quoted by the AAP. They are quoting Lietch (1970) who is himself quoting Patel (1966) whose data, from 1961-1963 is over 45 years old!!! I have NO idea why this is still considered relevant. I will not remove it for now, but we NEED to seriously think about this -- Avi 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

One major issue with this article, I am finding through my citation journey, is that certain things are said over and over and over again. FOr example, that the AAP recommends that parents be informed of the risks and benefits occured around 7 times. I will be making a new section at the end of medical with the up-to-date policies of the various mediacl associations. The Medical section should deal with risks and benefits, and at the end we should have the policies, IMO. -- Avi 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that several people are using HTML code (< ! -- and -- >) to comment out sections of the article that are in question. I suggest that it would be better practice to use a visible question or ^{[citation needed]} placeholder rather than the invisible comment. It is very difficult to find the HTML code once the page has been saved. I notice that the code doesn't even show up when I "view source" in Internet Explorer. After a couple of edits, the question is essentially lost.--gargoyle888 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes things are so unlikely to be sourced, or are very inflammable topics, so commenting makes more sense. Also, at one point every sentence in the Islam paragraph had a {{fact}} tag, which was somewhat rediculous. Lastly, There is always this to consider as well: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html -- Avi 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an addition from an anonymous user, who basically copied and pasted POV content from www.cirp.org. I've added some quotes from the AAP and AMA, since quotes from the ACS' web site that hasn't been peer-reviewed are inadequate. In my opinion, this section is too quote-heavy and light on facts. My preference would be to reduce the quotes and cite primary sources instead (I have four or five in mind). Any comments? Jakew 10:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I have been doing my best to track down primary sources whenever possible (see my lament above). -- Avi 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jake's point brings to mind another issue which is this article is too long. Most of what is here should be in the daughter articles (Medical/religious/History/etc.) and just summarized here. However, since this article seems to have the most data, my plan is to (eventually) finish the citation work here, and then move the meat-and-potatoes to the proper daughter articles with summary form left here. -- Avi 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense. The medical analysis article is fairly complete, with a few exceptions. The others are not so good.

I have noticed that with subjects as controversial as this, it is almost impossible to make a simple statement. They inevitably blossom into extensive reviews of the evidence. This may make it difficult to summarise the facts. Unfortunately, I don't know the solution to this. Jakew 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In the fourth paragraph there is the following line: "but in the US and UK, circumcision is often chosen largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns"

I am not sure if I understand this statement correctly. I thought the UK did not practice circumcision "often" (as the article states later on).71.213.159.151 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is cobbled together with different sections being written by different authors. I am trying to make it into one cohesive unit, but it is going miserably; especially the citation work. Please feel free to be bold and make sutiably referenced and explaind corrections -- Avi 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jake has made his point in the edit summary, which I copy for you here: “rv. please review WP:RS. CIRP is not an encyclopaedic source.” The source you bring, cirp, is one with a disticnt bias and may well be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you were to research and post the actual papers, if possible, it may help. Nevertheless, CIRP's opinions are well known, and should not be stated in the guise of independant research, per se.

Further, a number of those studies that you have brought have been rendered obsolete. The "misleading" link you bring is dated 1998. There is a study in 2002, listed on the ACS site, that seems to repudiate that: New Study Shows Benefit of Male Circumcision and the MOST recent of documents of the ACS (revised 5/31/2006) says “In the United States, men who are circumcised in childhood have a lower rate of penile cancer. It’s not known whether this is due to the absence of the foreskin or other lifestyle factors. Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer.” What Are the Risk Factors for Penile Cancer?. There are other examples. So your data that you add, besides being the POLICY statements of CIRP as opposed to a neutral association, are also OUTDATED and OBSOLETE, if not REPUDIATED. I am reverting to the previous version, and we can carry out the discussion on the talk page of the article, and I am copying this text there as well. Thank you. -- Avi 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/094263764X/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex/104-5614918-3879160?ie=UTF8&p=S006#reader-link

