Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1602139,00.html --Dumbo1 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I read it when it was printed. Isn't it awful? I was appalled at the Guardian - usually pretty good at balanced reporting. Unfortunately they didn't print my letter, but the following Saturday's edition did carry a letter from another person rather critical of the article. Jakew 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was it awful? --Dumbo1 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why we should merge these two articles together. We are talking about two very different operations that have very different goals (sanitary, religious, etc..). These articles are just too different to be put together.

Comment made by the user GreatKing

I agree. Male circumcision is normal and expected practice. Males get enough pleasure from sex, so it shouldn't really matter even if they were damaged by this, which they are not. Circumcision for males is hygenic, too--you don't get penile cancer if you cut off the foreskin, and who wants that for their little boy? Besides, it's a religious ceremony for Jews, so you'd have to be anti-semitic to speak against it.

FGM (female genital mutilation) says it succinctly. It's mutilation. Women are oppressed enough already--some would even say that they are oppressed too much, and who are you to disagree with them? Women are now coming into their sexual power, what with the age of the goddess and women's lib and all that. People are finding out that men out that patriarchal societies do this to women to keep them down, so it's wrong to continue doing it. It must be stopped. Arguing for women's circumcision just means you admit you are a misogynist.

Are you being ironic? I'm going to assume that you are not, but if you are, insert the sound of me chuckling here and disregard the rest.

I'm going to summarize your points and then address them.

• A circumcised man experiences enough pleasure, so men are not entitled to experience any more. Therefore, circumcision is acceptable.
• Men are not damaged by circumcision.
• Cicumcision completely eliminates penile cancer.
• Speaking out against a medical procedure that is similar to a jewish practice is anti-semetic.

Now for FGM

• FGM is mutilation simply because the word mutilation is in the name.
• people who support FGM are mysogynist

My Reply

• This idea violates many of the most basic human rights charters. UN Declaration of Human Rights Pay special attention to Article 3.
• The article "Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function." by Senkul, published in Urology in 2004 stated that men took significantly longer to ejaculate after Circumcision, however they, like you dismissed these results as an advantage.
• Circumcision does not eliminate penile cancer, it simply makes an extremely rare affliction even more rare. The source for this is in the article. This is not a valid justification for circumcision. I for one would be very happy with an increased chance of cancer if I could have more pleasurable sex.
• Many jews don't perform circumcision anymore. Are they Anti-semetic?
• FGM is mutilation not because it is defined by the word mutilation but because women who have been subjected to FGM have had their genitals mutilated, that is, injured or disfigured by irreparably damaging body parts.
• Part of the problem with Circumcision is that a cycle is created. The women who were mutilated are more likely to think that the 'circumcion' is necessary and thus are supporters. Are these women misogynistic or are they suffering from the Psychological effects of Circumcision? Not much research on this has been done, but similarities to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has been suggested. (I'm working on putting together some good sources to add a section 'Psychological Effects' to the article now)

Christopher 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with cristopher. I'll also stress this: Jewish ceremonial circumcision is often made without medical surveillance, without proper disinfectation and without anesthetics on newborn, who have no say on the matter. Claiming criticism towards this cultural behaviour is antisemitic would be the same, as claiming criticism towards FGM would be racist - there's a small contradiction here, don't you think?

Now, there is also circumcision, which comes out of necessity (too tight foreskin, for example), or personal choice. This is a medical operation, that has nothing to do with genital mutilation. I'm sure there are surgical operations performed on female genital areas, which definitely do not fulfill the criteria to be seen as FGM. These two different topics (genital surgery and genital mutilation) should be kept either on different pages, or at least distinctly separated within the same article. aeris 06:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, my turn:

• I agree that this is a ridiculous argument. It is predicated on the equally ridiculous belief that circumcision reduces pleasure. As for human rights, what possible relevance has "the right to life, liberty and security of person"?

• Security of person, as in secure from having a part of ones body forcibly removed. Christopher 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Senkul did indeed report that. Laumann reported less premature ejaculation among circumcised men. Waldinger found no difference. This is a peculiar argument for 'damage'.

• The assumption that the surgical removal of a normal body part does no damage is quite fallacious. As a treatment for premature ejaculation, I consider the removal of what can be considered the most sensitive part of the penis quite logical. This is precisely because circumcision does cause damage. Christopher 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Realistically, one does not consider a single 'pro' in isolation when making a decision.

• Obviously. I was addressing the claim that circumcision was hygenic because it decreased the incidence of Penile Cancer. Christopher 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in a debate on what is or is not anti-semitic.

