Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

A few points.

1. It was a good move, in my opinion, to separate Pain out, Michael. It was getting too big on its own.
2. Good find on Glass.
3. Personally, when I cite (and I have checked, vetted, and edited the citations for the vast, vast majority of the cites in this article) I try and follow the citations suggested by the article pages themselves (BibTeX links, etc.). I have not found that the "official" citations make a differentiation between letters and articles. So, I have not done so in the text. Personally, I do not think it is a big deal to make mention of it being a letter, if and only if every source is checked to see if it is a letter or not, and the point made in the text. To single one or two sources out for special treatment, however, is unacceptable.

Thanks. -- Avi 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot force an editor to check if every source is a "letter" just because they wish to mention that a specific one is. They can go ahead and mention that it is, because it is factual and verifiable. If you find others that you wish to make mention of, that is your prerogative; but you do not own this article -- you cannot dictate the conditions under which other editors may edit. Blackworm 09:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, edits that violate NPOV by giving some sources special treatment can be boldly reverted or repaired. But it is courteous to explain why. Jakew 10:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by "giving some sources special treatment?" Why can factual, verifyable, clarifying text be "boldly reverted?" How does it "violate NPOV?" Blackworm 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

When edits to an article are blatantly and obviously to push a POV and single out an issue to cast aspersions, be they for better or worse, that is not acceptable. -- Avi 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Jakew's editing of the "policies" section to remove references to non-recommendation, and add references to parental choice? Why are you, Jayjg, and everyone else here not upset about that? Blackworm 12:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this another way, Avi, since you open the door with your open accusation of bad faith. Every single edit I've seen you, Jakew, or Jayjg make to the article and every comment in discussion has been to strengthen a pro-circumcision POV, or weaken an anti-circumcision POV. Is that just a coincidence, or is it fair of me to assume you are POV-pushing, as you accuse everyone else of doing when anyone else tries to edit the article? Blackworm 13:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Blackworm. You might also wish to pay attention to what you have already been told. Jakew 13:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Avi is the one assuming bad faith here. Why are you not scolding him? Blackworm 13:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jakew, you'll notice I replied to the statements you linked to, so obviously attention was paid to them. You, however, did not respond to my latest comments in that thread. Blackworm 13:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think every my edits are predominantly to uphold wikipedia policy and guideline, and enhance the article. It is somewhat disconcerting that a significant number of edits posited by the group you refer to as "anti-circumcision" are blatantly against wiki policy, I agree with you that it leads to assumptions about those editors which I would rather not state (but looking at edit histories and edit summaries of certain main protagonists, it becomes selbsverstandlisch. For example, I went out of my way to properly cite the Council of Florence, and look up the catechisms; which we all agree are very anti-circumcision. Somehow, I do not see you looking to properly cite links that support circumcision's benefits. Care to explain? -- Avi 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Council of Florence is a perfect example. The source clearly explains that the observance of circumcision itself is the mortal sin, and one least one editor keeps properly editing the article to reflect that, and yet you constantly revert it to say that "the belief that circumcision was necessary for salvation [is] a mortal sin." Why is this?

Your checking up on the Council of Florence is no exception to my statement -- you saw something negative about circumcision and went to check up on the facts hoping to discredit, weaken, and/or remove it. When that failed, you seemed to ignore what the source said and are resisting any edits to the current incorrect sentence, preferring the incorrect sentence which does not oppose circumcision.

Your assumption of bad faith is appaling. -- Avi 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We all seem to have strong POVs here. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to work together to build a better article. Wikipedia has rules in place that make better articles -- but for this article, the rules seem to be selectively applied and followed based on what POV you are advancing. It is extremely disappointing. Blackworm 15:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is more that there are a group of editors that seem to wish to have the rules selectively rescinded for them; I fear. -- Avi 12:14, April 29, 2007

Thinking about this more, I have no evidence that you "constantly" revert it nor are resisting edits to it, since your reversion was part of a wholesale revert. I'll go ahead and change the sentence to reflect the source, and we'll see what happens. Blackworm 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi: Again, you condemn my accusations of bad faith while defending your own. I was roundly and properly criticized for my assumptions of bad faith here, and recognizing the proper application of Wikipedia policy, stopped expressing it. When you do it, and it is met with deafening silence -- and further, my pointing it out is attacked -- one must honestly ask about selective application of policy. I indeed agree with you that there seems to be a group that wishes policy be selectively rescinded for them -- we just don't agree on which group it is. Blackworm 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Remind me of my assumption of bad faith on your part, please? -- Avi 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Avi, please date your last post above to make it clear that you added it after the subsequent one. In the future, I'd appreciate that you add comments at the bottom of the section, otherwise it makes the discussion misleading and makes your posts easy to miss. Thanks. Blackworm 17:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I type too quickly and hit three or five tildes instead of four, sorry about that. Usually, I agree that comments at the end make more sense, but if there are multiple interspersing threads it can make for difficulty. On that note, I've refactored the discussion to help clarify what goes where. -- Avi 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi: In this section your assumption of bad faith was on Michael Glass's part, with the statement, "When edits to an article are blatantly and obviously to push a POV and single out an issue to cast aspersions..." Previously and elsewhere on this talk page you had assumed bad faith on my part with the statement, "Your rather obvious WP:POV pushing is having you try and delete information that happens to repudiate your position." I actually don't mind too much; what I mind is the double-standard, in which a group of editors which includes two administrators active on this page repeatedly attack with WP:ACRONYMS only those seen as having a negative POV vis-a-vis circumcision, while those who routinely add pro-circumcision edits seem to be given carte blanche. Blackworm 01:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have sourced the Council of Florence to its original source, Norman Tanner's Decrees of the ecumenical councils from which all the websites are taking it. I used http://www.ewtn.com as the url link, as CIRP, as it often does, has yellow HTML highlighting on the end sentences, so we try not to use CIRP, if possible, and use a site that at least does not actually change the display and format of text to highlight a particular point of view.

Regarding the edits about Catechism 2627, that is about adoration. Circumcision is only mentioned twice (527 and 1150, see here: http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=circumcision )neither of which time is it proscribed or forbidden. Please find the actual text; if all it mentions is mutilation, than linking that to "circumcision" on wiki's own, would be original research/ You have to find another reliable source that makes the connection between any prohibition on mutilation and circumcision. Thanks -- Avi 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be the source we need here. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_journal_of_bioethics/v003/3.2fadel.html Note that "mutilation" is not the only prohibition; unnecessary "amputation" is also proscribed. Blackworm 14:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone access the file and confirm that the paper makes the connection? If so, then it would be reasonable to add it to the article. -- Avi 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The author (Fadel) does assert that there is a connection, at least in her opinion. CIRP have a copy here. Benatar and Benatar criticised Fadel's reasoning here; see in particular the sections on 'Mutilation' and 'A Catholic debate'. Interestingly, Fadel is the director of Catholics Against Circumcision.[1] Jakew 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If all of that can be reputably cited (the connection between the catechism's mutilation and circumcision, the criticism, and the connection between the various authors and their platforms) that would be a great addition to the article to flesh out the debate with Catholicism itself. -- Avi 17:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I thought that is what I did with the Dietzen and Healey citations in response to your Talk request, but Jakew deleted them. I find the constant questioning of the statement of substantiated Catholic beliefs tiring, especially when those doing the questioning, such as Jakew, can provide zero evidence from Catholic Theologians or Bishops (as opposed to laymen idly speculating) to support the pro-circumcision position. If there is a true disagreement among theologians and the Bishops, then it should be relatively easy to cite both sides and let people make up their minds on the subject. How many more citations must I provide to substantiate what I say? Also, I'd like to stop the deletions of my editing of my own addition to this article concerning the Council of Florence. I'd think I'm allowed to reword for clarity what I myself added to the article, but apparently some people disagree. -- Abyler 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. "Catholics against circumcision" is not a reliable source, and Fadel does not decide Church dogma or set Catholic policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayig, this is a ridiculous standard you are attempting to apply. If I take the time to drive over to my local Catholic seminary library and look up the passages in books on the shelf, that is reliable, but using Google to find the same passages online is not because you don't like who put them on the internet? As to "Catholics against circumcision" not being a reliable source, they aren't the source. Frs. Dietzen and Healey are. Apparently, you are unable to distinguish between an author - the actual source of anything written, and someone quoting an author - obviously not the source unless they are a plagarist. Lastly, the notion that laymen with an invested interest in the controversy are somehow "objective", such as Slosar and Bentar, is laughable. These medical ethicists are (1) not licensed moral theologians and (2) therefore not able to speak officially for the Church. Their opinions have no more real weight as far as determining the position of the Church than yours or mine. Its rather like pretending that the Pope and Frances Kisseling of Catholics for a Free Choice are equally reliable sources for the position of the Church on abortion, so lets put both their views forth as alternative Catholic positions. This is the way one obscures reality. I'm still waiting for a citation of a single licensed Catholic Moral Theologian who approves of circumcision. I doubt one can be found.Abyler 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging by Fadel's reactions, it would appear that Slosar's article criticises some of the anti-circumcision arguments. I have written to Prof Slosar to request a reprint of his article. Jakew 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You initially changed it to: "The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin in ..."

You then changed it to: "The Catholic Church condemned the practice of circumcision as a mortal sin in ..." I reverted this second edit. The reason is that the first is more accurate. "Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors." While the source then goes on to order Christians not to practice circumcision, denouncement is specifically applied to its observance. Jakew 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Reverting back. "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision [...]." I can change the sentence in the article to say "The Catholic Church ordered its members not to practice circumcision [...]" if you prefer that wording. The word "practice" was there first, I had no reason to change it in the first place. Blackworm 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to feel strongly enough about it, my latest edit restores "observance" as the condemnation and further includes the order against the practice. Hopefully this will meet with your approval. Blackworm 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jake, the way it is now (BW's edit) seems an accurate paraphrase of the text. -- Avi 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just been looking around for some commentary on the source to check, and now have a headache. Too much Christian theology/philosophy/something for me (no offence to anyone intended) -- time for bed. Jakew 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Say some hypothetical religion clearly prohibited "surgery." Would you require a specific reference to circumcision before concluding that the religion prohibits it? Blackworm 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia article, yes. The fundamental principle of NOR and sister policies is that we don't write about something unless others have done so already. So we would require a source including a specific discussion of circumcision and that faith. If such a source did not exist, then nobody had written about the subject previously, and so we shouldn't either. Jakew 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. For all we know, that particular religion could have a definition of "surgery" that differed significantly from the common understanding, or had various other religious rulings that came into play as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, what would stop you from using the same argument against a religion that prohibits "circumcision?" Blackworm 13:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One week later, question unanswered. The article states without qualifiers that circumcision is surgery, and the editors here vigorously defend the truth of that statement; yet according to Jakew, a religion that prohibits surgery doesn't necessarily prohibit circumcision. Inexplicable. Jayjg dismisses the idea on the possibility that a religion incorrectly (according to this article) believes that circumcision is not surgery. I believe the same argument could be used to argue that circumcision is not circumcision. We don't require evidence that the word "circumcision" used in the Bible thousands of years ago is any different at all from our understanding of what circumcision is today, to claim that certain religions require it -- but if a source saying a given religion prohibits it is found, we can just dismiss it on the grounds that they may have a different definition of "circumcision." This does not seem balanced nor logical. Blackworm 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making a fundemental error. You are creating an equivalence between religious texts and medical texts. "Surgery", as used in the lead of this article, is the medical term. Surgery as used in your hypothetical religious text depends on how the interpretators of that religion do so. As someone whose religious legal texts go back around 3000 years, I can tell you that religious texts (especially when written in a dead foreign language) are not as clear as a modern textbook. So, your syllogism between religion and medicine unfortunately suffers from the fallacy of the over-broad definition. -- Avi 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the same argument could be made about "circumcision," which is precisely my point. The equivalence between religious texts and medical texts is present in the article, which states both that "circumcision is a surgical procedure" (based on medical texts) and "circumcision [...] is a religious commandment [...]" (based on religious texts). The reader is led to believe that the procedure as carried out today is the exactly the same as that described in the ancient religious text -- when, of course, the point of view is the correct one to be advanced. When one uses the same logic to present circumcision in any negative light, suddenly the religous texts are invalid, outdated, mistranslated, misunderstood, possibly using a different definition, etc. Ask yourself why this is, Avi. Blackworm 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you go back to my original question, I didn't talk about ancient texts. I asked about a religion that prohibits surgery. Presumably if such a religion exists and is active, there will be recent information confirming the fact. Jayjg's objection on the basis of a possible differing definition was in the context of a current source, not an ancient one. I am pointing out the fallacy of this argument by arguing that one could presumably object on similar grounds to any position one does not like or agree with. "They might be using a different definition" is not an argument heard anywhere else; why would it apply here? Blackworm 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence on Sikh beliefs appears to use personal websites as sources. Are there any reliable sources regarding Sikh belief about circumcision? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quotations from a variety of sources on Sikh beliefs about circumcision:

• "Sikhism rejects the idea of circumcision. Sikhs believe in living a natural way of life the way God created us." [2]
• "Why does Sikhism reject haircuts, circumcision and other similar rituals that a large fraction of the world's population practices? Do Sikhs consider these people sinners or bad people?