Serendipitously, the AC's are what Amazon allows you to see. Note the entry goes from "Acrotomophilia" directly to "Accupuncture", conviently skipping "Acucu…". I checked that the pages are consecutive (the end of the article before accupncture IS Acrotomo…), so not only is tis source not available in the 17-20 libraries that make up my home system, it now seems more like a hoax. Until someone can show me the text (via PDF or e-mail scan) I am very prone to think that it is false. Of course, I reserve the right to be proven wrong, but my due diligence implies that it is not in the text. -- Avi 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Even more proof: it is not in the index! http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1569800111/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-5614918-3879160#reader-link I believe the appropriate term is quod erat demonstratum. -- Avi 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed it already (at great length) in the archives. Here is a scan of the relevant pages. As you can see, Love mentions the term but does not define its meaning - thus, the 'source' is misrepresented. Another user had the interesting theory that Love's mention established the word as 'real', while a dubious and non-RS online 'sex dictionary' gave its meaning. That was why I added the disputed notice, and why - after a long wait for serious sources - I deleted it. Jakew 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It still bothers me a lot that it is not even in the index. -- Avi 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is mostly directed to Jake, with an aside to Avraham. I notice that TipPT has several times added the quote from the BMA as follows: "The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks" I find it even more interesting that no one seems interested in the immediately following section which seems far more directly applicable to a discussion of medical ethics: "It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents."

So, what exactly is the consensus on the BMA quote re: "medical benefits previously claimed"? I haven't been watching this talk page for a couple weeks. Is there some consensus against not using this quote? I would agree that the place where it was most recently inserted by TipPT was rather awkward and did not read well. Also, he failed to add ellipsis to indicate a gap in the quote, which would have been better.

My note to Avraham is much simpler; the use of "Finally" that you altered is not actually an example of weasel wording, but of simple English usage... in any unnumbered list of particulars being detailed in a paragraph, it is common to begin sentences with words to indicate the progression, such as "Firstly", "Secondly", and "Finally". I suppose it might be conceivable that a reader might mistake it to mean "finally!" in the sense of "at last, what we were waiting for!", but that usually implies an exclamation point to be used at the end of the sentence. Would "Lastly" work better? Kasreyn 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the BMA quote that TipPT was trying to add was from 2003, and the guidelines were just re-issued in June of 2006, which is what I have quoted in the section for "medical policies"; the newer version supersedes the old one. Secondly, you are exactly right about the "FInally" in that it implies "at last". Personally, I think that 20-25 year old studies (early 80s to 87) should not be brought if there is a 5 year old study that implies otherwise, but that is something for us to discuss and reach a consensus. But the way it is worded now is completely NPOV. "there was study A and B that said this, however, study C said that." without any improper connotations. -- Avi 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the consensus, Kasreyn, but my own view is that it's fine to quote it where appropriate. That is to say: I don't have a blanket objection to its inclusion, but I think that it should be included if and where it clearly improves the article.

In terms of assessing its merit, the sole factor in its favour seems to be the weight of the BMA. Otherwise, given that it lacks arguments, fails to cite evidence, and fails to specify which benefits it refers to, it has little objective value. Unfortunately, this is true in general of the BMA's statement: where other organisations have performed a detailed review of the evidence, the BMA offer little more than vague opinions. In my view, this makes their statement less useful to Wikipedia. Jakew 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jake, please remember to be civil and assume good faith. Including the recommendation of the CPS is not "cherry-picking that which is anti-circumcision". The recommendation is the best summary of the CPS position.

Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.

