Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

---

JAKEW REMOVED SOURCED MATERIAL BASED FIRST ON A LIE OF ORGINIAL RESEARCH, THEN HE BACK-STEPPED AND SAID THAT IT IS A SINGLE CASE STUDY WHICH IT WAS NOT, THEN HE TRIED TO ALTER THE STATEMENT TO ONLY SAY VENERIAL DEASEASE, WHEN IT CLEARLY STATES BACTERIAL AND VIRAL. MANY PEOPLE HERE HAVE COMPLAINED THAT THE ARTICLE IS BIASED- AND PROMOTING INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONCLUSIVELY ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD AS A PROVEN FACT. THIS IS A COMPLETELY BIASED ARTICLE THAT MUST BE FLAGGED TO WARD OFF THE AGENDA BY JAKEW AND OTHERS LIKE HIM. THIS ARTICLE HAS A ONE-SIDED SLANT, PERIOD! I WILL NOT ACCEPT VALID SOURCED MATERIAL BEING REMOVED BASED ON ANY EXCUSE ONE CAN FIND TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST THE MYTH THAT SOME PEOPLE WANT TO PERPETUATE. ANY REMOVAL OF A FLAG AT THIS POINT CONSTITUTES VANDALISM- JAKEW DOES NOT OWN OR CONTROL THIS ARTICLE, AND I DO NOT APPRECIATE HIS SNEAKINESS TO REMOVE MATERIAL WHEN HE THINKS PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER LOOKING, AND HIS CLEAR AGENDA OF SLANTING THIS ARTICLE TOWARDS GENITAL MUTILATIONChiboyers (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are not a straw puppet, you should know that such behaviour will only make those who may agree with you have a much more difficult time making this article neutral instead of clearly advocating male circumcision as it does now. Blackworm (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When several people have commented on a bias, and flagging is removed, and certain people continue to remove and/or change statements to positions that they don't want to hear- then something unethical is happening here with this article, and a more bold statement has to be made. Put valid sources that say one position for circumcision, put others that say an alternative, and let people choose what they want to embrace, but it is a fact that medical science has NOT proven that circumcision has any, or ever had, any true medical benifit what so ever.I can load the article with tons of completely alternative views from medical science that argues for a completely different position than the one now for circulmcision, and the one source that I added, already was removed and altered.When even others commented on it as a good source and valid. I have seen articleslike this before that are controlled by one person or a few with an agenda, and it is a waste of time to added valid sourcing and points to it- it must remain flagged.Chiboyers (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Chiboyers, can I encourage you to read a previous discussion on this talk page? Since this earlier discussion touched on some closely related points, it might be a good idea to familiarise yourself with it. You can find it at #Neutrality.

Also, please read WP:DRIVEBY and WP:DT carefully. You have not yet stated why the tag is justified, with reference to applicable policies. You have made it abundantly clear in this and the above two sections that you have a strong opinion on the subject, and that you disagree with (for example) the World Health Organisation's assessment of the HIV evidence, but that does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the article.

Please understand that nobody here is saying that the viewpoint that circumcision does not protect against HIV is wrong, just that it is a relatively uncommon view in the scientific community at present, and we need to take that into account. As a credible encyclopaedia, Wikipedia needs to give more weight to mainstream scientific views, and indeed WP:NPOV policy requires that we do so. At the same time, we're not claiming that the mainstream viewpoint is right, and if you examine the text that you tried to remove, you'll see that it simply states that the WHO, etc, state that X is so, which is different from claiming that X is actually true. Please note that our job is not to evaluate viewpoints, nor to offer rebuttals to those with which we may personally disagree, but simply to report on them, in proportion to their prominence.

Finally, since you indicate that you'd like to "load" this article with lots of "alternative" views to "argue" for a certain position, I'm somewhat concerned that this tag may not represent a carefully considered analysis of applicable policy. Jakew (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I never stated that I would "like" to load the article with alternative views. I said that I "can/could" do so with completely different and equally valid medical sources to present an alternative picture than the one this article has at the moment. Thereby, I was making a statement that the "selected" sources being used now are slanting the article in only one direction, and thus lacking neutrality. To present the information you cited in a suggestive manner of a "proven" medical fact agreed upon by the world medical community is grossly wrong, especially when it comes to European and Asian research that overwhelming shows no clear benefit to circumcision what so ever in preventing HIV/AIDS. Thus, there is no "common view" held by the world scientific community today that agrees that circumcision is a clear benefit to help prevent HIV/AIDS. I would also like to state some points from the "mathematic" community, of which no medical doctor is required to take course work in statistics. Professional statisticians have commented on the internal bias and lack of proper sampling methods in any of the statistics generated from these studies, and have even gone so far as to say that it would be a probable impossibility to derive any accurate stats in this matter- which would involve too many variables: economic class, social status, sexual promiscuity, sexual behaviors, environment, as well as no way of knowing if a person being tested is even telling the researcher the truth since sexual matters tend to be embarassing and people are prone to exaggerate and cover up the truth. Chiboyers (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think either the POV tag should be removed from the article, or else the POV tag should have a link to a specific section of the talk page, and that section should list the specific changes that would allegedly have to be done to make the article NPOV. Stating that there are sources refuting something and not actually providing the sources doesn't qualify as specifying such a change. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • That is not true, I can back everything I state by sourcing, and in fact, I began the task of sourcing the article with valid statements and citations to start the process of balancing, but Jakew removed even my initial efforts, first based on a lie saying it was original research, which Garycompugeek even had to revert because that was an out an out falsehood since it was coming from the University of Chicago, one of America's premiere medical research groups. Then, Jakew says it was only a single case study, which was also a lie, since it was an article backed by not only U of C, but also Professor Lauman, a leading sociologist Dr. Mead, and the American Medical Association. Then, Jakew tried to alter the statement to give it less weight once Gary called him for his actions- and then ultimately, when Jakew thought I walked away from this article, he removed the statement all together- sealing the reality that clearly we have an agenda occuring here with some trying to gloss over valid medical sourcing that is in conflict to their own personal agenda. From the preliminary expreinces I had with this article, and the obvious agenda occuring here, I will not waste my time putting great effort in balancing an article that those with an agenda will be constantly looking to destroy. Therefore, flagging is needed. Chiboyers (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is slightly off-topic, but it seems that some clarification is needed.

First of all, the fact that the source you wanted to insert was published by the University of Chicago has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the way you wanted to use it was original research. The source in question mentions neither HIV (the first sentence does, however, read "Circumcision, once advocated as a means of reducing the spread of venereal diseases, has very little impact on their transmission...") nor the WHO recommendations. Hence, claiming that it is a "complete contrast" to the WHO recommendations, and claiming that it "concluded that circumcision has no significant effect on the prevention of HIV/AIDS" is completely unverifiable from the source itself: it is merely your own interpretation, and as such is original research.

Next, I pointed out that it was a single observational study. You protest that this isn't true because it was "backed" by the University of Chicago, the authors (one of which you misidentify - the authors were actually Laumann, Masi, and Zuckerman - not that it matters), and the American Medical Association. It's difficult to understand your reasoning here, and it's unclear what you mean by "backed by". Sure, it had authors, but that's the case with any study. Sure, these authors were affiliated with a university, but again that's quite common. Sure, it was published in JAMA, but that's the thing about studies: they tend to be published in journals. None of these things are unusual, nor do they refute the statement that it was a single observational study.

So, I corrected these problems in two parts. Firstly, I altered the statement here, "correcting the most obvious OR and inaccuracies (WP:UNDUE problem still remains)". In addition to the original research problems noted above, this also corrected the misrepresentation of the source, which actually referred to "a new study" (ie., singular), not "studies". Some time after, I removed the sentence, noting "rm single observational study from lead. see WP:UNDUE".