• Neither am I. My question was rhetorical. Christopher 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Partly agree - something is mutilation because it meets criteria, not because an arbitrary label has been applied. Whether a particular form of FGC is mutilation or not must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

• I think that Female Genital Cutting might benefit from being devided into two separate pages; Female Genital Mutilation and Female Circumcision. Female Circumcision would cover the elective operation clitoridotomy that some women find beneficial. I think this would do a good job of preventing name confusion. Christopher 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• There's no credible evidence that circumcision is psychologically harmful, though a few authors (notably Goldman) maintain elaborate and highly speculative theories that it is. To my knowledge, there is only one epidemiological study in the literature (Schlossberger), which found greater satisfaction in circumcised males. Jakew 12:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• As I said, not much research has been done. Christopher 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Security of person refers to protection against terrorism, invasion, and biohazards.

That deals only with the national security aspect. One is also entitled to individual protection. According to the Human Rights Comission:

• The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma.
• The right to refuse medical treatment is part of the right to security (BoRA, s. 11). Some jurisdictions, when considering the right to refuse medical treatment, have placed a particular importance on the concept of informed consent.

If this right did not exist, a government could demand that you turn over your internal organs so that they could be sold or donated to important politicians. Christopher 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So it doesn't prevent you from voluntarily donating organs, then. In other words, provided appropriate consent is given, this has no bearing whatsoever on the situation. Jakew 13:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It has every bearing on the situation. Infants do not consent to have their genitals irreversably altered. In fact, they do an excellent job explaining to the person performing the mutilation that they do not consent to the procedure (With piercing screams). The Declaration of Human Rights does not grant exception for parents to censent. Christopher 13:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Infants rely on their parents to grant consent by proxy. Are you arguing that a child's rights are violated by other procedures such as heel pricks or vaccinations? Also, they frequently scream when their nappies (diapers) are changed - would you care to make the case that they are expressly denying consent for that, or do you see what an absurd argument that is? Jakew 14:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Removal does not automatically equate to damage. Think for a moment about the consequences of that. Nor is the foreskin the most sensitive part of the penis - that's a myth.

You are correct that the damage is not automatic; it it however, inevitable. Some examples include Bleeding, Scarring, Pain, Loss of Function. Also possibly, Continual Pain, Emotional Scarring, Complications ranging from removal of too much skin(painfully tight erections) to complete obliteration(electrocautery accident?). Christopher 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So we seem to have gone from damage to the possibility of damage due to surgical misadventure. Jakew 13:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that bleeding and scarring happen whenever the skin is cut. Also, try explaining to the man who is suffering from one of these 'surgical misadventures' that he has not been damaged. Also, keep in mind that even if the circumcision is performed perfectly, it is still possible that as the child grows, the amount of skin that was removed will become too much. This constitutes damage. Christopher 13:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't deny that there is a possibility of damage, but claiming that damage always occurs is ridiculous. Jakew 14:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am continually amazed that you refuse to understand that amputation results in damage. Christopher 20:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If one takes the position that removal equates to damage, one cannot possibly approach the question of whether it is beneficial or harmful with an open mind. A haircut is damage, pruning a tree is damage, creating a beautiful sculpture from a chunk of rock is damage, machining a precision instrument is damage, and so on. To my mind, that's absurd. We assess these things on the value or quality of what existed before and what exists after, not some arbitrary criteria such as removal or addition. Jakew 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that a change can only be considered damage if the value or quantity of the changed object has been reduced? Fine. Lets assess what exists before and after.

Before:

• Erectile Shaft
• Mobile skin system
• Glans as internal organ
• Mucosa protecting said internal organ
• Protected Meatus
• Frenulum
• Lots of nerve endings

After:

• Erectile Shaft
• Fixed skin system that likely does not provide enough skin for a comfortable erection (Men circumcised as adults would have the correct amount of skin)
• Glans that is exposed and vulnerable
• Glans surfce is likely injured when the prepuce(which shares its epithelium with the glans) is ripped off of it.
• Frenulum(Unlikely)