— Neonatal circumcision revisited, Canadian Paediatric Society

The CPS recommendation needs to be included in the quotes from the CPS for the article to have a NPOV. -- DanBlackham 02:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, it is already in the larger quote as "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns." But notice, by using the ENTIRE quote, instead of the recommendation 1-line blurb, it makes it much more NPOV. Regardless, the recommendatin is in the larger quote, and it is redundant to have both; unless you are interested in cherry-picking, which none of us are, I hope. -- Avi 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, please remember to be civil and assume good faith. I did not "cherry pick parts to push a POV". I selected the sentences from the BMA policy statement that I think most accurately represent the BMA's position on circumcision for medical reasons. The BMA document has a section on circumcision for medical reasons and a section on circumcision for religious or cultural reasons. Quotes from both sections need to be included in the article for the article to have a NPOV. Excluding quotes from the section on circumcision for medical reasons unfairly biases the article. In my opinion the one sentence that most accurately represents the BMA position on circumcision for medical reasons is "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." I think the following two sentences accurately summarize the BMA position on circumcision for medical reasons:

Circumcision for medical purposes
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.

— The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors, British Medical Association

If other editors feel that more needs to be included from the BMA statement, I think the following four sentences accurately represent the BMA position on circumcision for medical reasons:

Circumcision for medical purposes
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. ... The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision. Doctors should be aware of this and reassure parents accordingly.

— The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors, British Medical Association

I look forward to your suggestions on how to include quotes from the section on circumcision for medical reasons from the BMA policy statement. -- DanBlackham 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding medical circumcison, I agree with you, Dan. Just as any surgery, if the only reason given for the procedure is medical, and there are less invasive methods, then it should not be done, any more than one should undergo an appendectomy for an upset stomach. If the reason is ritual/societal that does not apply, obviously.

I would suggest the following:

Circumcision for medical purposes

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.…Male circumcision in cases where there is a clear clinical need is not normally controversial.…If there is doubt about whether treatment is needed, or what is the most appropriate course of management, specialist advice should be sought.

Non-therapeutic circumcision

There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.

— The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors, British Medical Association

A bit long, perhaps, but, IMO, a complete and NPOV representation of the BMA. Thoughts, anyone? -- Avi 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I support your suggestion for quotes from the BMA statement. I think it accurately and fairly summarizes the BMA position. Because of the complexity of the issue, in my opinion it is better to be a bit long and complete than to omit an important part of the BMA position. -- DanBlackham 05:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a primary BMA position: "The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks"172.193.203.146 21:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check the June 2006 revision. You are quoting from the 2003 version, which has been deprecated. Please see here: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision. -- Avi 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The pertinent quote: “The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention.” -- Avi 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know who you are, 172.193.203.146, but it is extremely poor form, and outright vandalism, to take a direct quote, and replace it with something else. The quote is als follows: “Health issues There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research. Doctors performing circumcisions must ensure that those giving consent are aware of the issues, including the risks associated with any surgical procedure: pain, bleeding, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia. All appropriate steps must be taken to minimise these risks. It may be appropriate to screen patients for conditions that would substantially increase the risks of circumcision, for example haemophilia.”

That is ONE COMPLETE QUOTE. Throwing in a sentence from elsewhere in the same quotation marks is vandalism, and just plain false.

Further, the words used in the abstract of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1766331 is "MUST" not "CAN". “These results suggest that the financial and medical advantages and disadvantages of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each other and that factors other than cost or health outcomes must be used in decision making.”

Please discuss anything of import here, and refrain from vandalising the article to push a particular POV. -- Avi 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This page has been protected due to edit warring. Please work out your diffrences on the talk page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you must have protected the page while I was updating a citation and had the edit screen open. I am not going to revert it, but I will refrain for the time being. Pray tell, who asked for a page block? There is only one user who seems to be going against the consensus, and that is User:Nokilli. -- Avi 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone that has not edited this article in a long time, it appears like there has been alot of edit warring on this page that has been going on for a while. If I am incorrect in my observations or if these issues have already been resolved feel free to unprotect. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to resolve this via talk, however it takes two to tango; my last reply is still unanswered. Nokilli 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your last comment contains nothing requiring answer; it is a rambling mixture of personal attacks and ranting. The other editors here have no requirement to dignify such commentary with a response. If you have any significant points to make, try to make them in a civil way from now on. Kasreyn 08:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks? You've got to be kidding me. Take a look at the nonsense I've been subjected to, then talk to me about personal attacks. Your comment can't be taken seriously. Nokilli 07:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe you have been "subjected" to any "nonsense". You are not attempting to "resolve" anything "via talk", because your actual edits to the article continue to amount to the same thing no matter what anyone on the talk page says to you. There has been no indication yet that you are willing to compromise.