A large part of the world's population does participate in rituals such as shaving of hair, circumcision, body piercing, etc. In this sense, Sikhs are in the minority. However, for a Sikh, acceptance of Nature's beautiful body is an important component of the Sikh value system. This does not mean that in case of disease a Sikh will not undergo surgery if necessary. Acceptance of one's God-given physique without "improving" it by razors and scissors is a first step in accepting other laws, the foremost of which is becoming a universal being. Sikhs view others who engage in such rituals as people who carry unnecessary burdens in their lives; not as sinners or bad people." [3]

• "Circumcision holds no relevance to a Sikh." [4]

It seems clear to me that circumcision is not part of Sikh practice. There is also a Sikh Wiki that makes the same point:

• "Prohibited Behavior:

Non-Logical Behavior: Superstitions; rituals, which have no meaning, pilgrimages, fasting and bathing in rivers; gambling; circumcision; worship of graves, idols, pictures; compulsory wearing of the veil for women; etc;" [5]

I think the label dubious is what's dubious. Michael Glass 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeating what the personal websites say isn't terribly helpful, Michael. Jakew 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that each one of these websites is to be rejected as a source of information, Jake? Michael Glass 11:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be serious, Michael; these are personal websites - it's not clear that they even qualify as external links. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious. I ask Jake a question and Jayig answers - without civility. Please see below. Michael Glass 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The question was answered, and quite civilly - unlike your most recent response. Your initial question, moreover, was something else; it's hard to understand why you would continue to ask on what grounds websites were rejected when it had been made clear many times that they were rejected because they were personal websites. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is drawing the bar too high. When the Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council can refer to a website, that seems to be a pretty good indication that it has some credibility. Michael Glass 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council; it has its own standards and policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see my question has gone unanswered. Here is a document that is beyond question:

Health . Comprehensive Guide . Sikh Patient's Protocol for Health Care Providers

June 2001 - "Guidelines for Health Care Providers Interacting with Patients of the Sikh Religion and Their Families" Approved by the Committee on Clinical, Administrative, Professional & Emergency Services - November 29, 2000 © Copyright 2000 Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council General Beliefs and Practices (Individual Practices May Vary) General Beliefs and Practices (Individual Practices May Vary) · The sanctity of life is an injunction. Human life is of the highest form. · Blood transfusions are allowed. · Assisted suicide and euthanasia are not encouraged. · Maintaining a terminal patient on artificial life support for a prolonged period in a vegetative state is not encouraged. · Organ transplantation, both donating and receiving, is allowed. · Autopsy is permitted. · Artificial reproductive technology is permitted only during the span of an intact marriage between husband and wife. · Genetic engineering to cure a disease is acceptable. To date, Sikhs are opposed to human cloning. · Abortion is not advised except for medical indications. · Male infants are not circumcised.

[6] and [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Glass (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

One Sikh website of some note is www.sikhs.org, which won an Encarta Editor's Choice award in July 1998 [8]. It is linked to SikhWomen.com [9] and is noted in the Guidelines for Health Care mentioned above. [10] The summary page contains the following comment:

Sikhism condemns blind rituals such as fasting, visiting places of pilgrimage, superstitions, worship of the dead, idol worship etc. [11]

An essay by Jaswinger Singh (also on this website) elaborates:

Sikhism is a modern way of life, it doesn't subject people to valueless rituals. A few examples being the caste system, bathing in holy rivers, facing a certain direction for a prayer, slaughtering animals in the name of God, circumcision. [12].

I will add more information later. Michael Glass 10:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So you have a website linked to by a website which got an Encarta award in July 1998. That was a long time ago. Do you have anything that isn't a personal website? Something authoritative? Religious book etc.? A gurmata on the topic would be extremely helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see above.

• The "Guidelines for Health Care Providers Interacting with Patients of the Sikh Religion and Their Families" is reliable and authoritative. By itself, this source is authority enough to refer to.
• These guidlines refer to Sikhs.org. They wouldn't have referred to this website unless Sikhs.org had some standing in the Sikh community. Please note the comment by Jaswinger Singh.
• Similar advice on circumcision can be found in the on-line advice for Sikh youth [13]
• If there's a Gurmat on circumcision, I'm not aware of it. However this link might give you some idea of Sikh thinking on asceticism in general. [14].

Michael Glass 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The first one is the only one I can see as being reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your references would appear acceptable in regard to the practises of the Sikh religion. On the assumption there are no (or very few) contrary indications, I have edited the article to say "Sikhism avoids modification of the body (eg no haircuts) and "condemns blind rituals". Accessible sources include circumcision in this prohibition". PalestineRemembered 08:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid original research. The once good source we have on circumcision and Sikhism is quoted, don't insert your own commentary. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, someone who knows a lot about the Sikh faith adding a few self-evident sentences to Wikipedia, which are supported by every formal and informal Sikh source you can find (and opposed by none) is NOT 'original research'! Denying it a place in the article is part of this 'ownership' malaise that makes this page one of the worst examples of ongoing bad behaviour I know of on WP. It was exactly the same last time this Sikhism issue was discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision/Archive_20#Dasondas.27_claims_re_Sikhism. --Nigelj 16:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:NOR doesn't allow you to synthesize material, even if you personally believe it is "self-evident", and WP:V doesn't allow you to use personal websites to make controversial claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So we're still where we were last November: In this instance, which part of "Sikhism avoids modification of the body" and "Sikhism condemns blind rituals" do you, from your research and knowledge of that faith, find to be a 'controversial claim'? Do you honestly believe that these claims about some of Sikhism's tenets are this one contributors 'personal theories' as per WP:OR? --Nigelj 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the Sikh faith condemns circumcision based on those other claims. Yes, I do think this OR is inaccurate; I think that Sikhs do not circumcise, but I doubt they forbid it based on the claims being raised here. We already have a reliable claim from a reliable source; that Sikhs do not circumcise their children. Why do we need more than that? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I had added the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics "no longer recommends routine neonatal circumcision but instead...", but someone removed it. Anyone familiar with the AAP's former position that they recommended neonatal circumcision would appreciate this factual and verifiable WP:VERIFY information. [15]

The paragraph now reads:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommends routine neonatal circumcision but instead recommends that parental decisions on elective circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking physiological, cultural, ethnic, and religious factors into account."

If someone has some reason for not including that info, could they please discuss it here? Thank you. Jtpaladin 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have access to Dickerman's article in the May 2007 version of Pediatrics Circumcision in the Time of HIV: When Is There Enough Evidence to Revise the American Academy of Pediatrics' Policy on Circumcision? It looks as if evidence is strongly mounting that would have them revise yet again soon, but the article is too new to be free-access. -- Avi 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to obtain a copy & send via email. Jakew 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the AAP ever recommended circumcision? If not, the phrase "no longer" is not accurate. There is no indication in the link that you mentioned, nor the other AAP sources cited in the article, that this was ever true. Blackworm 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

They didn't recommend circumcision in 1989, nor in 1977, nor in 1975, nor 1971. Prior to 1989, they were fairly opposed to it. Jakew 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, the Q&A in the link I provided states in part, "Then, in the 1980s, you seemed to more strongly suggest that there are medical benefits that warrant the procedure." That would indicate support of the procedure on a routine basis. However, Blackworm's edit is fine as well. I'm only trying to convey the changing opinion of the AAP from a pro-routine circumcision position to an anti-routine circumcision position. Whatever way you want to phrase it is fine for the acccuracy of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtpaladin (talk • contribs).

Jtpaladin, there is little doubt that the 1989 policy suggested (or recognised) medical benefits (as does the 1999 policy), but it did not include a recommendation for circumcision as a routine procedure. Indeed, it stated: "It is an elective procedure to be performed only if an infant is stable and healthy". It concluded: "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. When circumcision is being considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained." Jakew 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jake, your latest edit inexplicably throws the baby out with the bathwater. Why remove the entire phrase "no longer recommends routine neonatal circumcision but instead" when your only objection is that the "no longer" part is invalid? Clearly the correct edit is to replace "no longer recommends" with "does not recommend." I'm going to do that right now. Blackworm 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the rest of it is an editorial comment by an editor; the AAP doesn't recommend for it, and it doesn't recommend against it. So, let's just quote what it does say. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The AAP does say that it does not recommend it, certainly in the AAP Task Force statement already cited, and as the first sentence of that report. The article used to reflect this, but that information was suppressed by Jakew and replaced with other information which emphasizes parental choice in the matter. Why do you support the suppression of this information? Blackworm 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I keep thinking Jakew removed that information, but he has already said that he did not (although he supports the deletion). I have struck out that claim above. My apologies. Blackworm 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But it also says there are potential benefits etc. Rather than the anti-circumcision people adding anti-circumcision cherry-picked items, then others adding counter-balancing items, it's best just to quote the AAP's conclusion, and leave the entire statement in the footnote. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the above not a violation of WP:AGF? Blackworm 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting that editors in this matter are deliberately cherry-picking items to advance an anti-circumcision point of view, and not to improve the article. This seems to be a violation of WP:AGF. Since you are a respected administrator, well aware of the policy, and see fit to remind editors of it, please explain this apparent contradiction. Blackworm 02:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It's bolded in the original too. I've watched this article for 3 years now, and I know what I've seen. Oh, and AGF is a guideline, not a policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that your personal opinion of the editors is sufficient evidence to fail to assume good faith? (Also, contrary to your assertion, WP:AGF is official policy. Quoting from WP:AGF: "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia.") Blackworm 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the sentence above. Also, it is a guideline, as the wording says. Apparently someone tried to quietly and unilaterally upgrade it to policy last week, but that can actually only be done with significant consensus. It has been fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered.

Getting back to the article, there is no evidence that the current text represents a "conclusion" any more than the previous, deleted text. You label my desired edit "cherry-picking," but I have already used that phrase to potentially describe the current edit. My desired edit includes both points; your reversion inexplicably suppresses the point which you characterize as anti-circumcision, while labelling the current text, which I have already characterized as pro-circumcision, a "conclusion," without any evidence nor even an argument that it carries more weight. I have already argued that the AAP's non-recommendation of the procedure, presumably due to a medical analysis, is the more salient point of the policy; since the AAP is a medical organization, not a social or legal one. I do not object to mentioning the AAP's socio-legal stance, but I vehemently object to the suppression of their medical stance. Again, why do you seek to suppress this information? Blackworm 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, as I have noted previously, it is redundant to refer to their 'non-recommendation' of routine circumcision more than once.

Secondly, there is no reason to believe -- and certainly no sources that suggest -- that the 'non-recommendation' of routine circumcision is any more medical than their advice on elective circumcision (medical issues do not exist in a vacuum). Jakew 09:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, twice previously, nowhere is the AAP's non-recommendendation mentioned. It is tiresome to have you ignore this reply and repeat your previous, inaccurate statement.

For the second sentemce, you have not made a counterargument, just a flat denial. Put both statements in, please, to avoid the appearance of pro-circumcision bias and violation of WP:NPOV. Blackworm 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of adding OR of my own to counter your OR. An OR argument is a non-argument, a nothing, that requires no counterargument. Jakew 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, for the fourth time, please address why this information is suppressed. Blackworm 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If I understand Jake's argument correctly, it is original synthesis to make note of the absence of something, if that absence is not mentioned elsewhere. The presence of something is not synthesis, it is either a direct quote or a paraphrase of a source. But if something does not exist in a source, to then say "So-and-so do not do something..." and use that to prove a point may be what Jake is alluding to. On a personal level, I am not sure if that is considered WP:OR or not; perhaps it should be asked at WT:OR. -- Avi 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that is his argument, and your example does not apply here. The text I wish to include is not absent, it is in a verifiable, reliable source already cited. Blackworm 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, as you know, I have great respect for your thoughts. But I guess I'm not understanding why we are not simply stating what the Task Force states in their report which is, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."? In essence what the report is saying is that they do not recommend "routine neonatal circumcision". That is taken directly from the report. Why is there opposition to including that simple statement? So that the AAP entry would read as:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics finds insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision but instead recommends that parental decisions on elective circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking physiological, cultural, ethnic, and religious factors into account."

That is a much more accurate statement from that report than what the current Wiki entry shows. What possible objection is there to this factual and verifiable statement? Without further opposition, I would like to make the change. Thoughts, please. Jtpaladin 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm exhausted. Jake, I believe JT and BW have a point here. The summary of the AAP statement reads:

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

— http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;103/3/686.pdf

I think a version similar to JT, such as this: “The American Academy of Pediatrics finds insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. It recommends that parental decisions on elective circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account.” is better than what we have. -- Avi 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Such a statement is unnecessary because the article already notes that "The American Medical Association ... states that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns." Stating that the AAP does not recommend routine circumcision would thus be redundant (and a little soapbox-ish, especially if taken to the logical extent in which we note 'non-recommendations' of other such organisations). We should instead focus on what they do recommend: what is different about the individual policies that isn't already included in the more general statements.

My OR comments refer to Blackworm's personal interpretation of the "thrust" or "more salient point of the policy". Jakew 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not redundant, since the AAP is not specifically mentioned. Also, even if the AAP were mentioned by name, which it isn't, it would bear repeating anyway -- this is the "policies of major medical associations" section for crying out loud. How can you object to this on the basis of redundancy (when there isn't any), and yet do not seem to find any unwarranted repetition in the stated policies of the AAFP, AAP, and BMA which currently all talk about the same parental choice. The AAFP and AAP statements in particular are practically identical.

Then again, at least you have an objection. Jayjg does not, only seeming to characterize the statement of non-recommendation as "anti-circumcision" as dismissing it on those grounds. Blackworm 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, is this redundant?