It seems pretty clear that the change can be considered damage. As I said in my earlier edit, I am suprised that you are arguing that no damage has taken place considering how apparent the damage is. Many Circumcision advocates admit that circumcision is in fact damaging. They justify the damage with the supposed benefits that circumcision bestows on the circumcised man. Hypotheses do not prevent one from approaching unknowns with an open mind. As soon as one is presented with evidence that contradicts ones hypothesis, one must reevaluate said hypothesis. Good job with the examples of damage. If my hair didn't recover from its damage in only a few weeks, I would be a lot more reluctant to get a haircut. Pruning is most certainly damage, If done incorrectly, the tree could die. If I bought a 100ton block of marble and a large block of titanium and returned to find that you had chiseled down my block of marble into a statue and had machined my titanium into a 'precision insturment' I would consider your alterations damage as I would no longer be able to use them for their originally intended purposes. I would also have legal recourse for this. Christopher 03:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Christopher, have you ever read Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance? If not, you should. It's all about value and quality (and it's a damn good read, too). Why do I mention it? Fairly early in the book, Pirsig gives an example of analysis that is devoid of value. He described a motorcycle, breaking it down into assemblies and subassemblies and so on. While your description is of anatomy rather than a man-made object, it is startlingly similar.

I could go through your descripton and point out the gaping holes (there are several), but there's little merit in doing so because it completely misses the point. Jakew 12:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Your suggestion of splitting FGC into two articles may have some merit, though it really ought to be Female Genital Cutting and Clitoridotomy. FGM can redirect to FGC (the term 'mutilation' is inherently POV and should not be the title of the page in an NPOV encyclopaedia). FGC would have to have a brief description of clitoridotomy (since it is Type I FGC, as defined by the WHO), and point the reader towards the main article. Female circumcision can be used to mean either clitoridotomy or any other type of FGC, so we'd have to have a disambiguation page. Frankly I'm not sure how this might lessen the confusion, though. Jakew 12:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• whether FGC should be split should not be discussed here, it should be discussed on its talk page. But generally as the WHO classification gives structure, and as in many countries all forms are illegal it is going to have to stay there, so unless somewone can write a really good standalone article on clitoridotomy there isnt much point splitting it. Justinc 13:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

there is a lot of pseudo-information in the editing i am a pediatric urologist if you want real info contact me i am tired of the incessant bickering i see here with people advancing their agendas (especially robert the bruce) i think my experience with the normal and pathologic states of the penis count for something also, i at least do circumcisions (when i deem them necessary) and am well-versed in their complications

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 07:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

may I ask where you are from (i.e. your cultural background) and whether you are circumcised? --Dumbo1 23:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as an "you can ask the question but I'm not going to answer it"...--Dumbo1 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The British rejected the National Health subsidy on circumcision because of the lack of benefit and the mortality rate noted at the time. Douglas Gardiner's paper was most influential here.Michael Glass 06:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The spread of circumcision in South Korea can be attributable to American influence. However, there is nothing in the New Testament that mandates circumcision. If circumcision was promoted in South Korea, the source was American rather than specifically Christian.Michael Glass 06:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I had a conspiracy theory, it'd automatically be invalid for edition. These are straw man attacks on my edits by claiming I have a motive that is not even true, to somehow invalidate my edits. Some POV revert warmongers especially Jewish can't seem to relax about topics related to Jews, but are also related to Christians like myself. They have no inborne mantle of power to control these things, however they may think they are God's chosen ones. All I'm interested in, is: Wikipedia:Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about. ScapegoatVandal 13:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just where is what I wrote POV? Come please, tell me how much less of this you want cut off from public dissemination and sweetly appealing to your mind! Did I mention you lack NPOV? You are only reverting from following me around, eh Weyes?. You would pay no other attention to this article. I classify you as a revert vandal and deletionist fanatic. This is a problem in the wikipedia. It doesn't need you. ScapegoatVandal 14:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you refuse to provide references, it must be assumed that is because you cannot provide references. In which case, this is original research. See Wikipedia:No original research. Would you like to change your mind about providing references?

If you honestly can't see why writing something akin to (I'm paraphrasing) "Circumcision in America has happened because Jews are too rich and powerful," then perhaps you need to review the WP:NPOV policy also. - Jakew 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are putting a straw man argument against me to filibuster, with subtle character assassination. Read Wikipedia's own definition of that. I did not say that which you claim I said, if you'll read again. I said that Jews and Puritans were friends, which is why they both had allowed this practice to even flourish. Jews and Puritans have historic background as friends on the Wikipedia it is written as so. Puritans provided Jews with legal protections and they shared a lot of ideology. Just look up the articles about Jews and the Puritans and the Glorious Revolution et al. They like that stuff, regardless of what I or you feel about it. It's their own thing and I respect that is their choice. Yankees and Victorians had immense respect for eachother, if you'll read the Wikipedia and check those things offsite too. I didn't say anything you said, which means you can stop the act right now and quit claiming I need extra sources than what is already on the Wikipedia. ScapegoatVandal 15:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jakew, I agree with you that sources should be provided. However, this wasn't your primary reason for reverting, was it? You called the edit a 'conspiracy theory'. I disagree. and think the section should be re-added.