And you know what? I don't personally disagree with most of the points you've raised. I, too, personally, believe circumcision likely arose and was perpetuated for the reasons you claim, rather than for its stated religious and "hygeinic" reasons. However, this is speculation and against policy to include in the article. I will oppose attempts to insert a personal POV in this project. You say Jake is "fooling no one". Well, your attempts to insert your POV by rephrasing the text on brit milah is fooling no one.

Furthermore, if you are not guilty of personal attacks, then what do you call this gem?:

"...You will succeed in silencing me, I have no doubt of this at all. The best that I can hope for in this system is that you all go to sleep each night knowing that you are complicit in the atrocities I am speaking out against."

Respectfully, I should point out that we've had a long history of perceived and real POV-pushers at this article. We've recently had a longtime contributor blocked (rightly) for such activities. There is little tolerance remaining among this page's editors for such unilateralism. If you don't wish to be associated with such activities, I would suggest you immediately adopt a more conciliatory and collegiate tone and begin to work with your fellow editors rather than attacking them and accusing them of bias. Otherwise you will certainly end up being blocked. I am hoping you will change your behavior so that doesn't have to happen. Regards, Kasreyn 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you missed this (you miss a lot), but I am not rephrasing anything. I am reverting other people's edits to reflect the wording on brit milah as it was before I even came here. Do you understand this? Do you understand that the POV being pursued here is by pro-circumcision POV-pushers? That all I'm doing is using the text that I found when I originally came here?

As for being blocked, or my "bad" behavior, again I would refer you to the behavior of people on the other side of the aisle here, who are guilty of far more than I am. If you are going to play schoolmom, you need to at least familiarize yourself with the complete record of events here.

The charge of POV here is ridiculous. First of all, most people here don't even understand what is being prohibited. Will all of you please read WP:NPOV? Second, there isn't a person here who doesn't have their own POV. When you and everybody else are ready to get past this bit of idiocy and actually start talking about how best to include THE FACT that these mohels suck on baby's penises, then I am ready and willing to engage in that process.

I will absolutely be blocked, but not because my behavior is any worse than anyone else's here. I will be blocked because the most partisan people here on Wikipedia also happen to be the same people who routinely and ruthlessly game the system. Nokilli 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're after my sympathy for your "plight", mocking me is not a good way to get it. Kasreyn 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nokilli, this comment of yours on talk:brit milah is tantamount to an admission that you are trying to push a WP:POV and are not interestted in helping the encyclopedia. All of the pertinent information is in the article. Your goal is to "abolish" the procedure; a violation of wikipedia rules and protocol. Please, read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not support crusades and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you feel so strongly, in this age of the internets and digital media you are free to start a grass-roots campaign and spread your message to the world, but Wikipedia is NOT the venue for it. Thank you. -- Avi 11:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is you who has expressly stated here your WP:POV, and yet you still try to condemn others for doing same. I will also note here, as I did on Brit_milah, that you still have yet to grasp what WP:NPOV means. WP:NPOV covers articles, not commentary here. The fact remains that the mohel sucks on the baby's penis. This shouldn't be hidden, and yet that is exactly what you are trying to do. You are trying to insert your POV into an article, and that IS against WP:NPOV. Again, note that the wording is not of my making, and was contributed to Wikipedia by a source that I believe is clearly non-biased in this matter (as does the rest of Wikpedia apparently, as the wording survived many months here.) Deal with the fact that the mohel sucks on the baby's penis, will you please, and then let's move on. Nokilli 07:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Talk pages are here for the sole purpose of discussing how to improve the articles. It's rarely necessary to declare your own POV, and often counterproductive, but if you must, then declaring "I am opposed to circumcision" (or whatever) is acceptable.