So to return to Coppertwig's observation, claiming that you have sources is somewhat different to actually providing them. What has happened so far is that you have tried to remove material with which you disagreed, then you tried to insert material that violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR, and failed to WP:AGF I've drawn your attention to these policies. None of which justifies the tag. Jakew (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I was notified that additional sourced work should be added, rather than remove unproven points, which I followed with and you removed. The sourcing that I added was valid and deserves a place within the article, even Gary said that he had no problem with the source, which was also going to be followed up with additional sourcing, but I will not go 5 steps forward working on blancing the article and 6 steps back to try to deal with your agenda of your removal of the work. I said that this article should have both pro and against valid sourcing, you are the one who wants only your position addressed. Moreover, you are trying to always discredit valid sourcing from points you don't like, but right now within the article, there are some major sourcing problems that I never removed- specifically, your point 122 that does not link to referencing any of the points you claim, probably since the link has changed over time. But if we are going to be technical to Wiki standards, I can't take your word for it that link once said what you claim- all of those points referencing that supposed link should be removed- they are not up to Wikistandards of sourcing, but you are making exceptions for your work.Chiboyers (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Some of the statements I made earlier don't even need additional sourcing for validation. For example, I said circumcision is bad becasue it changes the glass-like surface of the penile gland as well as removes the frenulum, which is the male equivalent to the female clitorus. Go see Frenulum of prepuce of penis. Look at the more vibrant coloring, and glass-like surface when the gland is left normal, and look what happens to it after it is altered by circumcision. Look at the complete removal of the frenulum in the circumcised example, and the difference in the non-circumcised example- and the known fact that the frenulum is one of the most sensitive and erogenous parts of the genetalia that is aroused by the lightest of touch. One would have to be in denile to not accept that circumcision is changing significantly a healthier glandular state, and that if one is removing a known highly erogenous element from the male member, there is, without a doubt, loss of highly sensitive tissue and additional pleasure sensors. Circumcision, religiously, was done as a sacrifice- sacrificing physical pleasure for what some thought was a higher mental and spiritual goal by removal of the most erogenous elements from the penis, the frenulum, that was going to easily draw one to focus on the body rather than on G-D.Chiboyers (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Jakew (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I do not need help as a PhD holder to understand what original research is- I am simply making a statement right above that demonstrates that some of the points I raised on this talk page are evident already on Wikipedia as well as raising some points for people to think and talk about. What I hold accountable to sourcing is what is placed within the article, not what is discussed on a talk page- and clearly the initial efforts at balancing with creditable and valid sourcing was removed unfairly from the article. If I wanted to add the point I raised above to the article, I could and would souce it with a valid citation, but I didn't add it to the article- I just highlighted here for awareness.Chiboyers (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • The point we are fixating on at the moment is the HIV/AIDS issue- but there are others points relating to cicumcison too. A major one is that the penis is foremost a sexual organ for pleasure, and that well into the 20th century, American victorian sensibilities wanted to overlook its primary function. Prudish mothers felt unconfortable with washing their boys and having erections created when touching the frenulum- giving a sense to the mother that they were in "sexual situation" with their child. Also, an uncircumcised boy needs to be educated by his mother on how to roll back the foreskin while washing, again an uncomfortable issue for many of these mothers to talk about, not to mention that all uncircumcised boys begin to play with their foreskins early on, finding novilty in its movement. Catholics, for example, have major issues when it comes to masturbation, and they can even deem rolling a foreskin back as a masturbatory act- therefore not engaging in it and resulting in less hygene for some men. Therefore, in order to bypass all of this dyfunctionalism, the answer for years was cut the foreskin away, but at the cost of not reializing that after puberty, the penis is foremost a sexual organ for pleasure, and what they are cutting away in an immature child has very important functions on a mature man for his and her pleasure. Medicine wasn't doing research into the male genetalia as a sexual entity, for years they made unproven and unsophisticated claims about the benefits of circumcision- often looking at the issue and still looking at it superficially. And as current statisticians and socioligistist have stated, which I can source, medicine was not adding in all variables to make their claims properly. For example, if a Catholic does not want to roll back his foreskin while bathing, belieiving it is a sin, and then it shows up that uncircumcised men have a hygene issue- well that is not a problem of having a foreskin, that is a problem of a mental outlook an irrational issues- that would be liking saying a certain religious group believes that brushing their teeth is morally wrong and guilt striken by doing it, and then finding out that this same group has higher dental decay. America has serious issues still with sex today, not to mention pop culture's uncomfortablness with presenting the naked body. These points here are points that that American still needs to face- and it will be a process of time to fully unplug people from the myths about circumcision for medical benefits. Now, if one is doing siomething because of a religious traditon, tradition is simply tradition. Geisha girls had their feet bonded, and some African tribes elongate their earlobes and necks, one can do anything in the name of religion or culture, but don't cloak that into a "medical benefit", that myth needs to be debunked, and valid sourcing and research is there to do itChiboyers (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Chiboyers: Please try to edit your talk page posts to be shorter. I'm sorry, but I didn't take the time to read your last section, as it appears to consist of unsourced statements about circumcision. Re "For example, I said circumcision is bad": please review the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. If one of your reasons for the POV tag is that you put a source into the article and it was reverted, then please post that source on the talk page in a section that is linked to from the POV tag. With no such link, I think the POV tag should be removed. I'm sorry if this message sounds abrupt. It takes time for new users to get used to the policies and guidelines and how things usually work in Wikipedian discussions. This article has been very extensively edited and discussed. Very often what looks like an improvement to one editor will not be accepted; since it's already a polished article, only the very best changes tend to be accepted. Please note the template at the top of this talk page which says "Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your criticism seems one sided. Jake post huge swaths of text on here all the time without a peep out of you. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I thought that it was very clear already that this was a talk page, here to discuss any points related to this subject matter of circumcision, and I believe that I said already that I hold sourcing accountable for cited information within the article, not what is general talk on a discussion page. Flagging is needed for the article because valid sourcing from within the article stating an alternative postion in the medical world has already been removed. There is a bias controlling what is placed within this article, and as it stands right now, the article lacks neutrality. Chiboyers (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and ask ourselves why people keep coming to this page and saying its bias and slanted toward pro circumcision? Since I have been watching it not one such post complaining the opposite on the talk page. Why? Chiboyers, while I agree with you the page has many balance issues, you must lay out your concerns with solutions so that they may gain consensus. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Garycompugeek, although I don't quite follow what you're saying: I can't figure out what you mean by "such post" – sorry. Also, I disagree with this revert. Adding this new material doesn't have consensus. It's already been pointed out that it's a single observational study. It's outdated: the HIV randomized controlled trials contradict it, so it would have to be contextualized if it's used at all. It's too much fine detail for the lead. The footnote given is to a news-style report, not to the scientific journal article. Even quoting the journal article directly would go against the grain of WP:MEDRS. The article seems to be misquoted: the article says "has very little impact", perhaps implying that it has an impact, while the quote you edited in says "has no significant effect", implying that no statistically significant effect was found, which I'm not at all sure is an accurate representation of either the news-like item or the journal article. I suggest if you're keen on including this reference, that you try to put a carefully-quoted direct reference to the journal article into Medical analysis of circumcision somewhere, not in the lead there either, I suggest; I might or might not oppose such an edit if proposed there. Please present new material on the talk page for discussion before editing it into this page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. (for what i'm not sure - now you have me confused.) I did not introduce this into the article but have merely been backing up another editor just as you appear to be doing. I am not comfortable with the way anti circumcision views are routinely regulated to sub categories of this subject. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well, Gary, now you have your answer why people who clearly see a bias and agenda here don't want to invest time posting on this this talk page or investing time into rounding up alternative valid sourcing. It will end up being all reverted by those with an agenda controlling this page. I especially love the comment above which wanted to silence me by saying I should "edit" my talk on this discussion page. Those who are most insecure have to "watchdog" this article day in and day out to make sure that only their "selected" sourcing is added and are afraid to see equally vaild sourcing from the alternative position. If the presence of one single source from an opposing position created this much drama, imagine what would happen if I added a great number of valid sourcing from medical science and mathemetical statisticians. This article IS lacking in neutrality.Chiboyers (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the tag doesn't have consensus either. See WP:NPOV_dispute: In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. This article isn't sacred; adding a tag to warn others that neutrality is disputed is not "defacing" despite the repeated label of drive-by tag removers against multiple editors feeling that there are issues. This article has multiple open WP:NPOV issues that have not been resolved through consensus, starting with the title, which should be Male circumcision, as discussed here and here. Chiboyers, I look forward to seeing you attempt to make this article neutral. Use good sources, and summarize neutrally. Be prepared for reverts, circular logic, misinterpretation of policy, administrative threats, intimidation, and endless "discussion" always ending with claims of "no consensus for change." Blackworm (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg please assume good faith. This is the second time a banner has been placed by a concerned editor (that I have been watching) and the second time you have bit a new user. It seems quite silly for me to lecture a wikipedia administrator on basic wikipedian principals. This was obviously not a drive by and Chiboyers is certainly not trying to deface the article as you so brazenly put it. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thank you Blackworm. I appreciate your interest in seeing more neutrality. When I placed the first U of C point in the intro, I thought that positioning it after the HIV/AIDS statement was a good location to have comparative analysis. Readers of the article would then have two alternating view points from medical science, and therefore, would have a fuller picture of the issue at hand. I am still concerned about alot of reverting of sourced work if I start to place cited points within the article, so what I will do, is begin by citing some links here on the discussion page- links may not even be the best sourcing available for the topic, but it has the advantage of everyones' immediate access to where the info is coming from, and a good start. I also like the idea of posting on the talk page, first, because it will allow for some discussion of where others may feel that the cited source best fits within the article. I will start a new section on this talk page called "Alternative Sourcing". Chiboyers (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I will begin a process of adding links to this section, links that not only address the HIV/AIDS issue, but also links that would roundout the discussion of circumcision from a number of concerns:

1) Circumcision having little effect to ward off the spread of sexual desease (both bacterial and viral)-University of Chicago: [[1]]

2) Circumcision not proven to ward off HIV/AIDS as well as concerns of poor sampling methods in U.S. statistics: [[2]]

3) Testimonials of men circumcised as adults expressing general regret: [[3]]

4) Circumcision: a source of Jewish pain: [[4]]

5) Unnecessary circumcision: [[5]]

6) Pediatricians turn away from circumcision: [[6]]

7) Circumcision may cause urinary problems: [[7]]

8) Circumcision and HIV infection: [[8]]

9) Circumcision and cervical/penile cancer: [[9]]