• 56 percent of humans on the planet Earth are female
  • 56 percent of humans on the European continent are female
    • 56 percent of humans in Britain are female
      • 56 percent of humans in England are female
        • 56 percent of humans in Hampshire, England are female

Now, is this redundant?

• • • 56 percent of humans in Britain are female
    • 56 percent of humans in Germany are female
    • 56 percent of humans in Zimbabwe are female

The first is redundant: detail is needlessly repeated. Exceptions (perhaps China) might be interesting, but the general statement includes the narrower one.

The second is not redundant. It would be preferable to use a more general statement, but if one could not be sourced then the specific statements would suffice. Jakew 18:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed because in the first example, "the planet Earth" encompasses the remaining examples. All continents and countries are on the planet Earth. "[The AMA] says that medical associations in [some countries]" is weaker on two counts: one, it is not a statement of fact, but a statement of the AMA's opinion; and two, "medical associations" does not necessarily include the AAP. If it said "all medical associations" you might have a point. Blackworm 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that ""the planet Earth" encompasses the remaining examples" was precisely my point. Jakew 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually -- your first example above isn't even redundant. It could easily be (and is, actually) that the numbers for specific continents and countries vary from the average for the Earth. The additional statements regarding the continents and countries would be relevant, additional information not present in the original statement. So your analogy fails before it even gets off the ground. Blackworm 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should think it obvious from the fact that I referred to variations that I am aware of their existence. I was rather hoping that you might answer my question. Jakew 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "'the planet Earth' encompasses the remaining examples" was your point, then your point is moot, since the analogy doesn't hold. As for your questions, the answers are "no," and "no." Blackworm 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, thank you very much for your thoughts and objective analysis of the AAP issue. I would now ask if we have at least some consensus of stating the AAP position as:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics finds insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. It recommends that parental decisions on elective circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account.”

Can we please have closing thoughts on this issue? I appreciate everyone's input. Thank you. Jtpaladin 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus yet; we've heard from you, me, Jake, and BW. There are others who regularly appear, (Glass, Nandesuka, Jayjg, and even Tip). I'd like to hear from them and others if possible. Thanks! -- Avi 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a biased misstatement of the AAP position. The AAP actually states "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." Somehow you left out the first half of the sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, no that is not a "biased misstatement of the AAP position". I simply didn't quote every single aspect of that paragraph as I opted for brevity of the AAP position. The statement I made was factual. Jtpaladin 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

thos

The AAP policy statement should have both parts of the sentence.

The AAP also calls routine neonatal circumcision non-therapeutic. ie there is no disease state to treat thus neonatal circumcision is elective. Ritual circumcisions, Avi.

Accordingly, for several months this sentence was in the opening paragraphs ... "According to the AMA's 1999 literature review, in the US when parents choose elective circumcision for their child, it is largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns." One of several important facts removed by jakew, avi, jayg and nand for personal and religious reasons.

I suggest you look at the CPS statement (now grossly hishonest in Wiki). Jakew forces mid paragraph text from an old (1996) statement, when we should use the 2004 CPS Circumcision: Information for parents:

“Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor. After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

Again, non-cabel editors should replace the current with the sandbox version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision%5Csandbox TipPt 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your version; I'm moving it into your space. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about “Although the American Academy of Pediatrics finds potential benefit of infant circumcision; at current it feels that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. It recommends that parental decisions on elective circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account.”? -- Avi 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Jtpaladin's version. With regard to Jayjg's objection, if someone is going to insist on including the phrase "potential benefits," we should also insist on the word "risks." From the source, under "Summary and Recommendations:" "In the case of circumcision, where there are potential benefits and risks, [...]." To insist on the emphasis of the evidence of potential benefits without any attention given the risks, seems against WP:NPOV. I find Jayjg's objection without merit anyhow, since clearly the phrase "insufficient data to recommend" implies that said data is the evidence of potential benefits. What other data would conceivably cause them to recommend it? In any case, Avi's version, talking about the AAP "finding potential benefits" rather than stating that evidence for it exists, and "feel[ing]" that there is insufficient data, just seems even more like an emotional appeal, and a POV. The AAP is not making a "finding" that there are potential benefits any more than it is making a finding of risk. Further the AAP does not "feel" anything.

All that said, even though I think it would be POV in the absence of a statement that harms exist, I'd support an edit similar to Avi's which more directly follows the source, perhaps even including the entire sentence verbatim. I would do this in the interest of consensus. Blackworm 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Avi's version. However I would make one change and had some info on analgesia and newborn circumcision. I would remove the word "elective". I actually made the mistake of inserting that word originally. Since there is no such thing as "medically necessary" circumcision, "elective" is not applicable. So I would think that the following would work well: “Although the American Academy of Pediatrics finds potential benefit of infant circumcision; at current it feels that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. It recommends that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommends using analgesia as an safe and effective method in reducing procedural pain associated with circumcision and that cicumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.” This is a bit longer than I had originally proposed but I think between what I first suggested, what Avi liked, and what Blackworm added, this would be a comprehensive statement on what the AAP recommends. Jayjg and Jakew, any concerns with this? Avi? Blackworm? Can all you guys please chime in on this so we can wrap this up? Thank you. Jtpaladin 21:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the AAP doesn't find benefit of circumcision any more than it finds harm. To mention benefits, without mentioning harms, misrepresents the source, and does not conform to a neutral point of view. I would say "believes" instead of "feels" since the latter implies some kind of intangible emotional argument (a weak argument) rather than one based in scientific analysis (a stronger argument). The word "traditional" is incorrectly extrapolated from the phrase "cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions." In other words, any old traditions, such as a family tradition (e.g. making the boy look like his father), do not fall under the AAP's statement. Traditions which are culturally, religiously, or ethnically based, do fall under the statement. Thus I would remove "traditional" from the section. I appreciate your attempt to include the AAP's stance on analgesia, and the fact that circumcision causes pain to the infant, but I believe you will face insurmountable resistance from some editors here who do not wish that information to appear in the article. Blackworm 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The AAP state: "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."

Why exactly do you believe that this excludes "Traditions which are culturally, religiously, or ethnically based"? Jakew 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I said that it includes those traditions, but not necessarily other traditions. Thus to use the phrase "traditional [...] factors" is inaccurate. Again, it makes it seem like reasons like "I want baby to have his penis cut in the shape of daddy's" to be endorsed by the AAP, which they are not, since they are not ethnic, religious, nor cultural. Blackworm 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems a questionable assertion. Do you have any sources? Jakew 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, I have to agree with Jakew that the word "traditions" should be included because that is a direct quote from the AAP statement. Also, you're right that the word "risks" should be included as well. The analgesia aspect is also in the AAP statement and should be included. I don't see any reason why it should excluded. However, just because the AAP recommends it doesn't mean anyone has to follow it. So, how about this guys: “Although the American Academy of Pediatrics finds potential benefit in infant circumcision, it also finds risks, and since the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, at this time it feels that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. It recommends that parental decisions on circumcision should be made in the best interest of the child with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommends using analgesia as an safe and effective method in reducing procedural pain associated with circumcision and that cicumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.” How does this sound? Please let respond on this update. Thank you. Jtpaladin 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with some of the suppositions, including the line about "…and since the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being…." Isn't part of the AAP's reasoning that not becoming an outcast from family, religious, or traditional structures is partof the child's well being and thus must be daken into account? If I recall correctly, the BMA as much as says that outright. I think the following is better:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics finds both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. At current it feels that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommends that parental decisions on elective circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommends using analgesia as an safe and effective method in reducing procedural pain associated with circumcision and that cicumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.”

-- Avi 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, the newest version you offer is pretty good but the line, "...yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." is in the official AAP statement so I don't know why you would be opposed to including it. The statement mentions the "current well-being" of the child, not the future well-being. It looks at it from a purely medical perspective not from some possible long range perspective. However, in the interest of wrapping it up, this version minus the word "elective" (there's no such thing as "medically necessary circumcision") would be fine with me. So it should read:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics finds both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. At current it feels that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommends that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommends using analgesia as an safe and effective method in reducing procedural pain associated with circumcision and that cicumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.”

Otherwise, it just might be best to simply post the entire AAP position as it stands since all we seem to be doing is trying to find a way to reword that statement. Here is it is again:

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

— http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;103/3/686.pdf

Who's in favor of simply posting the official statement versus the re-worded one we have? My perference at this point is simply to use the official AAP statement. -- Jtpaladin 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We had a full quote previously. The consensus was that the full quotes should be in footnotes and the text should summarise. Jakew 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Jakew, fair enough. Thanks. Jtpaladin 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer my version with the word "elective" left in, as I believe the AAP itself does concede that there may be medically necessary circumcisions. (“Medical therapy has been successful in resolving both secondary phimosis and paraphimosis, but surgical intervention is sometimes indicated.22,23,26–28”). -- Avi 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Avi, with no objections let's go with that version. Let's allow a few more days for others to object. Barring any objection, either you or I or anyone else should feel free to post it. If there is an objection, let's do a vote. Sound good? I vote "yes" for Avi's latest version -- Jtpaladin 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Avi's latest version is the best we can hope for given the current climate. I vote "yes" on it as well. As for intact males being outcasts, I don't hear the AAP saying anything of the sort. Perhaps the uncircumcised are indeed spiritually impure heathens, to quote Merriam-Webster[[16]], but there certainly is no consensus here for that opinion, nor would it be appropriate to write the article from that point of view even if there was.

Also, the argument that there is an unchallengeable, static consensus is flawed. Typically it is used by those who favor the status quo, as in this case. Past decisions arrived at by consensus should be taken seriously, but they are not set in stone. Blackworm 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer something a little more concise, but I'm happy to go along with Avi's version. Jakew 10:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, great then we seem to have a majority consensus on the issue. Either I or someone else should feel free to post the new version within the next day. Jtpaladin 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done Avi. My thanks to everyone who participated in improving this part of the article. Jtpaladin 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also the matter of the AAP's recommendation that analgesia should always be used, which we have omitted here for some undiscussed reason. In fact, although the AMA, AAP, AAFP, CPS, and BMA all say essentially the same thing, the only mention of it in the article comes under "Australia," giving the impression that it is the exception rather than a general trend. Is the section a "biased misrepresentation" because it omits this information? Perhaps, but I'm satisfied with Jtpaladin's edit for now, in the interest of brevity. Blackworm 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I combined my thoughts with Avi's and added your concern in the section right above. Please check it out. Jtpaladin 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to revert this change, or at the very least mark this new section with {{Template:Totally-disputed-section}} until it can be improved. It contains multiple examples of unsourced, apparent original research and also seems to violate WP:NPOV. The second reference cited does not support the claim made, but only the claim of the previous sentence. Could someone bolder than I revert the change or mark it, please? I have also contacted the editor on his talk page and invited him to join the discussion. Blackworm 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(My reply to the specific issues raised) - The primary claim that Jewish Women have unusually low rates of cervical cancer is not (to my knowledge) disputed and my source was cited. The two possible explanations were sourced from that citation although I did give a personal (though reasoned) opinion as to the likelihood of each explanation. The secondary claim was that this effect was due to male circumcision in early infancy specifically, which is why I included the comparison with Moslem women. The comparison with Moslem women came from the same source, although that source did not make the explicit link between age at circumcision. The remarks about the rate of cervical cancer amongst Hispanic women in America and the number of deaths from cervical cancer was sourced from the second citation. I should add a citation for the rate of circumcision amongst American Hispanics, but that is shown elsewhere in the Wiki article and so I neglected to do this. I added the comment about the possible number of lives saved using simple math and did not realise that I needed to show my calculation. My closing comment on the ethics of surgery for another person's benefit was directly related to this topic and, while perhaps not as impersonal as an encyclopedia should be, nonetheless reflected an important aspect of this topic. There was no original research and everything I said was reasonably inferred from the sources I cited.SimonHolzman 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The section is entirely composed of original reasearch. I read the article cited, and it actually states that there is no conclusive link between cervical cancer and circumcision. I will delete the section. Zeus1234 06:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. At some point, however, I will attempt to rewrite it based on the ~183 sources returned by searching PubMed for "(circumcision OR circumcised OR uncircumcised) AND (cervical OR cervix)". Jakew 10:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(My reply to the discussion generally) - I added the section because there is strong circumstantial evidence that there is a relationship between male circumcision in early infancy and a decline in cervical cancer. I am not any sort of expert and I would support a revision of my edit that is more appropriately written. However, I do think that the topic deserves to be included in the overall article. The lack of conclusive evidence of a link does not mean that no link exists. Sexual history is notoriously hard to accurately research and this theoretical link is fundamentally tied to the sexual history of the women being studied. Unless an alternative explanation for why Jewish women tend to have such a low incidence of Cervical Cancer is proven, I think that this is a worthwhile aspect of the Male Circumcision debate. This is especially true since much of the overall male circumcision article is mildly opposed to the practice. SimonHolzman 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the lack of evidence of a link DOES mean no link exists, as far as we are concerned. There is no need to prove alternate explanations for why Jewish women have lower incidences of cervical cancer, if indeed they do -- to claim that circumcision is the reason in the absence of such evidence is simply bad science and bad logic. Also, I disagree that the "overall male circumcision article is mildly opposed to the practice." On the contrary, several editors here unabashedly take the point of view that circumcision is beneficial, painless, beautiful, unopposed by anyone sane, and so on; and make huge efforts to prevent any anti-circumcision point of view from entering the article, to the point where for example, the medical associations' policies are grossly misrepresented (possibly deliberately), and bizarre, fringe statements from circumcision advocates are enthusiastically mentioned and defended. Blackworm 07:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of a 'lack of evidence' is somewhat pointless. As it happens, several studies have found an association between women with uncircumcised husbands and cervical cancer. See, for example [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and [23] Jakew 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I cited a reliable source that stated that Jewish Women have a lower incidence of Cervical Cancer than other (sexually active) women. If you have sources that discredit this information, cite them. Otherwise you have to accept that this is a statement of fact. This then provides circumstantial evidence that there may be a link between male circumcision in early infancy and a decline in the rate of cervical cancer. No, this is not 100% guaranteed proof. But it IS valid evidence that there may be a link. This is at least as valid as any evidence that circumcision has any effect on sexual performance or pleasure and that is a topic that is covered in the main article.