The only reason I will officially oppose the addition of this section is that the rules do state that sources should be provided. ScapegoatVandal, could you please try to cite sources? -- Ec5618 15:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618, you're partly right. I think the section is complete and total rubbish, and - yes - a conspiracy theory. It is also distinctly POV. However, if credible references are supplied, I cannot reasonably oppose the inclusion. I do not expect them to be found, since those of us who have read up on the subject (eg Gollaher's Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery) know it to be wrong. - Jakew 16:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell me how it is complete and total rubbish, by context of definition. Tell me how it is a conspiracy theory, by a context in definition. Tell me how it is POV, by context of definition. I am circumcised, but do you see me inserting my personal campaign to justify an optional circumcision at my age, regardless of that fact(it was not as an adult)? You are here on a mission to promote your views in favour of circumcision, but I have no f**king care to get involved in that either way. I'm not on any hateful vendetta. All I'm interested in is culture and this is merely one part of culture that came off the back of my head and I wanted to share interesting facts that I never knew before. That is what wikipedia is about, although the cultural interest is mine alone. ScapegoatVandal 16:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you are trying in include something, it is your job to provide references, ScapegoatVandal. Though I do agree that Jakew's initial asessment of the situation was off, and that he should have tried to word his comments less offensively. -- Ec5618 16:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have already provided internal references to my claims here at the Wikipedia.

Here are just a few for starters:

Menasseh Ben Israel

History of the Jews in England--Maranos in England

History of the Jews in England

History of the Jews in the United States

Also as we all know, circumcision wasn't widespread until recently in Christendom. It was only after Jews got Emancipation at the time as Catholics did, that circumcision became "normal" to the average Christian. Just because the articles don't draw these conclusions, doesn't mean it is wrong for me to deny speaking about the convergence of facts. To do else is to turn a blind eye. ScapegoatVandal 16:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of those articles deal with circumcision. In fact, the word does not even occur in them. Your edit is based in inference and speculation, and unless you can cite a serious reference this is dealt with as original research, for which Wikipedia is not an outlet. JFW | T@lk 16:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your edit suggests that Jewish emancipation led to widened practice of circumcision in Anglo-American countries. There is, however, no record of widespread circumcision in the UK since the late 19th century. The acceptance of circumcision in the USA has more to do with perceptions of hygiene than influence of "rich Jews" (rather stereotypical) on the fashionable classes. Again, during a business deal people typically keep their underwear on. JFW | T@lk 16:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are yet again putting words into my mouth. I never said that their wealth was a cause. That is straw man argumentation. I said that they enjoyed mutual society with the Yankees and Victorians of Puritan origin, partly because of the way the laws were intolerant to traditionalists and promoting the Bank of England etc which was largely staffed by Jews. Protestants were making the big money most of the time. Jews only began to make money around the time of Disraeli and Rothschild, whilst they had been the tools of selfishly bigoted anti-Papist Protestant aristocrats. Any Traditional Catholic will tell you this fact. Just because history is written by the winners of war, doesn't mean that the truth is nonexistant apart from policy. ScapegoatVandal 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reported the eponymous ScapegoatVandal to the 3RR board for consideration. His response to my warning on his talkpage may be worth reading, and are grounds for banning IMHO. JFW | T@lk 16:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a Jew would say that about those that reveal more than a Jew wants in the media. WHORE! ScapegoatVandal 17:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ScapegoatVandal, you are making an arse of yourself. You broke the rules, so you should pay the price. Clean and simple. Also, please stop using emotionally charged words out of context. -- Ec5618 17:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey dude, what of the others here breaking the rules by reverting? What of their motives and actions by bullying the Jew topics? ScapegoatVandal 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is not "breaking the rules". Your violations of this and this are, though. JFW | T@lk 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hogging articles is not against the rules per se(or is it?), as is not(or is it?) also reverting any single thing for power over that info. You have found a loophole and you've gone to exploit that weak jugular. I will never concede to your pressure. Anybody who is not Jewish and knows about Puritans I will converse with on this article, because I want it to be fair and balanced. Apparently, the fact that this includes the topic of "Jew" offends every Jewish person here unless a Gentile or Goy gets your express permission prior to editing. There is nothing else to this conversation. Stalking is against the rules. ScapegoatVandal 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 19:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? ScapegoatVandal 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Google:DNFTT JFW | T@lk 19:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It means you need to substantiate your edits if you want anybody to take you seriously. - jredmond 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, he found the template! JFW | T@lk 19:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because I feel just like you do. Wow, yet you think I'm just a miserable homophobic antisemite? ScapegoatVandal 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we refactor the whole discussion above. Any objections? JFW | T@lk 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do. I have in the past suggested keeping trolls, so these could be shown to editors as an example of what not to do. This discussion fails to meet my criteria for archiving, as the mistake ScapegoatVandal made is simply too obvious. -- Ec5618 20:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