I just added a few links to demonstarte that the benefits or need of circumcision is clearly contested from a number of different avenues and in no way a "proven" benefit for any medical concern - the most compelling research ,of course, even comes from published works that don't have weblinks attached to them.Chiboyers (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you spend too much time citing partisan websites, Chiboyers, can I ask you to take a look at WP:V (in particular WP:V#Questionable sources and WP:V#Self-published sources) and WP:RS (as well as WP:MEDRS)? You may find the following advice in WP:V helpful: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Jakew (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Partisan websites like CNN and the University of Chicago? I'd say the WHO is more partisan, since they openly advocate mass male circumcision of infants and adults, resulting in semi-voluntary circumcisions in the army and police in Africa. There's no problem with sources 1), 5) (which is a re-publication), and 6) that I can see. The others can't be cited directly, but point to sources that can be. Blackworm (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed the U of C source (#1) at length already, so it seemed unnecessary to comment on it. The CNN link (#6) hadn't been added at the time of my post (items 4 and above were added after I commented), but of course it is about the 1999 AAP policy, which we already cite directly in several places in the article. As for Denniston's 1992 article (#5), while we don't cite that, we do cite another of Denniston's opinion pieces, in which he makes similar arguments, as our ref 45. Jakew (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The CNN source has other information too, e.g. "The United States is the only country in the world that routinely removes the foreskins of infant boys." How odd that we claim without attribution in Prevalence of circumcision that male circumcision is a part of "Western" culture, given that. I think we should trim the number of WHO advocate opinion pieces too. And Schoen's opinion pieces, given that he is perhaps the best known advocate of mass male circumcision after the WHO. Or is that sources advocating circumcision are "reliable," "scientific" and "neutral," and only sources opposing circumcision are "opinion pieces?" Blackworm (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a little hard to understand your objection, Blackworm. I don't think we cite any WHO opinion pieces. We do, however, cite several opinion pieces in the article, which include, for example, Schoen's "Should newborns be circumcised? Yes", Denniston's "Circumcision and the Code of Ethics", and Milos' "Circumcision: A medical or a human rights issue?". I'm not proposing to remove these. Are you, and if so, on what grounds? Jakew (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing that if "opinion pieces" are to be limited to one (which seems to be your misguided view), we should limit the WHO's opinion to one instance. Of course, I do not believe that is an appropriate action, and thought that would be clear. Once you begin to see that the WHO is a source with opinions, and not an infallible provider of unquestionable truth, this parallel should become clear. I posit that the there is no clear line between "opinion" and "an attributed view," and we attribute plenty of views to WHO. Your position on this inevitably boils down to "the WHO is just -- BIGGER" (paraphrasing) -- my response is always, "it's not 100% of all opinion, like this article often makes it out to be." Blackworm (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I don't think I've suggested that opinion pieces should be limited to one, and I'm not sure why you have that impression. In a sense, you're correct in that every viewpoint is also an opinion, but I think that's a rather simplistic viewpoint that overlooks the fact that, in WP, some opinions have more significance than others. In some cases this weight is because the type of source is highly rated within systems of evidence-based medicine. In others this weight is due to the fact that it represents the conclusions of an authoritative and significant body (for example, as you observed, WHO's conclusions have consequences, and this is also true of other significant medical organisations. These policy statements also have the benefit of being issued on behalf of the organisation's membership). When assessed either way, opinion pieces by individual authors aren't all that significant by themselves, though in some cases they can be representative of a more common viewpoint. I'm not saying that they should be ignored altogether — and we do cite opinion pieces where appropriate — but we need to think carefully about their significance and the amount of weight that they should be given. It is a mistake to say "it exists, and therefore it should be cited", because at the time of writing (according to PubMed), 4,063 circumcision-related articles exist, and it is completely impractical to cite them all. Jakew (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Some major factors leading to a general sense of a lack of neutrality within this article is certain portions not having qualifing statements. For example, the presentation of penile cancer statistics, HIV/AIDS statistics and hygiene sections with one-sided citations, unqualified, is suggestive of a "hard fact". When within many of these studies there may be statistical biases and poor sampling methods at work that several professionals and doctors have commented on, not to mention lacking in enough studies or large enough testing pools to even suggest "proof". For example, I can provide alternative valid sourcing that washing is just as good as a hygeine method for males than full circumcision. The presentation of several of these "hard fact" points are one-sided, and to not mention statistical uncertainty, in some form, which can be validly sourced, is suggestive of a deliberate overlook- especially when WHO is a known pro-circumcision group. There would also be a benefit to source some point within "cultures and religions" stating that not all within the Jewish community are accepting of circumcision as a tradition that should endure, instead of just saying that it is "Jewish Law" and a commandment, coming off as guilting some to "obligatory" follow it. There are plenty of other factors to determine Jewish identity, such as having a Jewish mother. Not to mention that Moses, himself, was never circumcised. One should not ignore valid citation that some within the community who also question its validity as a ritual, especially when one of the community's most outspoken proponants is a published doctor in that area of medicine. One should also exclude loaded words like "obligatory" that have biased rhetoric within them. Chiboyers (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree that there is a general sense of a lack of neutrality in this article. I will say now I think it's quite good, and quite improved in terms of balance since the first time I saw it. Your arguments re: methodologies require reliable sources, otherwise it will get tiresome very quickly around here, and with reason. Some editors will see you as wasting their time and possibly soapboxing. To put it bluntly, you're discussing the subject and not the article, which is inappropriate for talk pages (WP:TALK). Then again, I am of the opinion that calling POV tags "defacing," as stated in this edit summary is itself a form soapboxing, in the sense that it places the article on a kind of soapbox pedestal, that is not appropriate. This article is not a featured article nor even a good article -- there seems to be no community consensus that this tag removal on the basis that the tag is "defacing" is justified. What does it mean to say that the tags "aren't permanent?" Is that wording even based on policy? The tag is removed when the dispute is resolved. But then I can understand if it's difficult to see one's hard work at neutrality tagged as still unacceptable. In this case, though, it would reflect the clear lack of consensus regarding the existence of a POV dispute. I'm not going to tag, personally, because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and have discussion derailed again. I'd rather make my view known that's it's completely unacceptable here, and cite sources, as I did in the open debate over the title of this article. Blackworm (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are either qualifing statements like "not all within this community accepts this"; "sampling methods have not been universally accepted as valid"; "the medical community is not in consensus"; "Other doctors take an alternative position"; or simply adding the additional validly sourced points of the opposing position- then this article will always be biased and lacking in neutrality. An article of this importance should strive to be at the level of a "featured article" or a "GA article", and, currently, this article IS still lacking in neutrality. One can not present the WHO statements in the manner of a "proven fact" "universally accepted by medicine" and just ignore that there is still substantial opposition from within the world medical community with published valid sources arguing against those results and questioning the validity of sampling methods. This article IS still lacking neutrality, we may be close to getting it where it needs to be, but we are not there yet- we need either some qualification, or some additional alternative sourced points.Chiboyers (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! You can help improve this article. It would be helpful if you would provide references to the sources questioning the WHO position, and please suggest where to insert the specific wordings you've suggested above. You can also suggest specific wording to add, with references, regarding the other points you've raised in other sections. However, note that I spent a lot of effort shortening this article, so I might oppose any edit that lengthens it; if you want to add something, you could also suggest deleting something else to keep it from getting longer, though it's not necessarily impossible for the article to get a little longer. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • It seems attractive to make the effort at correcting some suggestively biased wording, adding some qualifing statements or nessessary sourced points, and I don't believe that lengthy writing is needed- just some tweeking that creates a more balanced presentation. However, already, I see that the U of C point was removed once again. Now, I can re-position that point in a different location, but I have also listed already a valid alternative source that even talks about HIV/AIDS specificaly and that should be placed within the intro to show balance. Right now, I do not have much faith that the effort at balancing will not be done in vain by those with a one-sided agenda to revert everything. For example, the U of C source was very valid and appropriate, but was constantly removed without even any attempts at re-locating it. It is not enjoyable to fix neutrality on biased articles because it is like asking a Republican to have consensus with a Democrat, and just like in politics where every year we hear that "We are going to bring the parties together", it does not happen in reality. I listed valid sourcing to draw from that others can use to cite some points for balance and I have already listed above how some qualifing statements can be used, and I already said how a loaded word such as 'obligatory' should be removed. It would be better for someone else to make those adjustments- if I do it, it will be reverted by Jakew- and I no longer have the time to go 5 steps forward and 6 steps backwards with reverting- you can handle it from this point forward. If you don't want to do it, than the article should be flagged for lack of neutrality which would direct a viewer to the talk on this discussion page, but I don't have much faith that that will be done either, or even if it is done, that it would stay flagged for very long- best of luck!Chiboyers (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please don't let this article sour you on Wikipedia. It will not always be this difficult to help out. This happens to be a very contentious article watched by many with strong views. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever changes you want to propose, please follow the request in the template at the top of this page and present the edits on this talk page for discussion before editing, specifying the precise words and where they would go. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of stopping the current edit war I have been seeking a 3rd party opinions from disinterested admins. User:Black_Falcon was kind enough to respond here. I will agree to relocate the U of CH source if we relocate the WHO source. Neither belongs in the summary lead which I have been trying to bring down to basics, but for every pro listed a con should be there to balance if possible. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting for the following reasons.

• Black Falcon agrees that the material does not belong in the lead.
• New material should be presented on the talk page for discussion and only added after the details have been agreed on.
• I oppose this revert because most of the points which I had raised earlier here have not, as far as I can see, been addressed in any way.
• My point that it would need to be contextualized seems to have perhaps been replied to in a comment which I can't find right now, which stated something along the lines that it was balanced by coming right after the WHO material in the previous paragraph. My answer to that is that I don't see that as sufficient: some people might read or pay attention to only the last paragraph and not notice that it's contradicted by the paragraph before. I would prefer having it in a sentence with a word like "although" or something along those lines.

Since the person who had been asked for an outside opinion agrees that this source does not belong in the lead, please don't revert it back into the lead, but please present suggestions on this talk page, if you wish, as to where else in the article you think it might go.

By the way, Garycompugeek, I'm sorry I didn't specify what I was thanking you for earlier, because now I can't remember which of two things it was or whether it was both: let's suppose it was both, so I was thanking you for providing a reply in this interesting discussion, and I was also thanking you for encouraging Chiboyers to lay out the user's "concerns with solutions so that they may gain consensus", which I also encourage the user to do. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, these are not valid reasons to contribute to this edit war. Black Falcon suggested that all paragraphs starting with "The American Medical Association" be removed; you can't single out the one paragraph you don't like and remove it on that basis. Your second point is plainly false and contradicts WP:BOLD -- the notice on the top of this page hinges on what we consider "substantial" changes, i.e. it is a matter of opinion. The concerns have already been laid out. We cannot approach the topic as if we agree that it is an undisputed fact that male circumcision prevents HIV; Jakew's WP:OR claims of "scientific consensus" notwithstanding. It is even arguable that the reader is better served by a presentation of the historical medical arguments used for advancing and imposing male circumcision (i.e., as against masturbation, insanity, etc.), leading up to today's medical argument (HIV). As circumcision has been described as a "a solution in search of a problem," it behooves us to present that aspect of this topic. Blackworm (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, thanks for this source which you provided on Black Falcon's talk page, which provides an alternative perspective while commenting on the RCTs. I suggest that this be added at the end of the WHO paragraph (currently last paragraph) of the lead, with the wording "although the actual effect on a population would also depend on behaviour and other factors." (By "other factors" I mean things like female-to-male tranmission.)