You seem to think that the main article supports male circumcision, but I see no evidence of this. Certainly some editors support it and are probably just as biased as you claim, but there seem to be sufficient editors that oppose it (including yourself) to ensure a reasonable degree of balance. I do not think that my topic was inappropriate or either particularly supportive or otherwise. It raised an issue that should be considered in this subject, especially since HPV is already included.SimonHolzman 15:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're replying to, Simon. The indentation suggests that you're replying to me, but the content suggests otherwise. Do have a look at the links I provided above. Jakew 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed indentation ! I was replying to Blackworm.SimonHolzman 16:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Simon, your deducing the circumstantial evidence is called original research and is not allowed in articles. Your doing any kind of calculation, is original research, whether you show the calculation or not. You need to find someone else who makes those deductions and calculations and cite them. It seems Jakew has found some articles making that exact deduction -- I am sure that despite the medical community's general stance that there is no proven link to cervical cancer, and their recommendation against the procedure to prevent cervical cancer, and the ethical, dystopian issues of routinely cutting up healthy males to supposedly slightly protect females who choose of their own free will to have sex with uncircumcised men, Jakew will cherry pick sources and almost certainly write an article section that omits these details and praises circumcision, and which will please you both. Of course it too may not be included due to a lack of consensus. Blackworm 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as a matter of some urgency, Blackworm. Jakew 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel it was a personal attack, and uncivil. It was a failure to assume good faith, however. Your vigorous opposition to every single edit seen as negative to circumcision, and vigorous support for every single edit seen as positive, as well as your stated goal of taking precisely that position (on your user page), will give the impression of incorrigible bias. Given the unapologetic personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith I have endured here (to your silence), and one of your supporters (an administrator) essentially claiming it's okay not to assume good faith based on your opinion of the editor, I am starting to feel less motivated to assume good faith. If you and your supporters here wish to begin a clean slate with me and show that we can all respect policy and guideline as well as each other, I am willing to do so. But I will not endure personal attacks and bad faith assumptions claimed to be justified, while being gagged from responding in kind, apparently due to not having your correct point of view. Defend me from Jayjg's personal attacks or Avi's accusations of bad faith just once, Jake, and maybe this impression I have will turn around. Blackworm 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me please, you two... I suspect that there is some history here that would be better resolved with the aid of a professional therapist. In the meanwhile, can we return to the discussion of whether the possible impact of male circumcision (whether in early infancy or not) should be included in this article and, if so, what form the inclusion should have ?

FWIW, I suspect that you both have strongly held beliefs and have occasionally erred by killing the messenger rather than the message in the heat of the argument. However, I do not think that either of you have done this deliberately and I do not see any pattern of bad faith from either of you.

This whole subject is a matter of strong emotions and I personally think that the main article could do with a stronger emphasis on why it raises such stong emotions. Instead, it is a little bland and I think this does the topic a disservice. In my opinion, the reason for the strong emotions is because male circumcision is primarily a religious imperative for some people. Some people have opposed male circumcision on religious grounds and so, even those who oppose it for genuinely ethical reasons get tarred with the brush of bigotry. In a similar way, the people who defend male circumcision (being predominantly Jewish and Muslim, I suspect) feel that attacks on this practice are a veiled attack on their religions. Excluding the religious aspect of male circumcision, there does seem to be some benefits to the practice (certainly medical, but possibly also sexual), but there are also some risks (again, certainly medical and possibly also sexual). There is also the ethical dispute about whether surgery should be done on new-borns as a matter of routine. There really is no comparable issue that has the same religious and medical import, but the piercing of ears for young girls is the closest I can think of. This does have some medical risks and is often done to infants and yet does not raise anything like this level of conflict. Maybe we can learn something from that ?SimonHolzman 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Simon, I agree with almost everything you said. I prefer the word "harms" to "risks," since it is a more correct antonym to "benefits," and the word "risks" implies that most of the time there is no harm. You won't find the word "harms" in the article, nor any mention of the ethical dispute except confined to "genital integrity supporters," giving the impression of a fringe group. Piercing of ears is a analogy for some purposes, but ultimately fails on two grounds; it is entirely reversible, and it does not permanently cut away any tissue. The closest analogy is clitoridotomy, or removal of the clitoral hood, which is the homologous structure to the foreskin in females. It has been shown to protect against HIV infection, and is said to have sexual benefits. Adult women sometimes elect to have the procedure done. As I'm sure you know it is illegal to perform this procedure on newborns in the West, and there is violently strong public opposition to it or any other form of unnecessary genital modification on female children.

All that said, this apparently isn't the place to discuss these issues. Because of the issues you mention, this article is carefully guarded. Everything we say must have a reliable source. It is these sources and the accurate representation of them that we are concerned with here, not a meta-discussion of the issue itself or what the "right" view is. Generally discussion is confined to whether a source is reliable, relevant, and accurately represented. This gives those with a point of view on the subject three methods of injecting their views into the article: attack the reliability of the sources, claim irrelevance of material (see also WP:POV_fork), and give unbalanced and incorrect representations of the sources. There is evidence of all three failures of WP:NPOV policy in this article. Blackworm 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it is off-topic here, I won't go into detail about it, but your statement about HIV is incorrect. Let me know on my talk if you want to discuss. Jakew 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority of world's circumcised population is comprised of Moslems, and in this situation, it is hard to believe that Moslems circumcise their children despite the lack of any religious obligation, but that is the truth. The article is saying that circumcision is a "commandment" in Islam. According to Islamic theology, "commandments" are only those that are written in the holy book "Koran". It is very clear that "circumcision" is not even mentioned in the Koran. Some moslems who know this, base their deeds on a so-called "hadis" (sayings) from Mohammed. Yet it is arguable that this hadis they mean is really about circumcision, rather than "cleanliness". And one would expect more than one shaky hadis on such an important issue as this from Mohammed, but there isn't any other. This brings us to the conclusion that circumcision is not a "commandment" in Islam as it doesn't exist in the Koran, and moreover it is not "Islamic" as there are not enough "hadises" about it. I think a correct statement would be, "a procedure traditionalised among moslems". I propose to add this sentence to the article. Discussion of circumcision in Islam can be found in this Sami Aldeeb's web site; sami-aldeeb.com 85.96.220.4 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you by any chance cite some reliable sources to support your assertions? (Personal websites are not considered to be reliable.) Jakew 09:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a personal site, Sami Aldeeb is a scientist who has compiled all his works in this place. If you log in there you will find several articles dealing with the question. To my knowledge, there is no other scientist who took the matter in hand, which is not surprising because circumcision is not a question among Moslems now. They think they have more important matters to discuss. Besides, anyone who has read the Koran can tell you that there is no reference to circumcision there.

Islamic scholars have researched Islam and concluded that it is obligatory. Muslims who have not studied Islam in depth should follow them in Islamic issues. Kadhumia flo 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kadhuia, if you are a muslim, you know pretty well that no study is necessary to know what is commanment and what is not. Only things written in Kuran are commandments. So it is enough to read to Kuran to say what is commandment and what is not. Circumcision is clearly not mentioned in Kuran, if you are not going to distort words drastically to claim that a metaphor is used. Moreover, if you read the link I gave above, you will see that muslim scholars were not very interested in this issue, so there is not much one can find abut this issue reading muslim scholars studies.85.96.220.4 13:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any survey that shows what girls prefer: a circumcised or a non-circumcised? --134.155.99.41 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few: [24] [25] [26] [27] (note: the last has been criticised for recruiting women from an anti-circumcision mailing list). Jakew 11:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION OF ABOVE regarding Kristen O'Hara's Survey of Women Sexual Experienced with Both Circ and Uncirc Men. Excerpted from her book Sex As Nature Intended It (pp. 240, 263): HOW RESPONDENTS WERE RECRUITED: Classified ads were run in various publications (local and national) seeking women who have had experience with both types of men. Respondents were mailed a questionnaire to complete and return anonymously. Surveyed women were aware that their responses and comments could be used in a forthcoming book, though the title of the book was not mentioned....64 respondents (slightly over 45% of the 139 respondents) were solicited through an ad in an anti-circumcision newsletter. However, when their responses were compared with the other respondents, there were no significant differences. Furthermore, at no time were the sexual subjects of this book discussed in the aforementioned newsletter. In addition, I emphasize that virtually all the information contained herein [in the SANII book] concerning circumcision’s effects on adult sexuality is essentially new information and was virtually unknown to even the most avid anti-circumcisionist back in 1993, which is when these particular women took part in the survey (and incidentally, well before the popularity of the internet). Therefore, respondents could not have collaborated or merely repeat the thoughts they heard from others. The individuality of each respondent’s reporting is evidenced by the originality of their quoted comments throughout the book and at the end of this chapter. [submitted by JF O'Hara, 04 June 2007]

Shouldn't we mention this in the article? --134.155.99.41 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; the article's long enough already. It belongs in sexual effects of circumcision, if anywhere. Jakew 11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Any mention would have to be very careful to avoid cultural bias and include viewpoints from around the world. Opinions based on HIV prevention, such as in at least one of the links Jake presents, are one thing; but opinions on aesthetics are quite another. I question the appropriateness of including such material in the article. Imagine if someone suggested we include results of surveys of men's desired breast size and shape on the "breast" article, or men's preferred female pubic hair shaving practices. It would be branded as irrelevant, outrageous, sexist, and offensive. Similarly, it is just as inappropriate here. It is even more offensive to those who believe circumcision is mutilation -- to them, any woman's preference for the aesthetics of a circumcised penis is as offensive as a man's preference for female genitals which have been cut. Blackworm 04:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That needn't concern us here: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." WP:CENSORED Jakew 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the act (of including the material) that is offensive, not the material itself. It gives value to the idea that women's opinions on the subject are relevant. Would you support mention of surveys of the type I mention above in the articles? Do you believe such a thing would fly? How about a Maxim magazine survey of how many men like "fat chicks" mentioned in both the "obesity" and "anorexia" articles? Blackworm 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, what about what kind of penises men prefer in their sex partners? Joie de Vivre 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think much scholarly research has been done in that area, Joie. Jakew 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention this in the article? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11948269&dopt=Abstract and this site too sees avoidance of cervical cancer in female sexual partners as a reason to circumcise: http://www.med.nyu.edu/patientcare/library/article.html?ChunkIID=14792 --134.155.99.41 12:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest this text:

There is strong evidence that Jewish women have up to 70% fewer cases of Cervical Cancer than non-Jewish women.^[1] The two most likely reasons for this are that their that their Jewish genetic history confers some sort of protection or that their sexual partners are likely to have been circumcised. Since this reduced incidence affects all Jewish women, whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic or Mizrahi, it seems unlikely that it is purely genetic. Their strongest common factor is that all Jewish men are circumcised and this therefore is a more likely explanation. This seems to apply even when compared with Moslem women who can be expected to also have predominently circumcised sexual partners and to have relatively few sexual partners. Therefore, since all Jewish men are circumcised at 8 days, while Moslem men may be circumcised at any age up to 13 years, there are suggestions that this protection only applies to circumcisions performed in early infancy. In America, the incidence of Cervical Cancer is considerably higher amongst Hispanics than among Whites. Since Hispanics are least likely to have their boys circumcised near birth, this provides additional evidence of this protection.^[2] Half of women affected by Cervical Cancer die from it and there are roughly 4,600 deaths in America alone each year. --Validside 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Would anybody be so kind? Thank you. --Validside 16:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We should add this: "Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings. The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%. The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention." You can read it here: http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf --Validside 10:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't cut out appendices in order to prevent possible future diseases. Besides, there are better & more humane ways to prevent HIV, like using condoms, improving healthcare standards and education. - G3, 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An appendectomy is a surgery, a circumcision is not, see discussion about the video below. --Validside 12:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Male genital cutting is *very* much a surgery - For an example it's listed as such in the surgery page of wikipedia. Secondly if you do it with less than hygienic tools you can end up with a dead patient. -G3, 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Same can happen to you piercing an earlobe. Is this surgery, too? --Validside 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need education or training in order to pierce your earlobe. Surgery article has a nice list of common surgeries, including appendicectomy and circumcision - of those surgeries only male genital mutilation is done without acute medical reason. -G3, 21:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you need education or training to be an obstetrician/midwife? Is giving birth a surgery? Today you give birth in an hospital. Nevertheless I was born at home and the midwife was the neighbour. Its all a matter of perspective. To me circumcision is definitely not a surgery and I would dare to do this without any hesitiation myself to my sons, I see this as a paternal duty. Nobody can stop me fulfilling this duty. Nobody can force me to be a barbarian letting my sons uncircumcised. --Validside 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Referring to people who are uncircumcized as "barbarians" is a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:EQ. Your comments are completely irrelevant and have no impact on improving the article. And, yes, circumcision is in fact considered surgery. Just because you have no problem in cutting a piece of your son's penis off does not mean you have the right to perform it any time and under and conditions you choose. That is, if you have no problem being arrested for performing an illegal act and quite possibly putting your son's life in danger. A circumcision can only be legally performed by someone who has been trained to do so, like a doctor or a mohel.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=llxSytDu0ek At this video you can see that really everybody can do circumcision at home and that it really is no surgery. Otherwise this company would not dare to promote this tool for home users. --Validside 05:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The WHO recommend that circumcision be part of HIV prevention programmes in addition to condoms, education, etc. Jakew 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true. As a result of some limited studies conducted in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa, the WHO has made this recommendation. However, lifestyles, hygeine, and other factors in Africa have little to no relevance to lifestyles, hygeine, and other factors in the U.S. and the West in general. This recommendation should be ignored by people in the West as being pretty much non-applicable. Jtpaladin 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Source? Jakew 18:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, you are not aware of the differences of hygiene and sexual practices between people from the West and Africans?