File:Circpn - circumcised penis.jpg

The image of the 'circumcised' penis in the article looks to me like it could be an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin rolled back...? It's hard to tell but it appears to have skin bands bunched behind the glans, which looks smooth and shiny. Have a look at these wikipedia pics where you can see another penis with foreskin both covering the glans and retracted.

I second this. Something is wrong because the 'circumcised' penis is either just a regular penis with the foreskin rolled back behind the gland OR its a newly circumcised penis (??) Certainly the gland would not be moist but carotinised and dry. Someone please verify these photos?

I third this. The penis looks wet or oiled, which really shouldn't be the case circumcised or not. Additionally it appears as if there could be a foreskin and is just rolled back. In most circumcised penises, there is little or no foreskin to create a roll just behind the glans, as appears to be the case here. Can we have some confirmation of the provenance of these photos. Or perhaps someone really daring can take a picture of their, or a friends circumcised penis and post it. --Dumbo1 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This looks very much like a cicumsized penis to me. I don't think the skin bands are unusual either. It's true the glans is shiny, but that happens also to me, I suppose because of friction.

User:Michael Glass, I noticed that you added a bunch of links to CIRP pages on alternative treatments. I've temporarily left these, but they really don't belong here. I don't object to linking to individual studies at CIRP, but CIRP's summary pages are heavily biased, do not have the benefit of peer review, and sometimes contain outright lies. Please could you replace the CIRP summaries with primary sources? - Jakew 8 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

User: Jakew Thanks for the note, Jake. I have added some individual sources but I have left the CIRP references for the time being. If you have any specific objections to the pages that are linked, please say so. At the moment I feel that the value of these summary pages is that they link the reader with a range of references to investigate. Michael Glass 8 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

I've removed the CIRP references. My principle objections are: 1) the unbalanced and selective presentation of evidence, 2) the fact that the pages concerned are not peer-reviewed, and 3) are frequently misleading. If it is useful to present lots of references, then let's do so on Wikipedia, either here or on another page. At least we can correct errors here. I can see no reason to link to CIRP's pages here, any more than I can see a reason to link to the Flat Earth Society on a page on geophysics. Propaganda has its place, I suppose, but not in an encyclopaedia. Do we really want to start the habit of linking to any fool's webpage as an authoritative source? - Jakew 8 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Jake, I'll go through the references and see if any more are relevant and add them. I am, however, disappointed that you did not take this opportunity to explain what specific objection you had to the CIRP pages that I cited, apart from the fact that they present a view that you object to.Michael Glass 8 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

Ok, so you want some specific objections. Here are a few.

• BXO is the best page given, but is somewhat selective in terms of evidence presented. It omits evidence (eg Vincent & Mackinnon) showing less successful alternative treatments, thus giving a misleading picture. To CIRP's credit, they do mention the possible pre-cancerous role of BXO, yet downplay it (see my letter for the facts). It also includes questionable hype about the 'value' of the prepuce.
• Balanitis is again highly selective in terms of evidence presented. They quote Van Howe's "finding" regarding balanitis, but ignore the approx. 7 other studies investigating the link between balanitis and circumcision (see [1]). They say virtually nothing about treatment. They make a highly misleading statement about lysozyme (CIRP misinterpret of Prakash's findings, assuming that the 'lytic material' found was lysozyme when in fact it could be any of hundreds of possible candidates, and Fleiss' claim is contradicted by their own references [2]), and also about sebaceous glands (which Taylor reports do not exist).
• Phimosis is again selective. "Phony Phimosis Diagnosis" is a clue that this is not a balanced page. CIRP totally endorse Rickwood's bizarre premise that phimosis is only present when BXO is, ignoring the criticism of this circular reasoning, and other causes such as scarring due to balanoposthitis. CIRP make erroneous claims, such as "Topical steroid ointment is now the treatment of choice..." (it is among some physicians, but the statement implies all, which is blatantly false).