I further suggest that the WHO paragraph be deleted from the lead altogether. This information is already represented in the body of the article, and is represented in summary in the lead in the phrase "health advantages" in an earlier paragraph. I can't think of any way to represent the HIV information in just a few words: it's too complex. I suggest that the reference you provided be added at the end of the first paragraph of the HIV section with the words "The actual effect on a population would also depend on behavioural and other factors."

Re reverting: people are welcome to invoke my "self-revert" policy if they wish. The concerns I raised above when I objected to the re-addition of this material earlier have still not been addressed. I don't expect this edit war to continue now that an outside opinion agrees that the material doesn't belong in the lead. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with removing the WHO paragraph, as it fulfills some important functions of the lead, namely to "establish context, summarize the most important points, [and] explain why the subject is interesting or notable". Even if one personally believes that circumcision has no effect on HIV transmission, one cannot deny that the WHO recommendations have raised the importance of circumcision as an issue, and (as Blackworm has noted) that the recommendations have had an impact on people's lives. I would not be opposed, however, to restructuring the paragraph so that the focus is on the recommendations themselves rather than trying to summarise the HIV issue as well. To facilitate this, and to allow the paragraph to be more focused, it would help to remove the CDC. Jakew (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The WHO and CDC are meta together nicely. Please relocate the WHO statement with CDC or add the U of Ch source or blackworms source to achieve parity. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, you have some good points about the WHO material fulfilling more than one function in the lead – I hadn't thought of it that way. OK, how about we leave the WHO paragraph in the lead, append to it the wording I suggest above with the source Blackworm provided, and also include the same information in the HIV section? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a mistake, Coppertwig. The paragraph is about what WHO, UNAIDS, etc conclude, and if we cite another source as well, it becomes a disorganised mess ("WHO, UNAIDS, and CDC state that X, and three individuals, in a Letter to the Editor, state Y"). The paragraph (and the preceding paragraph) is about the conclusions of medical organisations. If we were to take the previous paragraph and add a sentence stating that "However, Clark et al. state that 'Neonatal male circumcision is medically necessary and ethically imperative'[10]", it would give undue weight to Clark et al, and would take the focus away from what medical organisations have concluded. Similarly, we should keep the WHO paragraph about the conclusions of those organisations, not about those organisations plus a randomly selected Letter to the Editor that doesn't even mention those organisations. Jakew (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake. I knew I didn't have to worry about thinking through that sort of argument because I could rely on you to bring it up. Seriously. LOL. ☺

We could report only what the major organizations say, but taken to extremes that could leave out significant viewpoints. I think we do cite letters to the editor elsewhere in the article.

How about this: leave the lead as it is, but in the HIV section, at the end of the second paragraph, append: "Kalichman et al. point out that we cannot conclude the overall effect on HIV rates in a population without taking into account behavioural and other factors". Coppertwig (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not opposed to including it somewhere (perhaps in this article), but I think we'd need to consider it in context of the original study and the authors' reply. Certainly I'd agree that predictions about the expected population-level impact are important, but the space in this article is somewhat limited, and I'm inclined to think that such content may be more appropriate for medical analysis of circumcision. Jakew (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, this argument uncannily resembles my argument against Tannenbaum and Shechet's statement, "more humane not to use anaesthesia" -- in which you objected to my suggestion that we call it a "letter to the editor" in the prose (and yet suggest that wording above), and objected to my call to remove it because it contradicts all medical organizations (and yet suggest that that is a valid argument above). I hope you can see how I'm not impressed when your position seems to diametrically shift based on the apparent support or opposition to circumcision of the disputed sources. [AGF. -BW] Blackworm (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The outside opinion did not believe the who/cdc source belongs in the lead either. If you wish to revert U of CH please take it with who/cdc to provide balance. Different properly sourced viewpoints make the article stronger. I do not believe either have their place in the lead but in the interest of balance have reverted. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose your action of reverting, Garycompugeek. You have not addressed the issues I raised earlier, and you have not addressed the reasons Jakew raised for not removing the WHO paragraph from the lead. You're also going against the outside opinion, and continuing to put the article into an unstable state rather than going back to the way it was (which had a sort of rough wiki-consensus for a long time, I think) until consensus can develop here on what to change it to. Please either self-revert, or post counter-arguments to the arguments that have been raised here, or both.

Do you really think a letter to the editor is notable enough to mention in the lead for providing balance against the positions of several major organizations? If that reference were included in the lead as you suggest, what would the wording be to go with it? (I withdraw the wording I suggested at 18:46, 3 June 2008, since it would be misunderstood as meaning that that's part of the position of those organizations.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually outside opinion says remove them both from lead. I have restored one to provide balance. Black Falcon also said it was not UNDUE. Perhaps you should read his reply again. I have no problem rehashing words in the source or exchanging one for the other (blackworms). Garycompugeek (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided counter-arguments to the points I raised, nor have you done anything to improve the restored paragraph in order to address the points I raised, nor have you suggested specific wording for an alternative proposal. Please self-revert. Please don't restore material to which objections have been raised on the talk page without replying to those objections. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your arguement lacks logic. To paraphrase you, if I raised 30 objections would you have to satisfy them? You have not satisfied my objections nor blackworms long standing ones. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. Garycompugeek (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, not only have you failed to address the points that Coppertwig and I raised, but you've also ignored the input you requested (to quote: "The addition of the source to the article does not give that particular position undue weight; however, adding it to the lead is more complex" [emph. added]). Please try to build consensus for this material instead of edit warring. Jakew (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the U of Ch source. I have stated I do not believe it belongs in the lead. I also feel the WHO/CDC source should be relocated. My position has never changed. I have supported Chiboyers addition to the lead to add balance but posit they should both be relocated. None of my objections have been appeased however I will discontinue reverting. I know this is not a Democracy however I don't understand how you can claim consensus when 3 editors express favor for the source and 2 do not. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I think I did the same thing I accused you of doing: I reverted without having answered your points. I think one of your points is that there should be balance or parity. I at least partially agree with this; though according to WP:NPOV there doesn't have to be parity (equal weight) in the representation in the article if there isn't equal weight in the sources. I'm sorry that I may not have been very good at noticing or absorbing your arguments. Would you please provide diffs of the other arguments or repeat the arguments (on my talk page if it would take up too much space here)? Blackworm's, too.

I don't think Jakew was claiming that there was consensus. At the moment we have a dispute, so there is no consensus about that material. What we need to do is discuss and try to reach consensus, according to the WP:CONSENSUS policy.

I have a suggestion: I suggest instead of either the U of C study or the letter to the editor, that as the last sentence of the WHO paragraph we put this, which is similar to a sentence from the HIV section: "Before the randomized controlled trials which prompted those organizations to take those positions, reviews of observational data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV." with the same two references as the similar sentence in the HIV section. The advantage of this is that it's based on two review studies (meta-analyses), so it deserves far more weight than one observational study or a letter to the editor. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Your meta also is fine with me. I'd like to take a step back though.

This paragraph - The World Health Organisation (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV. - is more about HIV/AIDS prevention and really should be relocated. Circumcision is notable without it. Lets break down the summary lead. We explain what circumcision is. We talk about its history and prevalence. We document the controversy. We summarize it's not recommended by major medical institutions. That's all we need. Bringing in the hotly contested HIV/AIDS into the summary in my opinion is UNDUE. I agree it is important and should stay in the article. Just not in the lead. Black Falcon was also of this opinion. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, as I understand it, you are proposing to move the WHO paragraph but not the preceding paragraph ("The American Medical Association"). Moving both would be problematic, but this would be especially so, for several reasons. First, while it may represent the recommendations of major organisations as of 1999, it would fail to reflect the more recent recommendations. Second, as noted above, the WHO recommendations are one of the main reasons why the subject is notable and interesting. Finally, although you claim that the HIV/AIDS issue is "hotly contested", you have not provided any evidence that this is so, nor have you given any explanation why this would be undue weight (and indeed, I cannot see how one could construct such an argument).

I should also note that you are misrepresenting Black Falcon's suggestion, which was to move the paragraphs 'starting with "The American Medical Association..."'. Jakew (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, to quote, "the WHO recommendations are one of the main reasons why the subject is notable and interesting." I disagree with your assertion. In my opinion, the main reasons why circumcision is notable are such things as its thousands of years of history, its place within major religions, its global prevalence both current and historic (the fact that it directly affects, or has affected, a substantial minority of the male population of the world, probably numbering in the hundreds of millions currently), and the fact that it is a controversial topic (and the notability of these aspects is not compromised just because there aren't many recent scientific journals which focus on them, nor does the topicality of one aspect of a subject equate to notability of the whole subject in my opinion). Furthermore, The WHO recommendations consist of advice regarding the implementation of circumcision programs only as an "additional strategy" in the attempt to prevent/reduce the rate of heterosexual transmission of HIV. In fact, in relation to three of the randomised control trials, WHO acknowledge that "HIV incidence was considerably lower in the intervention (circumcised men) than in the control group (uncircumcised men), but nevertheless remained high overall (0.7 to 1.0 per 100 person-years in circumcised men)." So, we basically have a medical effect of circumcision which, only to some extent, and only as an additional strategy, may reduce the rate of heterosexual transmission - and this is being promoted as "one of the main reasons why the subject is notable"? As for whether this aspect of circumcision renders the subject interesting, surely that is highly subjective, personal, and largely POV. Beejaypii (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, I think that you are missing the point somewhat in terms of your interpretation of their recommendations: while one might selectively use their text to argue that the effect is minimal, the fact is that they recommend that circumcision should form part of HIV prevention strategies, and that recommendation has already led to planning/implementation in several countries, and thus affects people. In addition to this, it can hardly be denied that the HIV recommendations have led to a great deal of scientific and media interest in the subject.