Here are some other opinions that are more relevant than the WHO:

• "The prepuce ... may actually provide a physical or immunological barrier against infection. That theory is born out by a new study from the U.S. Army ... [which] found that circumcised males were 1.65 times as likely to have the most common sexually transmitted disease there is, Chlamydia." (Dean Edell, MD, San Francisco Chronicle, June 17, 1987)

• "Several new studies have shown that circumcised males are at higher risk for developing genital warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, non-gonococcal urethritis, and HIV infection." (Robert S. Van Howe, MD, Letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Nov. 17, 1995)

• "Other venereal diseases that do not cause ulcers but often cause inflammation, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia, also appear to increase the risk of AIDS infection." ("Host of factors help spread virus," New York Times Service, The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Sept. 17, 1990) [Source unconfirmed]

• "[M]ale circumcision is widespread in sub-Sahara Africa and is performed in many of the areas where AIDS has been identified. As with the investigation of any postulated risk factor for AIDS, well controlled epidemiologic studies should also address the issue of male circumcision." (Letter from Jack A. DeHovitz, MD [Assistant Medical Director, Spellman AIDS Program, St. Clare's Hospital, NY], New York State Journal of Medicine, August 1986)

• "[T]he data also show a somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis, and scabies in the circumcised men ... examination of large numbers of healthy [circumcised] men in both military and civilian circumstances discloses a very substantial incidence of persistent suture holes, microsinuses, skin tabs and bridging, and irregular scarring--all subject to abrasion and the accumulation of moist debris." (Letter from John G. Swadey, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 11, 1987)

• "It is equally plausible that the AIDS virus enters the active male partner, involved in vaginal or anal sex, through the fragile columnal cells lining the urethra. Circumcision removes the protection normally provided by the foreskin, thus predisposing the [circumcised] penis to meatal ulceration and subsequent meatal stenosis ... One could extrapolate his [Dr. Fink's] hypothesis to suggest that the absence of circumcision [i.e., the presence of a foreskin] may actually protect against transmission of AIDS by protecting the urethral mucosa." (Letter from Robert W. Enzenauer, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 11, 1987)

• "[B]y the end of the second week [after circumcision] about 75% of my sensitivity was gone ... my glans ... [now] requires greater pressure to achieve orgasm ... Concerning anal sex, I was never big on it ... now I seek it constantly; it is, in a way, a longing for the protective sheath I have lost--along with its moisture and warmth." ("Circumcision: Prime Cut," by George Desantis, QQ Magazine, March/April 1976)

• "[S]ince both circumcision and condoms reduce sexual sensitivity ... routine circumcision may have helped set this country up for the AIDS epidemic by increasing the natural resistance to using condoms ... by depriving men of full sexual sensation, they [circumcisers] might actually be encouraging the very forms of sexual relating that are most risky -- unprotected anal and vaginal intercourse." (Circumcision: What It Does, by Billy Ray Boyd, Taterhill Press, San Francisco, 1990)

• "The only reason I'm gay is that I was circumcised when I was a baby. I feel deprived. It's only with an uncircumcised man that I can have a foreskin." (" Feelings Too Violent to Describe -- Some Statements About Circumcision by Circumcised Men," Making America Safe for Foreskins, by John A. Erickson) [Circumcision didn't "protect" the man who made this statement from AIDS. He died February 24, 1990, in New Orleans -- of AIDS.]

• "With intravaginal containment of the normal penis, the male's mobile sheath is placed within the woman's vaginal sheath. It is impossible to imagine a better mechanical arrangement for non-abrasive stimulation of the male and female genitalia than this slick sheath within a sheath. Circumcision destroys this one sheath within a sheath ... I would hazard a guess, that dyspareunia [painful intercourse] is more common in the women whose husband is circumcised ... one would be foolish to discount the circumcised male's immobile penile skin sheath as an ancillary item contributing to vaginal, abrasive discomfort ... The male with a penis already moderately obtunded by circumcision may be less apt to use a condom, which he feels may further decrease his genital sensitivity ... because most American males lack a facile prepuce, the period of foreplay and dalliance may be abbreviated in the rush to the intra-vaginal method of penile stimulation. Both these factors conceivably could be of significance in increasing the rate of venereal disease, including AIDS." (Say No to Circumcision! 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Leave Your Son Whole [manuscript], by Thomas A. Ritter, MD, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992)

• "We can also wonder whether circumcision, so frequent in the United States, is not a factor which, since it brings about the erosion of the ano-rectal mucous during sodomy, would contribute to the transmission of the H.I.V. virus -- since we know that tegumentary breaks are the favored points of entry for this virus." (Medical Treatment of Congenital Phimosis in the Adolescent, by Doctor Michel Beauge Quimper, Faculty of Medicine, St. Antoine University, Paris, 1990-1991. Privately printed.)

• "Intercourse with a circumcised man and intercourse with an uncircumcised man are two entirely different experiences. I can always tell from the feeling alone whether or not a man is circumcised. Circumcised men take longer to ejaculate. They have to work at it." (From a conversation with a prostitute)

• "That little operation [the circumcision of her boyfriend] completely destroyed our life together ... sex became very painful for me. Twice I had to see a doctor due to minor infections from chafing. Our beautiful sexual togetherness became a nightmare of staying creams, lubricants, and frustrations." (Letter from Carolyn LaRoc, Playgirl, Feb. 1975)

• "[T]he AIDS virus is transmitted ... during a sexual encounter violent enough to open a blood channel, either through mucous membranes or broken skin." ("AIDS," by John Langone, Discover, Dec. 1985)

One last thing to keep in mind is that the United States has one of the highest male circumcision rates and one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world. The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta (1-800-342-AIDS) reports that as of June 1997, more than 612,000 cases of AIDS and more than 379,000 AIDS-related deaths had been reported in the U.S., that between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans were estimated to be infected with the virus, and that AIDS was the second leading cause of deaths among Americans between 25 and 44. Jtpaladin 18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
2. Plagiarism and, especially, copyright violations, are frowned upon. The above bullet points, including editorial comments, were copied verbatim from a website. Jakew 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, I suggest you remove your blatant copyright violations and plagiarism, and in the future avoid taking material from extremist websites. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617

Enjoy the barbarism. -G3, 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The last sentece of the Doctor in this video is: „And theres no bleeding and all we do is put a little bit of vaseline on it.“ Tell me, do you know any other surgery that does not need the wound to be sewed up in order to stop bleeding? All in all this is no surgery in my eyes. --Validside 12:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC) BTW: Isn't it more barbaric to expose your son to penile cancer, which 1 of 600 of non-circumcised will get? See here: http://www.circs.org/library/kochen/index.html

You feel that sewing up is what makes surgery surgery? 140.147.160.78 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

You, my friend, disgust me - We don't slice parts of defenceless humans up because there's a chance of a disease happening in or after 60 years, we don't do it to appenix, we don't do it to tonsils, we don't do it to breasts. Secondly the occurrence of aforementioned cancer is 1:100,000..Infact you have to do over 900 male genital cuttings in order to be likely to avoid a single - usually non terminal - cancer later in life (usually after 50-60 years). Thirdly, there are plenty of functions with the 'bit of meat' that is removed by male genital cutting. -G3, 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am really glad not to be a son of such an irresponsible person who seems not to care about the danger (phimosis, penile cancer, HIV, HPV,...) and disadvantages (smegma, hygiene) of not being circumcised. And about the preemtive amputations see what I wrote below. --Validside 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC) BTW: Your calculation affirms me because the lethality of circumcision is 1 to 500.000, that means that about only 2 persons die in one year in the USA, much less than about penile cancer, not to mention HIV, phimosis, etc.

But wouldn't you then have the option of having it done yourself? I mean if your parents had been so irresponsible as not to have it done for you in infancy? Or responsible enough to let you choose for yourself? 140.147.160.78 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

People, this page isn't for debating the subject matter, but for discussing how to improve the article. There are plenty of places for debating circumcision itself -- USENET, for example. Jakew 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't start, I just answered. --Validside 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I put that video up because it's something I'd like to see added to the article: It's an accurate, documentative and informative depiction of the procedure.

From the description of the video: This video is provided here as an educational resource for healthcare professionals and parents/guardians who are interested in learning more about what circumcision entails. Actual surgery on a baby done by a doctor in a hospital is shown, so viewer discretion is advised.'

- G3, 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the video. But I'm sure lots of people with axes to grind and with agenda promote their propaganda as educational. I'm not saying the video isn't--just suggesting that the fact that they say it is proves nothing. 140.147.160.78 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Must... resist... urge... to quote... prostate... and breast... cancer... statistics!!! Must... not... question... preemptive... amputation... of body parts... as theraputic!!! Joie de Vivre 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to look what you gain and what you lose - thats why WHO recommends circumcision. In a circumcision you gain more than you lose. In a preemtpive amputation of your prostate or your breast you lose more than you gain, thats simple. --Validside 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an opinion, one which many do not share. Joie de Vivre 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The WHO recommends circumcision based on studies conducted in Africa. If you live a life similiar to the average African then feel free to cut your penis. But Western countries do not share hygiene, sex practices, etc. in which Africans engage. As we have been recently discussing, the AAP does not recommend routine neonatal circumcision even though there may be potential benefits. There are also risks associated with the procedure. In the end, on a human rights level, who has the right to cut away the healthy skin of another human being without their consent? No one. As for religious arguments, Jewish people perform neonatal circumcision and claim that barring them from doing so is a violation of their religious beliefs. But as we all know, there are many laws from the Torah that Jews no longer follow or have modified as time has gone on. Would it be a huge problem if Jewish people would move circumcision from the neonatal process it is today to when the child undergoes Bar Mitzvah? That way, at least the process of circumcision would be a decision shared by all concerned. Jtpaladin 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The gains of male genital mutilation are utterly neglible in Western world where personal hygiene, health care and education are at a high level. The losses on the other hand are not: Mutilating and tormenting a defenceless baby because of gender & (often) religion is atrocious and also causes permanent and irrevocable damage (I esp. like 5, 17 & most importantly 20 - If you've been unwillingly - without consent - mutilated you've not had the chance to experience life as a complete human being). -G3, 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very entertaining. Please review WP:SOAP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Jakew 22:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. :P Joie de Vivre 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am modifying the introduction to include the policy statements of the major western medical organizations.

Edwardsville 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added statements from the major medical associations to the introduction. They were all cited. They have just been removed by Jakew. How do I contest vandalism?

Edwardsville 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How can the mere mention of Sorrells' study and its conclusion be classed as 'undue weight'? This strikes me as an abuse of the Wiki rules for ideological reasons. For this reason I have reversed the deletion of this information. Michael Glass 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, there are five or six primary sources that investigate circumcision and sensitivity, and to cite only one of those gives undue weight to that source. In other words, it gives preferential treatment to one viewpoint.

To approach the subject neutrally, there are two choices:

1. To include discussion of Sorrells in addition to the other studies, or
2. To exclude Sorrells and the other studies, including only literature reviews which themselves summarise the literature.

Superficially, the first might seem appealing. However, the problem is that this full discussion is already included in Wikipedia, in the article sexual effects of circumcision. We link to this article at the start of the section.

More accurately, then, the choices are:

1. Effectively duplicate the contents of one article in another article, which causes maintainance headaches and gives the reader no more information than the Wikilink did in the first place, or
2. Summarise literature reviews and include a Wikilink to the main article in which primary sources are discussed in depth.

The second is the obvious choice. Jakew 12:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jake, your argument about including only the summaries is inconsistent with the present contents of the section. This refers to three studies: Masters & Johnstone, Bensley & Boyle, and Laumann (indirectly). The latest summary was published in January 2007, and thus does not account for the findings of the Sorrells study. As the Sorrells study is the very latest finding in the field it strikes me as perverse to remove any mention of it from the article as the summaries cannot address Sorrells' findings. Michael Glass 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael, as you note, the references to these studies are indirect: they are mentioned only because they are directly cited by the quoted sources.