What you said, however, was different. You said: "I think it is important that people be made aware of it" (through Wikipedia) "so that it can be abolished." This is not merely declaring your POV, instead you advocate using Wikipedia to effect your own goal. That is forbidden by policy (WP:NOT). Jakew 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nokilli, your very additions to this talk page are proving my point. Thank you. -- Avi 12:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a section should be created in this article about the growing resistance towards routine circumcision in the USA. --172.136.133.17 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The views of these activists do get a mention in the article, and a lengthier treatment in genital integrity.

I've deleted your speech in favour of this position. Please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jakew 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet that is exactly what you are guilty of treating it as. Your pose as being without bias is fooling noone. Nokilli 07:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. Jakew 09:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right back at you. Nokilli 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you're making no sense. I have been at this article for quite a few months and I have never seen Jake say anything that was uncivil in the slightest. Kasreyn 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can be so sure. It may not be representative of the average uncircumcised erect penis (mine, for instance, shows more foreskin than that), but it does illustrate that some uncircumcised erect penises don't show much foreskin. I believe, in fact, that it is the same penis shown flaccid next to it. The skin tone, pubic hair tufts, and one vein are all consistent between the two images. The original photographer, uploader, and model (viz. User:Clawed) claims that they are both the same penis, and I am inclined to believe him.

I do think that an image of an erect uncircumcised penis with more visible foreskin would be beneficial to the article. A quick browse of commons's category:penis didn't reveal any pics that looked suitable, sadly. If I had a digital camera, I'd solve the problem myself. ^L_Wizard @ 08:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture on the foreskin article is kind of better than this one in showing that, the one in this article here (circ) looks like the guy has a somewhat tight foreskin Cuzandor 02:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This (a) requires a citation and (b) doesn't really merit a separate subsection given that the autocephalous churches of the Oriental Orthodox Communion are doctrinally ad idem. In fact circumcision is rare among Oriental Orthodox churches. (Indeed the historical record would indicate that Oriental Orthodoxy was brought to the Malabar Coast -- where circumcision is unknown in non-Muslims -- by Christianised Jewish traders.) Coptic Orthodox clergy I have consulted advise that circumcision is a cultural norm in Egyptian society and predated both Christianity and Islam; there is no Oriental Orthodox religious mandate for it and Coptic clergy in countries where circumcision is not common do not suggest that Coptic families should fly against any social norms for any religious reason. However I have no documentary evidence and Wikipedia does not permit that citation "personal communication," which is deemed to be "original research." This is not to say that circumcision is not practised by Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea; it is well known that it is. Nor can it be advocating a point of view; it is bare fact, just as it is common for American Christians to be circumcised without any religious position on the issue one way or the other being taken by their religious denominations. Masalai 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The "rites of passage" analysis does explain many, but not all, traditional societies' mandating of male circumcision. (For that matter, there are assorted other procedures which the young may be required to undergo in various traditional societies which may seem to the uninformed outsider to be "initiations" but which have other rationales.) I have moderated the generality of the statement.Masalai 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard a weird report on the news about HIV/AIDS transmission being reduced by 60% due to circumcision. The section of this article discussing disease transmission and health benefits seems light to me. Any opinions? Like this example from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8715260/ Hopquick 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be based on UN/WHO analysis, but I have not drilled down to find the original report yet. Too busy at work :( http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/operation-foils-aids/2006/07/11/1152383741857.html -- Avi 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The original report was published in the US Public Library of Science Medicine journal: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030262. --Ezeu 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation updated with reference; thanks! -- Avi

They just want an excuse to circumcise everyone and KEEP MAKING MONEY BABE!!! Cuzandor 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)