Having said this, please note that I said 'one of the main reasons', not 'the only reason'. I would agree with many of the other reasons you mention. Jakew (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes.. I was, not intentionally. Let's move all three. I feel the policy statement fits into lead as a broad covering staement but I am willing to compromise. Are you? It's your POV WHO makes Circumcision notable. I strongly disagree. As far as the evidence about it contested, that would be the two sources we are talking about and I claim UNDUE because I of the reason I stated in my last post. It is UNDUE weight for the lead summary. Yes it makes waves in the HIV/AIDS prevention circles but not when trying to summarize what circumcision is. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I believe it would be a mistake to move these paragraphs, in part because they serve to, in your own words, summarise the recommendations of "major medical institutions", and in part because the WHO paragraph helps to establish an important aspect of why circumcision is notable and interesting. Instead of simply stating that you disagree, perhaps you could explain why you disagree? For example, do you disagree that WHO's recommendations have led to the planning/implementation of circumcision programmes in individual countries? Do you disagree that it has led to interest in the subject from scientific journals and in the media?

As for the two sources under discussion, one is an observational study published approximately a decade before the WHO issued their recommendations (and about 8 years before the first RCT was published). The other doesn't refer to the WHO recommendations; instead it takes issue with the extrapolations from RCTs made by Kahn et al, and questions their predictions. It is evidence of the existence of an alternative view, but nobody has disputed the existence of this viewpoint, the question has been whether this viewpoint is prominent or whether it is that of a slim minority.

It remains unclear why you think it is undue weight to include this in the lead. Could you please explain your position in more depth, perhaps quoting the parts of that policy which you think apply? Jakew (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, I'm not convinced the WHO/HIV issue is a main reason the subject of circumcision is notable. It may well be a main reason why the subject "medical analysis of circumcision" is notable, but here I think it's peripheral, belonging in the body of the article but not in the lead, at least not in such detail. The lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" (wp:lead). I don't think the further advice given at wp:lead, "the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text" is being adhered to in this article, and the inclusion of current paras five and six in the lead is the main reason. Notability of the subject is perfectly well established by paragraphs 2-4 of the current lead. Health advantages are mentioned near the beginning of the fourth paragraph, and the reader can easily access the HIV specific information by accessing the relevant sources or via the table of contents. I'm sure most of us with an interest in circumcision have our own view with regard to which particular aspect(s) of the subject is/are amongst the most important, and we know we don't all agree, so it might be wiser to accept a more concise "overview" type lead, without overspecific information, leaving the reader free to assess the relative merits of the information provided in the body of the article for themselves, and not misleading them, via the lead, into thinking that a substantial portion of the article is dedicated to the HIV prevention issue, which it is not. Beejaypii (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii has summed it up perfectly. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When the WHO-HIV statement was originally added to the lead, the editor placed it as the second paragraph, right below the definition, as if that is circumcision's most important aspect. That sad event is a grave warning that we cannot allow circumcision advocacy to set the tone of this article. Since then the paragraph has moved down to be the "last word" of the lead, which some may argue is even more non-neutral. Blackworm (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, I'm puzzled by your statement. I don't understand how one can view the WHO/HIV issue as making medical analysis of circumcision notable, but not circumcision itself. Can you explain?

To address your other comments, I agree with your statement that we should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article", but it is unclear whether you consider this to be an argument for or against including the WHO/HIV issue. It is difficult to understand how it could be seen as an argument against.

Moving on, it's true that the relative emphasis in the lead is perhaps somewhat greater than in the text; this is largely due to this paragraph growing due to historical compromises, and would probably be addressed by removing the CDC source so that we can more briefly address the WHO (I'm inclined to agree with you that it would be desirable to reduce the length of the paragraph). Moreover, if you examine the section from which you quote, it begins "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources" — according to PubMed, 275 papers referring to circumcision were published in the last full year (2007). Of these, fully 119 (or about 43%) also referred to HIV. Taking into account the fact that some of these papers may only refer briefly to HIV, it seems reasonable that one of the five paragraphs, or roughly 20% of the text of the lead, should be dedicated to this issue. Jakew (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite certain WP:lead doesn't mention number of relative hits in a Pubmed search. Let's just use WP:common sense to realize WHO/CDC are talking about HIV/AIDS prevention not what circumcision is which befits the lead. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mention the relative number of hits in a PubMed search! That's just a way of getting a rough measure of the relative importance of HIV to circumcision. As for what circumcision "is", that's a definition, which is basically the function of the first sentence. The lead needs to do more than just define the subject. To quote from WP:LEAD: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. ... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Jakew (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Jake that was sarcasm. It also says the lead shouldn't be more than 4 paras and we have 6. What do ya say we trim it down a little move the last two to their relevant sections? Garycompugeek (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The last two are already summaries of the relevant sections, Gary. I don't think that 4 paragraphs is intended to be taken as an absolute limit, but if you're concerned by the number we could probably remove a couple of paragraph breaks. We could probably also reduce the word count a little while retaining the meaning. Jakew (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent then we can remove them from the lead. I was simply pointing out another good reason why they should not be there. Note I am compromising. I think para 5 sums up prevalent medical opinion befitting the lead but I am willing relocate it. I don't want to do it but I will. You can do this also Jake. I know you can. Please compromise. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, how do you get from "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." and "The last two [paragraphs] are already summaries of the relevant sections" to "then we can remove them from the lead"? I'm genuinely curious. Jakew (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to play word games with you Jake. Your inability to compromise is telling. You also seem to be alone in your opinion. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame Jake, you would rather edit war than compromise. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed by Jakew's argument that the WHO-HIV thing is part of why circumcision is notable. I think that's correct: I think a significant percentage of people coming to read this page are probably doing so with the WHO recommendations or HIV prevention in mind.

I did two web searches to check the notability of the WHO recommendations. On a google search for "circumcision", of the first 20 pages, based on the titles, 4 (that's 20%) seemed to me to be connected with HIV prevention and/or the WHO recommendations. I also did a google news search for "circumcision"; in that case, based on the titles, 8 of the first 20 (that's 40%) seemed to me to be connected with HIV prevention.

When Jakew suggested removing paragraph breaks, I think he meant joining two paragraphs into one, not removing paragraphs. The paragraphs are rather short, so joining them is probably a good idea.

Garycompugeek, you said that circumcision is notable without it. That's fine: there can be more than one reason something is notable. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, so it should mention all major points, even if there is more than one such reason. I don't know whether the WHO/HIV thing is hotly contested or not (I haven't seen publications contesting it), but if it is, then that means it's notable and should likely be mentioned in the lead. You say that it's UNDUE in your opinion, but you don't explain what that opinion is based on. I say it's due weight based on the web searches I just did, among other things.

Please help keep the edit history of the article simple and tidy, and help this article contribute as respectably as possible to Wikipedia's image, by refraining from making new changes until after they've been discussed and agreed on on the talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain Coppertwig. It's true there are no limts on notability. It's also true there are many notable things in the Circumcision artcile. Its up to us to decide what is the most notable. While you have commented on Jake's arguement you have neglected the finer points made by Beejaypii. He has pointed out that we mislead the reader into believing a substantial portion of the article is about HIV/AIDS prevention. Others feel this way also. My personal view about Circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention is that this a terrible reason to amputate part of the most sensitive organ on your body. Practice safe sex. It works for me. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Gary, I got caught up in some blocking mix up and wasn't able to respond till now, I find your last point very interesting, if HIV and circumcision is not even promoted to be full proof even by the pro-circumcision camp, what so-called value does it have at all then?- is there anyone intelligent out there with a circumcison really saying to themselves, "now I can engage in unsafe sex becuase I am protected", and is this "safety" propaganda even leading to the higher HIV rates in this country Chiboyers (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew and Coppertwig, I think the methodologies you are employing to ascertain the notability of the HIV prevention aspect of circumcision actually measure topicality, which does not equate to relative notability within the whole subject. There are notable aspects of circumcision, such as its long history, which probably aren't being discussed with high frequency in recent published sources because they are not topical or, currently, controversial. Your methods applied to such aspects of the subject would suggest they are not notable, which is false, so your methods are flawed. Furthermore, the advice in wp:lead states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.", that's "according to reliable, published sources." not "in accordance with frequency of mention in recent reliable, published sources." Can you see the difference there? Beejaypii (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, feel free to try to suggest a shortened version of the HIV mention in the lead (this is difficult to do). Beejaypii, I think there can be different kinds of notability and the lack of notability by one measure doesn't necessarily mean something isn't notable. Chiboyers, your comment seems to me to be about circumcision itself rather than about article content. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beejaypii, I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I'm trying to answer the question "why is the subject of circumcision interesting or notable". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to answer a question more similar to "given that I'm interested in circumcision, what aspects of it are interesting or notable". In terms of these two questions, it seems to me that circumcision's long history is perhaps a relatively weak answer to the former, but a stronger answer to the latter.

In an ideal world, we might have multiple reliable sources which explicitly tabulate the relative importance of various aspects of circumcision, but let's be realistic here: we don't have these sources. In the absence of such sources, it's reasonable to try to get a rough idea of the relative importance through other methods. I would agree that these methodologies are not perfect, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise. As I stated above, they're intended as a "rough measure". If you have a better suggestion, I'd be keen to know what that is. Jakew (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that many of us object to HIV/CDC source in the lead. At issue is weather or not it is notable enough to be there. When I say it is hotly contested I mean by established editors contributing to this article. I feel we mislead the reader here and worry about the consequences. I believe Jake and Coppertwig probably feel the same way if we were to remove it. I'm not sure a mediator will help this matter since we had one for a slightly different reason but his take was to remove to U of Ch source and the HIV/CDC source. Mediation? Arbitration? Where do we go from here? Garycompugeek (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, what gives you the impression that I'm trying to answer the question "given that I'm interested in circumcision, what aspects of it are interesting or notable"? I don't understand your point here.