As for timing, you're quite correct. The reviews included pre-date Sorrells, as well as a couple of other, more recent articles that you apparently overlook. But having said that, there is no guarantee that reviews will discuss every available source at the time of publication anyway. Ultimately, in including a review instead of detailed discussion, we pass responsibility for selection of relevant and important material to the authors of that review. (To avoid POV issues, we include more than one review.) But since we cover the subject in depth elsewhere, our purpose here is not to be comprehensive, but to provide an NPOV summary. Jakew 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jakew ... several of the the "five or six primary sources that investigate circumcision and sensitivity" are treated in the Sorrells et al study. Regardless, which sensitivity studies do you insist be included in a paragraph also covering Sorrells?TipPt 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Most can be found in sexual effects of circumcision, Tip. Jakew 10:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ethical Issues section mentions that some people maintain that circumcision has health benefits, but does not mention that other people maintain that it does not. Since those that deny that there is evidence that circumcision has health benefits includes every single national pediatric and medical association in the western world that has expressed an opinion on the issue, that is an incredibly important ommission. There IS a medical consensus on the health benefits of circumcision and it is that we do not have evidence indicating that there are health benefits (at least, not in western countries where contraception is available - there are some grounds for believing that it might have benefits in the third word). It isn't right to note that some claim that there are health benefits without mentioning that the medical consensus runs the other way. It would be like noting that some biologists believe that there is evidence for special creation instead of evolution while failing to mention that the consensus among biologists is the exact opposite. It isn't a lie, but nor is it a balanced account of the state of the debate. The article ought to state clearly that the dominant view is that we don't have evidence of health benefits.

Furthermore, the article should quote the positions of the various medical societies medical societies in English-Speaking Countries regarding circumcision

http://www.canadiancrc.com/circumcision/circumcision_medical_opinions.htm

Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries

2003 British Medical Association The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. . . . Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child's interests. . . . The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply ith a request to circumcise a child.

2002 Royal Australasian College of Physicians After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision. 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. . . . 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.

2002 Canadian Paediatric Society (reaffirmed 1996 position) Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.

2000 American Medical Association The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

1999 American Academy of Pediatrics Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

1996 Australian College of Paediatrics The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].

1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce [foreskin]....The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that State parties should take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edwardsville (talk • contribs). Edwardsville 05:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these (cherry-picked) quotations supports your assertion that these organisations state "that we do not have evidence indicating that there are health benefits". Indeed, one of your own selected quotations (AAP 1999) flatly contradicts it. Jakew 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you conclude that none of the quotes support the view that we do not have evidence indicating that there are health benefits when they state such things as that "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision", and that "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure"?

You also say that these quotes are "cherry-picked". What are you suggesting? a. That I have chosen quotes stating that the organizations don't recommend circumcision, or recommend against circumcision, when in fact the organizations contradict themselves and elsewhere offer quotes stating that they do recommend circumcision? or b. That I am only quoting national medical organizations that say that they don't recommend circumcision, or that say that they recommend against circumcision, when in fact there are other equally presitgious national medical associations that do recommend circumcision?

Neither claim a. nor claim b. would be plausible. However, if you have evidence of either, please offer it. If you think these quotes do not reflect the views of the major medical associations of the western world, then please present some quotes from major medical associations that state that circumcision ought to be performed.

The AAP (1999) statement in no way contradicts the claim I made. It says that there are potential health benefits. A potential health benefit is not a health benefit. To say that there are potential health benefits just means that there could be health benefits for all we know. If we had evidence that circumcision was beneficial to health, the statement would say that circumcision is beneficial. Note that the AAP used to claim that circumcision is beneficial, but now speaks only of "potential benefits", which makes it impossible to construe "potential benefits" as meaning "benefits". Indeed, the AAP now classifies routine circumcision as a "non-theraputic", cosmetic procedure.

That being said, I did conflate two points above and they deserve to be disentangled. One is that not a single medical association in the western world states that there are medical grounds for circumcision while some state clearly that there are no medical grounds for circumcision. The second is that not a single medical association in the western world recommends routine circumcision and that many say that it should not be performed. The first point deals purely with medical issues and the second with both medical and moral issues. I conflated these on the assumption that if a national medical association did not recommend circumcision, or recommended against it, that this must reflect their view that it is not medically beneficial. Of course, while this is probably true, it doesn't necessarily have to be true - it is possible that a national medical association could think that circumcision has medical benefit but is so abhorant on non-medical moral grounds that it ought not to be performed.

All of the quotes I offered directly support the second point (that not a single national medical association in the western world recommends circumcision and many recommend against it) and the article should reflect this consensus. The article does note that some national medical associations don't recommend routine circumcision, but fails to note that the attitude is universal in the west and fails to mention that many of these organizations say that routine circumcision should not be performed. Moreover, and more specifically, it does not mention in the ethics section that no national medical association recommends the procedure and that many of them recommend against it, having weighed up the medical facts and moral issues - a fact that is surely relevent to the question of whether it is ethical to perform the procedure.

As for the first point, that not a single national medical association in the western world states that circumcision has medical benefits that outweigh the harms, that is proven by the fact that such a recommendation is impossible to find. If you can find one, cite it. (Also, as pointed out above, some of the quotes offered above directly state that there are no medical grounds for performing circumcicion).

As the ethics section is written, the claim that there are medical benefits is simply pitted against the claims that circumcision is a human rights violation and sexual assault, as if there is no corresponding claim that circumcision is not medically beneficial, or even medically harmful. This would be inappropriate even if half the medical associations in the world did say that there was medical benefit outweighing the harm and half didn't, but is even more grossly imbalanced when not a single national medical association claims that there is benefit outweighing the harm, while others clearly state that there is no such benefit.

The article needs to reflect both of these things in the Ethics section, then. That is, to repeat, that 1. Not a single national medical association in the western world says that we have evidence of health benefits that outweigh the harms. 2. That not a single national medical association in the western world recommends routine circumcision and that many of them recommend against it.

Also, the ethics section clearly needs to mention the child's pain as an ethical issue.

Edwardsville 07:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"How can you conclude that none of the quotes support the view that we do not have evidence indicating that there are health benefits when they state such things as that "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision", and that "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure"?" Because the statements refer to different concepts.

"You also say that these quotes are "cherry-picked". What are you suggesting?" That the quotes represent the most negative, rather than representative, parts of the text of each statement.

"The AAP (1999) statement in no way contradicts the claim I made. It says that there are potential health benefits. A potential health benefit is not a health benefit." I assume you can back up this claim with reliable sources.

"Note that the AAP used to claim that circumcision is beneficial" I believe you're mistaken. The 1989 statement stated "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks," and earlier statements made no reference. Jakew 10:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that the statements "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure" refer to different concepts than that we have no evidence indication that there are health benefits. That just doesn't seem plausible to me, which makes me think I misunderstand you. Please explain exactly what you mean. Please tell me how you understand these three statements such that they are compatible. How could there be "no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure", while at the same time evidence that circumcicion has health benefits? Is your objection that we might state that something has health benefits while at the same time accepting that those benefits are outweighed by the associated harms? That wasn't an issue that bothered you in your interpretation of the AAP statement when you understood "benefit" as meaning "overall benefit", but fine - the article could say that no national medical assocation finds that there are health benefits outweighing the harms and some specifically state that the benefits don't outweigh the harms.

Presenting quotes from the official policy statements of the major national medical associations demonstrating that each of the organizations does not recommend circumcision or recommends against circumcision is not cherry picking. It is presenting their conclusions. Presenting a conclusion without presenting all of the evidence considered before arriving at the conclusion is not "cherry-picking" - it is presenting the conclusion. "Cherry-picking" would be if they elsewhere arrived at contradictory conclusions and I didn't mention them, or if there were national medical associations whose who said that circumcision had benfits outweighing the harms, or who recommended circumcision, and I didn't include that in the list. If you can find evidence of either of those things, that would be significant.

I am not going to debate with you whether the word "potential" has a meaning. You are interpreting the AAP statement in such a way that the meaning would be the same with or without the word "potential". The phrase "potential healh benefit" does not mean "health benefit" I'll find the pre 1989 AAP statements later. I have to go to work.

Edwardsville 14:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"You say that the statements "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure" refer to different concepts than that we have no evidence indication that there are health benefits. That just doesn't seem plausible to me, which makes me think I misunderstand you. Please explain exactly what you mean. Please tell me how you understand these three statements such that they are compatible."

First of all, I should point out that there is no reason to assume that sentences from statements of different organisations are necessarily compatible.

Second, I should point out that all we actually know about the policies is what they explicitly say. Any attempt to interpret the meaning risks possible inaccuracy. Furthermore, it violates Wikipedia policy.

Having made these points, let me address your question. Firstly, does "there is no indication for doing X as a matter of routine" imply that "doing X has no benefit"? For example, does "there is no indication for routinely eating salad" imply that "eating salad has no benefit"? Your interpretation of the two as equivalent seems questionable.

Second, you mistake a relative statement ("there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure") for an absolute one ("there is no evidence of benefit"). Does "a Ferrari is more expensive than a Ford" imply that "a Ford is free"? Again, your interpretation of the two as equivalent seems questionable. (Interestingly, you later interpret this as meaning that "those benefits are outweighed by the associated harms", though logically not(x>y) does not mean x<y.)

"That wasn't an issue that bothered you in your interpretation of the AAP statement when you understood "benefit" as meaning "overall benefit"," I haven't stated such an interpretation - it's best to avoid interpreting for reasons discussed above.

"but fine - the article could say that no national medical assocation finds that there are health benefits outweighing the harms and some specifically state that the benefits don't outweigh the harms." No, it couldn't, at least not without a reliable source to back up the assertion.

"Presenting quotes from the official policy statements of the major national medical associations demonstrating that each of the organizations does not recommend circumcision or recommends against circumcision is not cherry picking. It is presenting their conclusions." Except that you didn't quote their entire conclusions, only extracts thereof which happened to be negative. Some extracts weren't even from their conclusions.

You might find the following helpful. It is an extract from the AAP's "Circumcision Information for Parents":

"Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social and cultural reasons. Since circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks."[28] Jakew 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I, Edwardsville, accidentally removed Jakew's signature at this point in the article, fow which I apologize. The comments above are his. The comments below are mine.

First of all, I should point out that there is no reason to assume that sentences from statements of different organisations are necessarily compatible.

If they disagree, then fine, the article can note that. And indeed, some merely say that they don't recommend the procedure while other specifically say that they recommend against it and that there is no evidence of benfits outweighing the harms. Pointing out the logical possibility of disagreement is not evidence of disagreement.

Second, I should point out that all we actually know about the policies is what they explicitly say. Any attempt to interpret the meaning risks possible inaccuracy. Furthermore, it violates Wikipedia policy.

Right. Now tell me how "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure" are not explicit rejections of the view that there is evidence of benefit outweighing harm. I keep asking you how you can possibly interpret these claims in a way that makes them compatible with he claim that there there is evidence of the benefits of circumcision outweighing the harm, but you don't answer. At least one of us is interpreting their claims in ways that the claims don't support, but I don't think it is me.

Having made these points, let me address your question. Firstly, does "there is no indication for doing X as a matter of routine" imply that "doing X has no benefit"? For example, does "there is no indication for routinely eating salad" imply that "eating salad has no benefit"? Your interpretation of the two as equivalent seems questionable.

Please explain how a medical organization could say that "There is no medical indication for routinely eating salad" and at the same time also say "eating salid has no benefit". What possible circumstances could justify that pair of claims?

Second, you mistake a relative statement ("there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure") for an absolute one ("there is no evidence of benefit").

I am indeed assuming that they are talking about overall benefit, since saying "X is beneficial" when X has harms that outweigh the benefits would be surreal. But as I said above, I would be happy for the article to say "no evidence of benefit outweighing harm" rather than "no evidence of benefit".

"That wasn't an issue that bothered you in your interpretation of the AAP statement when you understood "benefit" as meaning "overall benefit"," I haven't stated such an interpretation - it's best to avoid interpreting for reasons discussed above.

Do you or do you not interpret the AAP claim as saying that there is evidence of benefit outweighing harms? If you think the talk of benefit does not refer to overall benefit, then the claim becomes irrelevant - we already know that circumcision can have positive results and that circumcision can have negative results. The interesting question is where the balance lies. If you want to say that the AAP claim does not refer to the overall balance, then the AAP claim becomes meaningless.

"but fine - the article could say that no national medical assocation finds that there are health benefits outweighing the harms and some specifically state that the benefits don't outweigh the harms." No, it couldn't, at least not without a reliable source to back up the assertion.

I showed you the quotes. I am still waiting for your explanation as to how "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure" fails to incidate a belief that there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure.

Can you find even a single quote for a national medical association that states that they recommend the procedure? Look for yourself, but you can't.

Honestly, though, I would be happy if the article simply provided a list containing three headings

National Medical Associations that say they don't recommend the procedure.

National Medical Associations that say they recommend against the procedure.

National Medical Associations that say they recommend the procedure.

We could then add medical associations to each of these three lists, along with the relevant quotes from their policy statements.

Except that you didn't quote their entire conclusions, only extracts thereof which happened to be negative. Some extracts weren't even from their conclusions.

Yes, I did present their entire ultimate conclusions as regards to whether they recommend the procedure, don't recommend the procedure, or recomend against the procedure. What I didn't list was all the evidence they cited on both sides before coming to that conclusion. But that is not necessary before cutting to the chase and stating the conclusions. If it were, then no wikipedia article would pass muster. If I state that the American Medical Association says that smoking cigarettes is hazardous to your health, without listing every piece of evidence they considered in coming to that conclusion, that isn't cherry-picking. That's presenting the conclusions of the American Medical Association. Cherry-picking would require that I ignore claims by the AMA that smoking cigarettes is not harmful to your health, or that I ignore claims by equally prestigious national medical associations claiming that smoking cigarettes is not harmful to your health.

Not presenting the conclusions of the west's major medical associations as to whether they recommend, do not recommend, or recommend against circumcision is clearly failing to provide vital information.