So, you agree that your methodologies are not perfect. Well, you aren't agreeing with me, because I didn't say they weren't perfect, I said they were flawed. To reiterate: your method tells us about topicality and frequency of mention, it does not tell us about relative notability. Your method does not demonstrate that the WHO/HIV prevention aspect deserves disproportionate representation in the lead of this article, contravening advice given at wp:lead. And I am not obliged to suggest a better alternative to a flawed methodology which you have independently introduced, which is not documented in wikipedia policies or guidelines, and which you are using to support disproportionate representation, in the lead, of one aspect of the article topic.

If we don't have "multiple reliable sources which explicitly tabulate the relative importance of various aspects of circumcision" then we should accept that, and not rely on "rough measures" to try to get a "rough idea" (since when has that been a recommended approach on Wikipedia?). What I believe we should do, under the circumstances, is try to ensure that the lead complies with the advice that it should be able to "stand on its own as a concise version of the article", and if we try to do that we should be able to come up with a well-structured lead which does not, as the current lead does, provoke edit wars because disproportionate emphasis has been given to one particular aspect of the topic. In short, keep it all brief and concise and nobody will be reasonably entitled to get upset, and we can all then focus on the body of the article, where all the detailed information rightfully should be. Beejaypii (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That was very well said, Beejaypii. Regarding Jakew's novel criteria for assessing notability, I am not impressed. He chooses to examine only one aspect of circumcision, namely medical aspects, by going to PubMed, to assess the notability of the WHO paragraph in a general article on circumcision. He then further limits the scope of his original "rough idea notability research" to the year 2007, the year of the results of the HIV RCTs. He then calculates that some forty-odd percent of year 2007 articles in PubMed and referencing circumcision, also reference HIV. From this, and after a completely arbitrary assessment (i.e. guess) at the strength of the link between the HIV reference and circumcision reference, asserts that "it seems reasonable that one of the five paragraphs, or roughly 20% of the text of the lead, should be dedicated to this issue." Assuming one would accept all of that original research, the conclusion that the statement about "this issue" -- namely, "HIV and circumcision in Western medicine in 2007" -- that of all the things said about circumcision and HIV, things he includes in his "evidence," the central theme and binding idea is that the WHO stated that circumcision reduced transmission of HIV. Did I see the words "WHO" or "reduced transmission" in those searches? Only 23 articles published in 2007 in PubMed mention the WHO, a dismal 8% of the articles in 2007. If you consider all PubMed articles forever, the percentage on a search for "circumcision HIV WHO" vs. "circumcision" is 99/4067, or 2.4%. In short, your argument is an invented, non-binding justification for imposing your own personal sense of "order" or "reasonableness" or whatever word you'd like to use, on all of the others here who disagree with you. What do they call editors like that? The mere idea of imposing your invented methodology on the editors here is insulting and disrespectful; the idea is flawed on its face. Further, even if one humours the attempt and follows it through to its mathematical conclusion, it fails to convince. Blackworm (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, to address your points in turn, I received this impression largely because of your choice of words (for example, "does not equate to relative notability within the whole subject", as well as the distinction you wish to make between topicality - which is surely an aspect of notability - and notability). If I've incorrectly understood, then please accept my apologies and correct me.

While I recognise that you're under no obligation to propose a better methodology, there seems to be a problem here, because we both agree that we should follow the guidance of WP:LEAD that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." It is therefore essential that we have a method of determining the importance to the topic according to these sources. Coppertwig and I have proposed "rule of thumb" methods that, while not perfect, give us usable information. If you reject these methods, then what alternative method would you propose to allow us to assess whether the guideline is being met? I very much doubt that the intent of the guideline is for us to simply ignore it as you suggest. Jakew (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Jakew earlier suggested removing the mention of the CDC. I'm not sure why; however, the CDC is a U.S.-specific agency, so it seems less notable to me than the WHO. We can still discuss whether to remove the whole paragraph or not or what else to do, but meanwhile, can we get agreement on removing the CDC, which would shorten that paragraph slightly, helping slightly to address the problem of balance?

Beejaypii, what definition of notability are you using? I think notability as it applies to articles is defined in Wikipedia guidelines but I'm not sure that notability for stuff within articles is defined. It would be different, since a thing within an article wouldn't necessarily have the same degree of notability as something deserving a whole article, and because of the quantiziation of sources it won't scale smoothly.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beejaypii logic seems flawless Jake and extremely difficult to argue with. We must employ logic and common sense to weight notability. Coppertwig is impressed with your argument but accepts it on flawed reasoning ie "I think a significant percentage of people coming to read this page are probably doing so with the WHO recommendations or HIV prevention in mind." Why? I highly doubt it. I also highly doubt that those who are circumcised feel safe to have sex with infected HIV persons, at least I hope they do not. What exactly are we trying to accomplish here? Yes circumcision slightly reduces transmission rates of infectious disease because of the tougher skin. Overall this is meaningless unless you refuse to practice safe sex. When it comes to HIV WHO wants to roll the dice and hope you don't crap out. (note the pun was intentional) Sorry I want full proof methods when it comes to do or die. What WHO is essentially saying is humans are too stupid to practice safe sex so circumcision will reduce transmission rates. Because of scientific research this should be documented in the article. Does it belong in the lead as something that makes circumcision notable? I think not. Garycompugeek (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, as Coppertwig has noted above, about 40% of Google news results appear to involve HIV prevention, which suggests that there is a significant level of interest in the subject. Your other points seem to be expressing your own opinion of the WHO's conclusions, and your disagreement with their position. Jakew (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course its my opinion Jake. This is the talk page. This is where we express our opinions and explain our conclusions. It's my opinion WHO's position does not make circumcision notable and neither do search results. You are either completely rejecting or ignoring the bulk of Beejaypii's logic. This is why I find it very frustrating to debate with you Jake. At what point do you say "Is it possible I could be wrong?". I am far from flawless but will accept others logical arguments. I have proposed other avenues to solve this dilemma because I am confident of my position. Either give in. Come up with something logical that will sway us (dissenting editors) or agree to a dispute resolution. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Whether you, I, or any other editor agrees or disagrees with a source is completely irrelevant to the article, and there is no need for such views to enter the discussion. I have addressed Beejaypii's arguments above. Jakew (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been slightly soapboxing but only in the interest of explaining conclusions and applying to WP:common sense. Your addressment of Beejaypii's argument is completely unsatisfactory. I repeat myself "Either give in. Come up with something logical that will sway us (dissenting editors) or agree to a dispute resolution." Garycompugeek (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Another thing I would like to make absolutely clear regarding search results. Search hits could be from anywhere but it does not mean they are all from peer review sources we would accept in this article. They also tend to repeat themselves in multiple article further skewing any statistics. Conversely due to our high standards of quality for this article (ruling out bias pages on both sides of the board) would leave you with very small percentage of applicable data. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gary. That was why I initially used PubMed rather than a plain Google search (PubMed is a database that indexes articles peer-reviewed journals). And as Coppertwig has shown, the same is true of news sources. Jakew (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

True but you do not accept all peer review sources do you Jake? Garycompugeek (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Last but not least using your own search criteria for notability and/or inclusion Google news search on related searches to circumcision list "male circumcision", "mutilation", "procedure", "female", "hiv aids" and "old egyptian". I guess we should change the title to "Male Circumcision" and include a section on female circumcision plus discuss circumcision as genital mutilation. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussed many, many times previously. Please see, for example, Talk:Circumcision and law#Neutrality. Jakew (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating it Jake, merely trying to use your logic to prove a point. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I messed up the formatting of my last message, but to be more explicit, here is the edit I propose: I propose changing "The World Health Organisation (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV." to a version not mentioning CDC, i.e. "The World Health Organisation (WHO; 2007) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007) state that evidence indicates that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV." The U.S.-specific CDC can still be mentioned in the article, but for brevity I suggest not in the lead. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the WHO paragraph is notable because the WHO is prominent and its recommendations have real world effects, as Jakew states, then it is those real world effects, if anything, that belong in the lead. On 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Jakew posted a link to a BBC article here stating that a state sponsored mass circumcision program is underway in Rwanda, described as "nominally voluntary" and "many in the armed forces will regard it as an order." Over four months later, that information is still not in this "balanced" article. Is it because it is difficult to summarize that information in a way that fits with this "circumcision brochure," as other editors have called it? Jakew sees the WHO's advocacy of circumcision as one of circumcision's most notable aspects, explains that this is because it has real world effects, but doesn't seem interested in including those real world effects in the article, pre-emptively stating his opposition to the appearance of material about those real world effects in this article, by immediately recommending it go into POV-fork subarticles. It's nonsensical. This article cannot continue to be a vehicle for circumcision advocacy. We have many editors, each in 1 on 1 conversations with Jakew attempting to get him to stop objecting to any changes he wouldn't personally make, in effect treating him as the arbiter of this article (WP:OWN). You can disrupt Wikipedia by blocking any edits you don't like, too, not just by editing. Please stop, Jake. Blackworm (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you can just ignore all those other pesky editors who do not agree with your POV. Sorry if I seem jaded but I have been trying contribute to this article for months now and the one sentence I got into the article was the CDC reference to try and balance WHO and even that got twisted to look like support for WHO and now Coppertwig wants to remove that from the lead. Coppertwig, you have my support, go ahead and remove or relocate the CDC reference. Its not serving as the balance that I originally proposed anyway. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems very sensible, Coppertwig. Actually, we could reduce the word count further. Since we've already introduced the acronym WHO in paragraph 3, how about "WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (2007) state that..."? Jakew (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, I understand your frustration. Around March 2007 I spent tons of time trying to do something about what appeared to me to be a problem with Wikipedia:Attribution. The only thing I was allowed to add to the article, after weeks of discussion and some editwarring, was changing a period to a colon. I've had similar experiences with at least one article, and maybe even this one (I don't quite remember). But I think many people find that after a good bit of experience editing an article, they get a better feel for what fits with policies and guidelines and what other editors will accept, and have a better time getting stuff in. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) Coppertwig, that assumes that policy is being followed, but here, it is alleged that policy is not being followed. Jakew's "rough consensus" theory of article development is not policy. An edit that goes unnoticed, or an edit whose shifting of the POV isn't immediately obvious cannot be said to have any kind of consensus. Most editors don't check this article and all circumcision-related articles daily, carefully and diligently reviewing all diffs for any material they deem should be immediately challenged. This "rough consensus" theory is ideal for use by such a fanatical editor, since all material immediately challenged and "boldly reverted" would never have any chance to sit for days. Thus all material the editor challenges never has this form of consensus, and if that theory is applied the fanatical editor effectively owns the article. Sorry, but I don't think that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Blackworm (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, we may well agree that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.", but what we don't agree on is that this advice should be interpreted as "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic in accordance with frequency of mention in recent reliable published sources."

Also, I think that the existence of this very debate here suggests that the advice in wp:lead is not being "ignored", and nor am I suggesting that we ignore it: I'm suggesting that it is being contravened largely because of the amount of disproportionate emphasis the HIV prevention aspect is currently receiving in the lead.

Furthermore, I suggest that you are the one ignoring advice given in wp:lead, namely that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." and "in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." and "Avoid...over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."

I believe that I am making suggestions as to how the lead of this article might be improved so that it complies with as much of the advice at wp:lead as is realistically possible. You seem to be attempting to comply with one aspect of that advice, whilst contravening others, using a flawed methodology which you have introduced, in order to ensure that the WHO/HIV information is especially prominent in the lead. Beejaypii (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, I understand that you disagree with this interpretation, but what you haven't offered is a usable alternative interpretation. When considering the intent of the guideline, do you really think that this advice is intended to be ignored unless sources explicitly tabulate the relative importance of various aspects? Or do you think that it is intended that we try to get a rough idea of the importance given to the topic in these sources?

I understand that you believe that WP:LEAD is being contravened, and that HIV is given disproportionate emphasis. I do not understand how you can judge the emphasis to be disproportionate, however, without having a means of assessing what the correct proportion ought to be (which brings us back to the previous point). However, Coppertwig and I have suggested ways of reducing the word count, and thus in turn the relative proportion of the lead.

I do not understand why you think I am ignoring the advice that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" - indeed, this advice seems to indicate that the HIV aspect should be mentioned. I do agree that the relative emphasis given to HIV could be reduced somewhat in the lead, and again I refer to the efforts to reduce the word count somewhat. I do not think that either the current or the proposed paragraph are over-specific - if anything, they serve as a very high-level overview - but I would welcome your proposals to address this. Jakew (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, if the HIV aspect should be mentioned, and it's ok to do so in the form of a high-level overview, then we can do the same thing in the lead with other aspects of the topic too. Unfortunately, I can see that leading to further disputes over relative emphasis, but in the context of an unnecessarily expanded lead. Your territoriality concerning the lead of this article is the primary cause of disputes. You are not facilitating the process of improving the lead because you are pushing the aspect of circumcision which you, personally, want to see given disproportionate prominence in the lead, with scant regard for the structural quality of the article, and justified by a methodology, introduced by you without concensus and not documented in policies or guidelines, which cannot tell us anything indisputable about relative notability within the context of the main topic: because it cannot, conversely, demonstrate that a particular aspect is not notable. Furthermore (and this is a somewhat moot point in view of the failings of the methodology in question already described, but it raises further questions) can one guarantee that the search facility at Pubmed is bug-free and reliable? Should we really be relying on whatever code is involved in that search facility to ascertain (supposedly) relative notability of aspects of a topic in the way you are doing? Isn't this a very unscientific and makeshift way of trying to achieve what you're trying to achieve (at which it doesn't succeed anyway)? If your methodology is as useful as you claim, why don't you try getting it added it to the wp:lead guidelines as a recommended strategy, to be adopted in situations such as the one we have here? Beejaypii (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, I don't see a particular problem with mentioning other aspects in the lead, and indeed we already do so. We discuss, for example, history, prevalence, and claims from advocates on both sides of the circumcision debate.

To review the history here, when I pointed out that the WHO recommendations were "one of the main reasons why the subject is notable and interesting", you objected that this was "highly subjective, personal, and largely POV". In order to be somewhat more objective, I then asked "For example, do you disagree that WHO's recommendations have led to the planning/implementation of circumcision programmes in individual countries? Do you disagree that it has led to interest in the subject from scientific journals and in the media?" These questions, as far as I can tell, went unanswered. Finally, I offered a reasonably objective way of assessing the rough significance of this aspect across multiple reliable sources, in an easily reproducible test that avoids giving too much weight to any individual source. Similarly, Coppertwig has used similar methods to show that this result is not limited to PubMed. You respond by stating that this method is flawed, yet do not offer a better method of determining the importance of material.

The clear intent of WP:LEAD, as documented in the first two paragraphs, is that the lead should summarise the significant aspects of a topic. In the absence of any method to determine significance, we would have to either a) rely upon subjective assessment (which you reject), or b) have no material whatsoever in the lead. Since the latter outcome is absurd, and since you reject the former, it follows that a method of determining relative significance is needed. Sure, the methods that Coppertwig and I have used aren't foolproof, but in the absence of anything else they serve as a reasonable basis for discussion (and I'm sorry to be blunt, but if the best objection to them is that there might be bugs in PubMed then they must be a pretty good basis).

In spite of having offered several different kinds of evidence in support of the significance of this paragraph, Coppertwig and I have attempted to address your concerns about relative emphasis by reducing the word count of the paragraph. Are you interested in working with us on this? Jakew (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Wait: before we remove the CDC mention, I'd like to find out what sort of balance Garycompugeek was originally using it to add. I'd like the lead to say something about possible harmful effects of circumcision or about it not necessarily being a good idea to use circumcision as a preventive for HIV, if such balancing ideas can be justified from reliable sources with due weight.

Blackworm: I'm sorry, I haven't had time to fully absorb all of this discussion so I'm not sure if I follow what you're saying. I was mentioning rough consensus not as an argument that the article should take some particular form, but only as an argument for refraining from making certain edits for a few days while we discuss them, so as to maintain a dignified article history that looks as if changes have been made carefully, and that is easier to search through afterwards. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig I was referring to this post "The CDC quotes "There are as yet no convincing data to help determine whether male circumcision will have any effect on HIV risk for men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner." [18] sourcing Koblin BA, Chesney MA, Husnik MJ. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)" straight from the CDC arcticle. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, I believe that your methods of ascertaining relative notability are not acceptable, and my best objection to those methods is not the point I make about possible bugs in the Pubmed search. In fact, lets take a look at what I actually wrote about your method in my last contribution, namely that it...

"...cannot tell us anything indisputable about relative notability within the context of the main topic: because it cannot, conversely, demonstrate that a particular aspect is not notable. Furthermore (and this is a somewhat mute point in view of the failings of the methodology in question already described, but it raises further questions) can one guarantee that the search facility at Pubmed is bug-free and reliable? Should we really be relying on whatever code is involved in that search facility to ascertain (supposedly) relative notability of aspects of a topic in the way you are doing?"

It seems pretty obvious that I, myself, don't see the point I make about the search facility as the main objection. What was it you said again:

"Sure, the methods that Coppertwig and I have used aren't foolproof, but in the absence of anything else they serve as a reasonable basis for discussion (and I'm sorry to be blunt, but if the best objection to them is that there might be bugs in PubMed then they must be a pretty good basis)."

Here, you effectively side-step my main objection to your methodology by implying that it's not the best point, without actually addressing it, and effectively promoting a lesser point I made (which I actually described as a "somewhat mute point" when I made it) to the top of the list, and the conclusion you draw is that the object of my critiques, your methodologies, are a "reasonable basis for discussion" because that newly elevated point may be the best one (please see straw man). And yes, your methodologies are a "reasonable basis for discussion", the discussion we've been having pretty much suggests that's a given, but so what, that doesn't make them any more valid.

You ask me if I'm interested in working with you and Coppertwig on this. Actually, I'm interested in working with any editor who is interested in taking part in this discussion and the changes to the article which result from it, but can we achieve concensus on a fundamental aspect of the current discussion first? Can we follow through, to a conclusion, the discussion of the methodology you have invented and employed, unsupported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to support disproportionate emphasis placed on a particular aspect of the article topic in the lead (and how about also addressing Blackworm's critique of that methodology, which he set out in his contribution beginning "Very well said..."?) Beejaypii (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, I apologise for the "best objection" remark. This was unnecessary and I will, if you wish, strike it out.

If you look at the discussion above, you will see that both Coppertwig and I have acknowledged that there may be more than one kind of notability, and it follows from this that one may need to use multiple methods to establish the notability or significance of an aspect of the topic. So when you state that the method "cannot ... demonstrate that a particular aspect is not notable", I don't entirely agree. It might indicate that an aspect is not notable, but if that's the "wrong" answer (how would we tell if we're disallowing subjective assessment?) then we might be talking about another type of notability.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is (understandable) resistance to subjective assessments of relative significance, and yet there is also resistance to more objective measures. The resistance to the latter seems to be misguided, largely because it seems to be on the basis of mistaking evidence in support of an argument for significance for an absolute rule for determining significance. I don't believe there can be an "absolute rule", but when subjective assessments are rejected it is reasonable (and indeed, almost expected on WP) to present evidence in support of one's position.