You might find the following helpful. It is an extract from the AAP's "Circumcision Information for Parents":

"Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Parents may want their sons circumcised for religious, social and cultural reasons. Since circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks."[29]

You are cherry-picking. Here is the AAP website from which your quote comes [30]. It says that there may be some medical benefits and also that there are some medical risks. You mention the one but fail to mention the other. Nowhere does the policy statment say that the benefits outweigh the risks. All it says, having weighed both, is that it doesn't recommend the procedure. This is not a case where we can plausibly insist that "benefits" means overall benefits because they list benefits and risks separately.

Now, what do you say about the policy statements of all the other national medical associations in the west? I still haven't heard about that. Above all, I am still waiting to hear how you don't construe "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure" as failing to imply that we have no evidence indicating that the benfits of routine circumcision outweigh the harm. You certainly can't intend to say that you accept that it applies to "routine circumcision" but not to "circumcision", since the entire debate is about routine circumcision. Nobody is denying that there are circumstances in which the foreskin should be removed for health reasons - the question at hand is whether it should be done to a baby who has no particular medical problems with his foreskin.

Edwardsville 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"I keep asking you how you can possibly interpret these claims in a way that makes them compatible with he claim that there there is evidence of the benefits of circumcision outweighing the harm, but you don't answer." Indeed, I don't. I have shown that your interpretation relies upon questionable assumptions, but I do not intend to offer an alternative interpretation because, as I have mentioned previously, Wikipedia policy prohibits interpretation of sources.

"Please explain how a medical organization could say that "There is no medical indication for routinely eating salad" and at the same time also say "eating salid has no benefit". What possible circumstances could justify that pair of claims?" I'm afraid I don't understand.

"I am indeed assuming that they are talking about overall benefit, since saying "X is beneficial" when X has harms that outweigh the benefits would be surreal." Perhaps, though it might be less surreal if the benefits and harms were judged to be evenly matched.

"Do you or do you not interpret the AAP claim as saying that there is evidence of benefit outweighing harms?" They state that "Since circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks."

"I showed you the quotes." None of which referred to "no national medical assocation".

"Honestly, though, I would be happy if the article simply provided a list containing three headings" Then I suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat.

"Yes, I did present their entire ultimate conclusions as regards to whether they recommend the procedure, don't recommend the procedure, or recomend against the procedure." No, you did not. In the case of the AAP, for example, you selected only the first sentence of their summary and recommendations. In the case of the RACP and BMA, you included arbitrary selections of text.

"You are cherry-picking. Here is the AAP website from which your quote comes [31]. It says that there may be some medical benefits and also that there are some medical risks. You mention the one but fail to mention the other." I suggest you read the above quote again, paying particular attention to the last few words.

"Nowhere does the policy statment say that the benefits outweigh the risks." I didn't say that it did.

"All it says, having weighed both, is that it doesn't recommend the procedure." No, it says that they do not recommend the procedure for "all infant boys". It further says that, in the case of individual boys, "parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks". Jakew 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that in an article which parents are likely to consult when considering whether to have their son circumcised, the article should reflect the positions of the various western national medical associations. It fails to do this.

Just as a sampling:

The article states that "The American Medical Association supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.[9]". However, it does not mention that the American Medical Association states that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." [32]

The article says that "The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted Circumcision: Information for Parents in November of 2004,[153] and Neonatal circumcision revisited statements in 1996, undergoing revision as of 2004 in which, due to the evenly balanced reasons pro and con, they do not recommend routine circumcision.[154]"

but does not mention that the Canadian Pediatric Society policy is that circumcision should not be routinely performed. [33]

There is no mention that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba's policy states that "the degree of benefit is small and does not support a decision to circumcise neonates." [34]

The article does not mention that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan strongly cautions against routine circumcision [35]

The article does not mention that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC} strongly cautions physicians against the performance of unnecessary elective non-therapeutic circumcision of a child [36]

The section on the United Kingdom states "As of June of 2006, the British Medical Association's position was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision,” stating that as a general rule, it “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.”[155]"

but does not mention that the journal of the British Medical Association has published two editorials on the topic of routine circumcision, both saying that it ought not to be performed [37][38]

The article does not mention that [39] the six major medical societies of Australasia developed a unified position statement on male circumcision. All six medical societies (the RACP, Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Urological Society of Australasia, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and Paediatric Society of New Zealand) have now corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society, declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed.

The article does not mention The Paediatric Society of New Zealand and the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons' independent statement that routine circumcision ought not to be performed. [40]

This is not exhaustive, but you get my point.

For the article to fail to mention such things in its section on "Policies of various national medical associations" is for the article to fail to be balanced.

Edwardsville 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

" Indeed, I don't. I have shown that your interpretation relies upon questionable assumptions, but I do not intend to offer an alternative interpretation because, as I have mentioned previously, Wikipedia policy prohibits interpretation of sources.

You have done no such thing. You have made claims such as that the claims "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure" are not rejections of the view that there is evidence of benefit outweighing harm for routine circumcision. That requires justification and you have offered none. It isn't that you have offered bad arguments - you simply haven't offered any. Yet if the implication really isn't there, offering a counter-example should be incredibly easy for you to do. All you would have to do is to show how something could have medical benefits that outweigh the harms without being medically indicated, and show how there could be no evidence of benefit outweighing the harm for some procedure while at the same time there is evidence of benefit outweighing the harm for that procedure.

"Please explain how a medical organization could say that "There is no medical indication for routinely eating salad" and at the same time also say "eating salad has no benefit". What possible circumstances could justify that pair of claims?" I'm afraid I don't understand.

You suggested that the position that "there is no medical indication for routinely performing circumcision" is not equivalent to the claim that "circumcision has no medical benefit". You offered eating salad as an analogy, claiming that "there is no medical indication for routinely eating salad" does not imply "eating salad had no medical benefit". But obviously, in the contect of a discussion about giving salad to children in the absense of specific medical medical reasons for giving it to a particular child, that is exactly what it implies. Imagine a doctor saying "there is no medical indication for giving salad to children in general, but there is medical benefit to giving salad to children in general". It would be a nonsense claim.

"Yes, I did present their entire ultimate conclusions as regards to whether they recommend the procedure, don't recommend the procedure, or recomend against the procedure." No, you did not.

Then you can show me what part of their statement as to whether they recommend the procedure, don't recommend the procedure, or recommend against the procedure has been left out.

"All it says, having weighed both, is that it doesn't recommend the procedure." No, it says that they do not recommend the procedure for "all infant boys".

You are attacking a straw man. Neither the policy statement nor the Wikipedia article is about the question of whether circumcision can possibly be of medical value for particular children with specific medical problems. Everyone knows it can - a child's foreskin might be badly infected for example. The entire debate is about whether it should be performed in absense of particular medical need.

Edwardsville 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that circumcision provides medical benefits, and the evidence today is stronger than ever. The question, however, is whether or not those benefits outweigh the risks associated with the procedure. There are risks involved, though these are very small, and when done by a competent practitioner, essentially nil. Regardless, most medical association positions state that the real benefits associated with circumcision do not outweigh the possible risks.

Your analogy with smoking is faulty; there are no medical benefits of smoking, and there are serious proven harms caused by it. This is in sharp contrast with circumcision, where the "harms" associated with the procedure (aside from potential complications) are essentially imaginary. A more valid analogy is with inoculation; both infant circumcision and infant inoculation have a prophylactic effect, but there are risks associated with both as well. The analogy is even stronger because of un-scientific hysteria surrounding infant inoculation, which has seen more and more parents opting not to inoculate their children, insisting that a host of ill-defined and scientifically unproven outcomes (e.g. autism) might result. So too with infant circumcision; an un-scientific hysteria has descended upon opponents of the process, who claim any number of ill-defined and scientifically unproven outcomes (e.g. reduced sexual performance). Unfortunately, they often descend on this article as well, insisting that they article must be re-written to protect children from these imagined harms, unwilling to accept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not yet another anti-circumcision advocacy page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"This is not exhaustive, but you get my point." Yes, it's pretty clear. You want to include anything and everything remotely against circumcision, including policies of minor, provincial bodies, and even articles with a tenuous link to a medical association (such as having been published by the association's journal).

"You have done no such thing. You have made claims such as that the claims "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion as a routine procedure" are not rejections of the view that there is evidence of benefit outweighing harm for routine circumcision." Please do not misrepresent our discussion, which referred to "we do not have evidence indicating that there are health benefits", not the benefit:harm balance.

"magine a doctor saying "there is no medical indication for giving salad to children in general, but there is medical benefit to giving salad to children in general". It would be a nonsense claim." Perhaps so, but you overlook 'routine'.

"The entire debate is about whether it has value as a routine procedure in absense of particular medical need." I don't recall seeing any author propose that circumcision should be a routine procedure. Several medical organisations describe current infant circumcision practice as elective ("Physicians counseling families concerning this decision should assist the parents by explaining the potential benefits and risks and by ensuring that they understand that circumcision is an elective procedure" - AAP / "In this case, the term "non-therapeutic" is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States." - AMA). Some authors take issue with these, elective circumcisions. Jakew 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that circumcision provides medical benefits, and the evidence today is stronger than ever. The question, however, is whether or not those benefits outweigh the risks associated with the procedure. There are risks involved, though these are very small, and when done by a competent practitioner, essentially nil.

This is not supported by the links I provided to the medical literature and you have provided no links to support your view in return. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to express your unsubstantiated opinion on controversial topics. Please restrict yourself to the demonstrated facts. I have posted links to medical associations saying that the benefits are not greater than the risks. You have provided nothing to substantiate your opinion.

Your analogy with smoking is faulty; there are no medical benefits of smoking, and there are serious proven harms caused by it.

No, it isn't. You are attacking a straw man. The analogy with smoking was not to the conclusion that circumcision is as dangerous as smoking. It was to the conclusion that presenting the conclusions of medical associations without listing everything they considered in coming to that conclusion is not cherry-picking as you claimed. It is presenting the conclusions of medical associations.

"This is not exhaustive, but you get my point." Yes, it's pretty clear. You want to include anything and everything remotely against circumcision, including policies of minor, provincial bodies,

The policies of large non-national bodies is clearly relevant, as are the policies of national medical bodies (something you fail to talk about at all I see). On the other hand, your personal opinion on the subject is not relevant at all.

and even articles with a tenuous link to a medical association (such as having been published by the association's journal).

These are editorials in the journal of the British Medical Association. That is not a tenuous link.

I don't recall seeing any author propose that circumcision should be a routine procedure. Several medical organisations describe current infant circumcision practice as elective

You are, yet again, not addressing the point, which is that the debate is about whether there are grounds for performing circumcision when there are no specific medical problems already in place. Arguing over whether circumcision could possibly be beneficial in the presense of specific medical problems is attacking a straw man. Neither the policies of the major medical associations cited nor the Wikipedia article is about any such thing.

Edwardsville 19:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole analogy with smoking is flawed, for the reasons stated; smoking causes significant harm, circumcision does not. Regarding proven medical benefits, the article is filled with references to them; I suggest you read it. Regarding risks, the article does not list any major risks, aside from extremely rare ones associated with all surgeries. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are attacking a straw man. The analogy with smoking was not to the conclusion that circumcision is as dangerous as smoking. It was to the conclusion that presenting the conclusions of medical associations without listing everything they considered in coming to that conclusion is not cherry-picking as claimed. It is presenting the conclusions of medical associations. The conclusions of the major medical associations belong in the article.

I have provided numerous links to articles discussing the risks. I have provided links to statements by national medical associations stating that there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcicion. Nobody has provided a single link to a statement by a major medical association stating that the benefits outweigh the harm. If you are going to make controversial claims about circumcision you need to cite them.

Edwardsville 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the smoking analogy is not of degree, but of kind. Major medical associations condemn smoking as inherently harm causing; quite the opposite with circumcision. No analogy can be drawn from that. Work with a relevant analogy, inoculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are attacking a straw man. The analogy with smoking was not to the conclusion that circumcision is as dangerous as smoking. It was to the conclusion that presenting the conclusions of medical associations without listing everything they considered in coming to that conclusion is not cherry-picking as claimed. It is presenting the conclusions of medical associations. The conclusions of the major medical associations belong in the article.

If you can find criticism of the positions of the major medical associations in serious medical publications, then by all means, there is no reason why you should not cite those in the article. But not including the conclusions and recommendations of the major medical associations is failing to include information of vital importance.

Edwardsville 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We do include the conclusions and recommendations of major medical associations. Please see Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. Jakew 20:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made long posts above stating why what is written in unbalanced and misrepresents the medical consensus. If you have criticisms of what I wrote, then my all means, present it. Not presenting the conclusions of the major medical associations is not appropriate. You might consider their conclusions flawed, and by all means, the article could contain criticism of the views of the major medical associations (provided that criticism comes from the medical community, not the personal original reserach of a Wikipedia author). By all means, the article could examine what has been written about the evidence that they used to come to their conclusions. However, as it stands, the article is biased. The bias ranges including blatant misrepresentation, such as stating that the medical associations in Australia "do not recommend circumcision" when, in fact, they strongly recommend against it, and by mentioning in the ethics section that some people claim that circumcision "is a significant public health measure", without bothering to mention that plenty of people say that it isn't. This last point is particularly important given that no mention is made of the positions of the major medical associations on that issue. Since major medical associations say things including "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision" and "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", while no citations for claims that circumcision is a "significant public health measure" have been provided in the article, this is an extremely serious misrepresentation.