Not only have I offered PubMed searches, but Coppertwig has also shown that there are similar results in Google News (and, although less suitable for locating reliable sources, plain Google). So that's three different kinds of evidence, all of which indicate that the HIV issue is significant. In addition to this, arguments have also been presented that WHO's statement (an obvious secondary source for the HIV issue) are also notable due to the prominence of WHO and thus the consequences of their recommendations.

Taken together, then, especially in light of lack of evidence to the contrary, it is hard to escape the conclusion that there is compelling evidence that the HIV issue ought to be covered in the lead. I do acknowledge, however, that more emphasis is given to this aspect in the lead than in the rest of the article, and I again point out that Coppertwig and I have been discussing a means of addressing this by reducing the number of words in the lead paragraph. Jakew (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No argument has been presented for the notability of the WHO's position on circumcision in the lead section. If the WHO statements are "also notable," then at best they should come after the statements whose general notability you believe to have established, i.e. something along the lines of: The possible effects of circumcision on HIV transmission have been and continue to be examined. In 2007 the WHO recommended the procedure as a means to reduce HIV transmission, in contrast with most states' medical organizations, which do not recommend (but generally do not oppose) the procedure. In Africa, this has lead to state programs to circumcise males. I see that as neutral, notable, and general; it doesn't give the WHO (advocates) or its opponents too much "brochure"-space (if you'll permit), and it effectively summarizes the subject (circumcision and HIV) in proportion to its established notability. It references the time aspect (2007) of the "evidence" you have produced. It points out that most medical organizations still do not recommend the procedure. The above can replace the WHO paragraph, and the paragraph on the AMA. Thoughts welcome. Blackworm (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, Jake, there is no onus on editors to come up with a methodology that YOU believe is "more objective" than yours. A more objective methodology may still be gravely flawed, as I believe yours is. Compromise and consensus with editors around you is the only way to go. Blackworm (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(<<<outdent)Re "The possible effects of circumcision on HIV transmission have been and continue to be examined." Inserting this at the beginning of the paragraph would lengthen the paragraph. Would other editors see it as increasing too much the weight given to this topic? I think it would be OK to insert it. Actually, I think it's a good sentence. It introduces the paragraph nicely rather than leaving the reader to parse a list of names of organizations before figuring out what's being talked about.
I'm not sure that we can fairly state that medical organizations have a contrasting position: maybe they just haven't updated their positions yet after the WHO thing came out. Do we have reliable sources stating that there is such a contrast?
There is no onus on other editors to come up with a method Jakew finds convincing unless they wish to convince Jakew of something in the process of trying to reach consensus.
I think Jakew's point is not that an alternative method of establishing notability proposed by others is less objective, but that no such alternative method has been proposed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig, for your reply. If we all accept that the WHO currently recommends circumcision, and medical organizations do not recommend circumcision (and do not oppose), clearly those are contrasting positions, regardless of whether and when other organizations will agree with the WHO. In fact, what calls for the "contrasting" language is neutrality, but we can address this differently by making the paragraph about what medical organizations say, rather than about circumcision and HIV. In that case, I would suggest the paragraph: Most states' medical organizations do not recommend (but generally do not oppose) male circumcision. However, in 2007 the WHO recommended it as a means to reduce HIV transmission. In Africa, this has lead to state programs to circumcise males. It removes the contrast language. Being about medical organizations and the real-world effect of their recommendations, rather than about circumcision's possibly link with HIV, there is no need for the first sentence you said you liked (sorry).

The WHO doesn't set the agenda for other organizations, the organizations are indeed aware of the WHO's recommendation (as the CDC source shows) and of the underlying studies. I suggest we let the reader decide whether the WHO's change in position in 2007 is too recent for other organizations to have had a chance to examine the same evidence and change their position along with the WHO. Blackworm (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me, Blackworm, that your proposal would have much the same effect as joining the last two paragraphs of the lead into one. As a general concept — covering the medical organisations in one paragraph — I think it's a good idea. However, I'm not sure about the exact wording, and I would like to understand why you feel that this wording is preferable to, say, simply joining the paragraphs. Jakew (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's less than half as long as the two existing paragraphs, as it doesn't have a level of detail inappropriate for the lead, and it additionally introduces the real world effects that make the HIV aspect notable. Blackworm (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. On first glance, I can see three major problems. Firstly, "state" is somewhat ambiguous, and might be taken to mean US States. Secondly, the AMA report represents the literature as of December 1999, and so this needs to be dated in addition to the WHO statement. Thirdly, I'd prefer to stay closer to the source than "do not recommend (but generally do not oppose)". To address these issues would require a few more words, but perhaps not as many as the existing paragraphs.

How about something like this: "As of 1999, most medical organisations did not recommend routine infant male circumcision, and advised that parents should be given accurate and unbiased information to inform their choice. In 2007 the WHO recommended circumcision as a means to reduce HIV transmission, which has led to national circumcision programmes in several African countries." Jakew (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I agree, we need to let the reader decide. I think it's difficult to summarize in a few words various states' medical organization policies, especially when we may only know a few of them. It might work to tack the HIV stuff at the end of the paragraph about medical organization policies (which I think needs to be edited so as not to mention only a U.S. organization).

On second thought, the sentence "The possible effects of circumcision on HIV transmission have been and continue to be examined." seems to me to have a problem. I'm not so sure we can say "continue to be examined": what does this mean? The RCTs were stopped early due to allegedly overwhelming evidence, so I suppose nobody's planning any more RCTs at the moment. I haven't thought of a good way to word it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is gone from the above version. You'll notice the AMA paragraph to be replaced summarizes the various states' policies. Is that summary disputed? Blackworm (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Jakew, doesn't your suggestion involve a degree of spin? When you say "As of 1999, most medical organisations did not recommend..." doesn't your use of the simple past tense (did not recommend) suggest a completed action, ie something which was occurring but is not any longer? Is that in the source? I don't think so, I think the source tells us what the AMA said the situation was in 1999, but does not tell us how, or whether, it has changed in the meantime. Furthermore, by presenting information as "how things were", instead of "how the AMA described things as being" you set things up very nicely for the following sentence, "In 2007, the WHO recommended..", to play the "but here's how things are since more recently" role, and you've also retained the mention of the WHO in the text, along with the weight that adds, and you've managed to drop the reference to the AMA in the text, reducing the apparent weight of that side of the argument. Beejaypii (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Beejaypii, I do not appreciate your accusation of "spin", and I would be grateful if you would avoid making such claims in future. Not only is it unfortunate that you appear not to assume good faith, but some of your allegations are somewhat perplexing. For example, you state that I have "managed to drop the reference to the AMA, reducing the apparent weight of that side of the argument", yet if you had read Blackworm's comment dated 01:53, 9 June 2008, it would have been obvious that his initial draft wording dropped the reference to the AMA, presumably due to the desire for brevity. Perhaps it might be more productive to simply state your objections to the text, rather than attempting to weave them into a theory about another editor?

The AMA explicitly state in their statement that it "represents the medical/scientific literature on this subject as of December 1999" (typos in source corrected). Unless we wish to credit the AMA with the ability to predict the future (relative to 1999), the past tense would therefore seem to be appropriate. We also use the past tense when describing the WHO's 2007 statement ("the WHO recommended..."). The obvious alternative would be to use a direct quote with dated attribution, though of course this wouldn't help to reduce the word count. Jakew (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a reference on which to base a statement about "most medical organizations"? If not, I dispute such a statement as unverified, and it could perhaps be replaced by something along the lines of "several major medical organizations". I don't even know how many medical organizations there are in the world; I assume at least one per country, which is a large number, and in that case I haven't seen references talking about the positions of a majority of them. Besides, "medical organizations" is vague and could be taken to include a very large number of very small, informal organizations. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "most major medical organizations". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, I made neither an accusation nor a claim, I asked a question: "...doesn't your suggestion involve a degree of spin." (by the way, nice word play in the first paragraph of your last contribution: "spin" and "weave". You haven't been reading my recent contributions to the Blackburn article, about the textile industry, have you?)

You are correct, I did not notice that Blackworm dropped the AMA reference, I acknowledge my mistake. You can stop feeling perplexed now.

Now lets look at your use of the past tense. Yes, we don't wish to credit the AMA with the ability to predict the future, but that doesn't seem to relate to the point I'm trying to make. You see, your phrase "As of 1999, most medical organisations did not recommend...", as I pointed out, suggests a state of play which has now ended, which may or may not be true, but we don't know and we don't have a source which tells us. To avoid suggesting a situation which has now ended, you would probably have to say "As of 1999, most medical organisations do not recommend...", again, this may or may not be true, we don't know, and we don't have a source which tells us. However, the statement "The American Medical Association stated in 1999: "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.", is valid, and supported by a source. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here? Beejaypii (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that we must be parsing the sentence differently, Beejaypii. I don't see the implication of a "a state of play which has now ended", as you put it. Nevertheless, your point seems to be that you prefer the current version (or "direct quote with dated attribution" as I put it above). As I indicated, I think that's an acceptable alternative. The disadvantage is that Blackworm expressed a (reasonable) desire to reduce the length, and the attributed version is slightly longer (39 vs 28 words if I count correctly). Jakew (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) I could abide by Jakew's suggested edit, but then Beejaypii has brought up the spectre of WP:V. I suppose it was a foolish idea from the beginning to attempt to improve the lead by stating things pretty much all editors here agree on, instead of things which destroy the readability but are rendered bulletproof by hard, reliable, easily available sources. I wrote the AMA paragraph that I suggested we remove, and which Beejaypii says is valid and supported. But I suppose I had a moment where I saw some common ground we could agree on, and thought perhaps for a moment many of us could transcend our pedantry to improve both the flow and neutrality of the lead. Blackworm (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)