Edwardsville 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, we do present the conclusions of a number of major medical associations, which are quoted in the footnotes and paraphrased in the text. We do not, obviously, include your personal interpretation of those conclusions.

I can find no evidence in the RACP statement that they "strongly recommend against" circumcision as you claim. They do, however, advise that there is no medical indication for 'routine' (or, in some places, 'universal') infant circumcision.

The introduction to the ethics section gives a broad overview of the range of views on the ethics of infant circumcision. The views of some medical associations on this aspect are included in the 'Consent' subsection. The overall conclusions of these organisations are included in the 'Policies of various national medical associations' section.

You are incorrect in stating that there are 'no citations for claims that circumcision is a "significant public health measure" have been provided in the article'. Ref 59 is cited in the text. Jakew 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, we do present the conclusions of a number of major medical associations, which are quoted in the footnotes and paraphrased in the text. We do not, obviously, include your personal interpretation of those conclusions.

You include very few and do not mention in the ethics section, where the ethical debate is presented as "significant public health measure" vs. "human rights violation and sexual assault". No mention is made of the most common criticism of circumcision, which is that it is not medically justified. Similarly, in the introduction, mention is made of the suggestion that circumcision is a "significant public health measure" but no mention is made of the fact that this is a view unsupported by the major medical organizations of the world, none of which say that circumcision is justified on medical grounds.

I can find no evidence in the RACP statement that they "strongly recommend against" circumcision as you claim. They do, however, advise that there is no medical indication for 'routine' (or, in some places, 'universal') infant circumcision.

They state that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" [RACP statement]

The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].

1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce [foreskin]....The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that State parties should take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

By the way, the Canadian Pediatrics Society also says that circumcision should not be routinely performed, a fact that is also distorted by the claim that Canadian organizations "do not recommend" circumcision.[RACP statement]

The introduction to the ethics section gives a broad overview of the range of views on the ethics of infant circumcision. The views of some medical associations on this aspect are included in the 'Consent' subsection. The overall conclusions of these organisations are included in the 'Policies of various national medical associations' section.

It does not. It presents the ethical debate as being one between "significant public health benefits" on the one hand and "human rights" and "sexual assault" on the other. No mention is made of the most common criticism of circumcision which is that it is an operation performed without medical justification. Since no large medical organization in the western world says that there is medical justification, while plenty say that there is not, as all the citations I have provided have shown, this is a very serious misrepresentation of the debate.

Furthermore, other ethical objections that play a large role in the literature are not mentioned here.

What about the concern that a healthy part of the body is being removed?

What about the concern that the operation is painful?

What about the British Medical Association's insistance that doctors have the right to refuse to perform circumcision?

All of these play a heavy role in the medical ethics literature, but are not mentioned in your ethics section.

You are incorrect in stating that there are 'no citations for claims that circumcision is a "significant public health measure" have been provided in the article'. Ref 59 is cited in the text. Jakew 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire article has been about circumcision in the west. Not a single citation says that it would be a "significant public health measure" in the west. The article contains no mention (let alone citation) that the research regarding the role of circumcision in the spread of HIV is extremely controversial and that no national medical association in the west has endorsed it. No mention is made of the fact that the countries in the west with the highest rates of HIV infection also have the highest rates of circumcision.

I teach medical ethics at the university level. If Wikipedia has officials who are in charge of resolving disputes like these, I am only too happy to prove my identity to them. If one of my students handed in a paper like this, it would get an F.

"Similarly, in the introduction, mention is made of the suggestion that circumcision is a "significant public health measure" but no mention is made of the fact that this is a view unsupported by the major medical organizations of the world, none of which say that circumcision is justified on medical grounds." The purpose is to outline some of the various positions on the ethics of circumcision, not to assess the merits of each position.

"They state that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" Which, once again, refers to 'routine' circumcision rather than circumcision in general.

"It does not. It presents the ethical debate as being one between "significant public health benefits" on the one hand and "human rights" and "sexual assault" on the other." Given that these arguably represent the extremes defining the range, it is reasonable to introduce the subject with these views.

"The entire article has been about circumcision in the west." The article is about circumcision in general. Jakew 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, Avi, Jayg, and Nand are not scholarly motivated and control this topic. You can argue all you want, and know you're right based on all that Wiki could be, but unless you hang around constantly your work will prove worthless.

Your (the above cabal) refusal to permit proper inclusion of Sorrells [41] is unconcionable and effectively sadistic. We can now objectively label US hospital circumcisions as genital mutilation.

Here is another extreme example. Look at the "Pain and pain relief" section. In a few edits Avi adds misinformation (that "authentic" is better ... the opinion of two circumcisers). Left out is a CNN summary of a study[[42]] (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association).

• "Rabbi Ariel Asa has performed hundreds of circumcisions. When families request it, he says he puts an anesthetic on the skin, in an effort to reduce some of the pain. But he admits it's not very effective. Due to the fact that moyels (the people who do the procedure) do it very quickly and the pain that the baby experiences is minimal, I don't think that the overall benefits are gained," he says. But the researchers found that while topical anesthetics may help initially, they are woefully inadequate during foreskin separation and incision. They concluded that if circumcision must be performed, it should be preceded by an injected anesthetic. In fact, they found the results so compelling that they took the unusual step of stopping the study before it was scheduled to end rather than subjecting any more babies to circumcision without anesthesia."

Avi forces Wiki to include pro-bris propaganda, and also deletes published research showing the mogen to be safer, faster, less damaging, and less painful. The reader is denied the fact that an authentic bris will exclude any anesthethic! The reader suffers horribly.

The Topic is very pro-circ, to the readers loss. The Topic must be labled POV.TipPt 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

TipPt, when are you going to stop violating WP:CIVIL? This is becoming a serious issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is in no sense neutral. I teach medical ethics at the universtiy level, a fact that I am happy to prove to any Wikipedia authorities who adjudicate disputes such as this.

This article presents a misrepresentative view of the opinions of the medical community on circumcision. Critical views are passed over, even when they are the opinions of major medical organizations, including national medical organizations. Pro-circumcision views, on the other hand, are aired without mention of what the medical community has to say about them.

The introduction does mention that some organizations do not recommend the procedure, but neglects to mention how universal this is. No mention is made of the American Medical Association's claim that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." [43]. Furthermore, as cited in the discussion of the ethics section above, organizations that recommend against circumcision are merely listed as organizations that do not recommend it.

The ethics chapter mentions on the pro-circumcision side that some people think that circumcision provides “significant public health benefits”. No citation is offered. Even more importantly, there is no mention on the against-circumcision side that anyone denies that circumcision provides "significant public health benefits". Since lack of medical justification lies at the heart of much of the criticism that medical organizations and other groups offer towards circumcision, this is clearly biased. The only objections to circumcision that the ethics chapter raises are that some people say that it is a "human rights violation" and "sexual assault". Yet more medical associations and other groups cite concerns about whether practice has medical warrant than whether circumcision is sexual assault or a violation of humna rights. This omission is doubly important because not a single medical organization saying that circumcision provides “signficant health benefits” is cited in the article, yet as I have cited repeatedly in the discussion of the ethics section above, it is easy to cite major medical organizations, including national medical organizations, who deny that circumcision is justified on medical grounds.

The ethics section also says nothing about other common ethical objections and concerns such as that the operation removes a healthy body part and that the operation is painful. Nor is there dicussion of the right of doctors to refuse to perform circumcision, rather a hot topic in medical ethics.

The section on policy statements discusses Canada but fails to note that the Canadian organizations uniformly do not recommend the procedure, and that some, like the Canadian Pediatric Society, state that circumcision "should not be routinely performed" [44]

The section on policy statements discussing the British Medical Association fails to mention that the BMA policy on refusing to perform circumcisions on moral grounds:

"Some doctors may refuse to perform non-therapeutic circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child. If doctors are asked to circumcise a child but have a conscientious objection, they should explain this to the child and his parents. Doctors may also explain the background to their conscientious objection if asked.

Clearly where patients or parents request a medical procedure, doctors have an obligation to refer on promptly if they themselves object to it (for example termination of pregnancy). Where the procedure is not therapeutic but a matter of patient or parental choice, there is arguably no ethical obligation to refer on. The family is, of course, free to see another doctor and some doctors may wish to suggest an alternative practitioner" [45] (This is also not discussed in the ethics chapter, of course).

The section on policy statments says of Australia and New Zealand "The Royal Australasian College of Physicians takes the position that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision, and if the procedure is to be performed for non-medical reasons, it should be performed by competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment.[65]"

No mention is made of the fact that the six major medical societies of Australasia developed a unified position statement on male circumcision. All six medical societies (the RACP, Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Urological Society of Australasia, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and Paediatric Society of New Zealand) have now corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society, declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed.

The article does not mention The Paediatric Society of New Zealand and the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons' independent statement that routine circumcision ought not to be performed. [40]

This article clearly violates the neutrality requirement of Wikipedia. As I say, I teach medical ethics at the university level and am happy to prove my identity to anyone Wikipedia authorities in charge of adjudicating disputes like this.

Edwardsville 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the topic of this section to NPOV dispute, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

Edwardsville 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in the pain and relief section, the statements of the various medical organizations regarding pain are not mentioned. Only the Taddio study is referred to, a study that states that their results are "speculative". Yet every national medical organization whose policy I can find states that circumcision is a painful procedure with no mention of the word "speculative". Despite the fact that the statements of the major medical associations are not cited, and despite the fact that every medical association that I can find states that anesthesia should be used for circumcision, the article only cites three individuals who think that anesthesia for circumcision is not a major issue. This is dramatic bias.

Edwardsville 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added statments of the major medical organizations on circumcision to the intoroduction. They were all carefully cited. I have just found that they have been removed by Jakew. How do I appeal this? This counts as vandalism, does it not? How can his opinion trump that of the major medical associations of the world?

Edwardsville 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are methods of dispute resolution, yes, but they are not normally needed. In general the procedure is to discuss the proposed changes and gain consensus. Jakew 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I shall explain some problems with Edwardsville's recent edit:

1. "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision ... medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns." This is pooly written, needlessly repetitive, and comes across as soapboxy.
2. "Indeed, some medical associations, particularly in Canada and Australia, state that routine circumcision ought not to be performed in the absense of a specific medical problem." This is a misrepresentation. The reference to "in the absense of a specific medical problem" is not found in all (or possibly any) of the source documents.
3. "The six major medical societies of Australasia developed a unified position statement on male circumcision corroborating that of the Canadian Pediatric Society. All six medical societies (the RACP, Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Urological Society of Australasia, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and Paediatric Society of New Zealand) have now corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society, declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed." Two problems: first, the cited source is the AMA statement (perhaps the intent was to cite the RACP?). Second, it is excessive detail, especially for an introduction: the reader does not need to know which organisations collaborated on the RACP's statement, only the outcome.
4. Indeed, there is an excessive amount of detail regarding routine circumcision, which is already covered in point 1 (again, this comes across as soapboxy).
5. "while circumcision opponents criticize circumcision on the grounds that it is an operation without medical justification" Inexplicably, the RACP are cited as an example of such 'opponents'. This is another misrepresentation: there is no evidence that the RACP oppose circumcision in general.

• The order of paragraphs in the lead is changed for no apparent reason and without discussion. Jakew 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It plays fast and loose with its sources in other ways. For example, Edwardsville insists that there is no evidence of health benefits of circumcision, and complains that specific sections of the BMA policy regarding refusal to perform circumcisions are not cited. However, he ignores other sections of that same policy; for example:

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.

He also often relies on old and outdated policy statements which cannot possibly be aware of the latest research. In addition, he seems himself to be unaware that Wikipedia is not the place for misguided "fighting to protect children". The place for anti-circumcision zealots to promote their particular faith is on their various blogs and websites, not Wikipedia. If were to grade Edwardsville on ethical presentation of the sources, and ethical use of Wikipedia, I would have to grade him an F. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: Please refrain from violating Wikipedia policy and making personal attacks. Please review the policy and understand that you need to address the content, not the editor. Your position as an administrator makes this call all the more relevant. Your repeated, constant personal attacks and pro-circumcision zealotry are now reaching dangerous proportions. Please cease and desist. Blackworm 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Struck out the above because there's no need for that. I should know better by now. Let's work together to make a more balanced article. (Thanks to Coppertwig for pointing out the inappropriate comments.) Blackworm 07:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be called "Male Genital Cutting" since the article on female circumcision is called "Female Genital Cutting"? It would certainly be a more neutral title (the word circumcision has a negative connotation outside of the US and could be offensive for some), more dictionary-like and, most importantly, sexually equal. The word "circumcision" might even be unknown for non-native English speakers, while "Male Genital Cutting" surely describes the contents of the article precisely right. I might be stirring up the hornet's nest here, but I feel that this change is necessary if not mandatory. maraz 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are applying logic to what is not a logical system. The word "circumcision" is widely known in English, and it is the correct term. There is some debate as to the name of the FGC article, since it is much more widely known as "female circumcision" -- in that case, political correctness and a pro-male circumcision agenda (attempting to separate male and female circumcision in order to promote one while opposing the other without the appearance of a sexist double-standard) seem to have won over the more widely used term. This is so extremely prevalent that the term "female circumcision" is described as a euphemism in the FGC article -- when clearly the reverse is true. Blackworm 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a post here, and my central complaint turned out totally wrong. I should learn to read diffs better. My apologies to anyone who may have read it, for the waste of time. Blackworm 09:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35