- Jakew 8 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake, for this detailed information. I shall certainly ponder what you said, and pass on your comments to CIRP for their consideration. There are just a couple of preliminary points that I would like to raise in response. Your letter and that of George Hill [3] in the British Medical Journal are answered by Willcourt, who makes some very good points in support of your position. It is obvious that the whole area of phimosis and BXO is an area of some contention. I would be interested to see other responses in this ongoing controversy. Michael Glass 9 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. I would be grateful if you would keep me informed. While you are at it, perhaps you might also ask them to correct other errors. For example, at cancer, which is one of their more outrageously misleading pages, they claim "There were clinical studies that attempted to induce cancer by introducing smegma subcutaneously and intravaginally: No carcinomas could be induced." (False. I can think of three studies from memory that produced carcinomas: Plaut and Kohn-Speyer, Pratt-Thomas, and Heins.) Another example, which is downright irresponsible, can be found at HIV, where they say: "In another review, Van Howe found that men with circumcised penises were at statistically greater risk of acquiring HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis.32" Van Howe's meta-analysis has been known to be invalid for a long time,[4] [5] and apparently even Van Howe admits this. To omit this fact is highly irresponsible, especially as Falk has apparently known about this for some time.

These are not an exhaustive list of errors, but just some that occur to me. Please let CIRP know that I would be happy to go into more detail. - Jakew 9 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake, I'll pass this further information on to CIRP. However, a Google search revealed that a Dr Robin J Willcourt was disciplined by the Medical Board in Nevada, USA for 'moral turpitude' <http://medboard.nv.gov/press%20releases/dec6.htm>.

I wonder if this Dr Robin J Willcourt is also the Dr Robin J Willcourt, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, who wrote the letter to the British Medical Journal on circumcision. Michael Glass 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

Well, you can always write to him or email, if you really want to know, Michael. I'm a little puzzled as to what this has to do with the subject, though. - Jakew 9 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

The quality of the argument can stand or fall by itself, but questions of character can have a bearing on the motivation of the one putting forward the argument and his or her integrity as a writer and as a person. Michael Glass 13:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"...the answer that I got was to the effect that they don't write CIRP to please Jake Waskett." - Michael Glass

Which seems to be evidence that CIRP are unwilling to address flaws in their site. "Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? ... If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable"." WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F - Jakew 20:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It suggests to me that because you are well known as being in favour of circumcision that they have rejected my statement of your objections as being biased. Once again I urge you to contact CIRP directly if you have any specific concerns.

On the question of what is a reputable publication, remember that the charges of selectivity and bias that you make about CIRP could apply as much to your website. Now a dispassionate observer could dismiss both you and CIRP or they could accept that both sources have a point of view and use both with due caution. Remember, everyone has a point of view; everyone has sensitivities and blind spots. The fact that someone has a point of view does not mean that their opinion can be rejected out of hand, for if we did that we would have to reject everyone's evidence as tainted.

In the case of CIRP and also your website, both quote peer reviewed journals and other publications, so we can certainly use this evidence for article on Wikipedia. Michael Glass 04:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael, I don't object to linking to articles from elsewhere that CIRP have reproduced, though if the article is available elsewhere I tend to prefer to use that source, especially when CIRP choose to include their "helpful" notes. My comments above apply to original content from CIRP. - Jakew 11:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael, I've removed the discussion of the "earlier" figures, since it will be confusing towards readers.

However, it is incorrect to describe these figures as "earlier". Though they were presented earlier, they must be from a later sample point. The 63% rate comes from the study presented in Rio. Note that there were 45 infections in the control vs 15 in the intervention group. The earlier infection figures reported were 51 and 18 respectively, and thus clearly must be sampled later. I suspect that the 70% figure is a rounding error. - Jakew 17:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does this community insist on using the term uncircumcised. When I went through the article and changed instances of uncircumcised to intact, I was clear about my reasons. The person that reverted it was not.

The term uncircumcised is an extremely POV term. It implies that circumcised is the normal state of the penis, or that the penis started out circumcised and becamse uncircumcised at some point. The term intact is pretty accepted. The term uncircumcised is only used by circumcision proponents. Doesn't the change makes sense? Sirkumsize 02:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncircumcised is the more common, unmarked, and neutral term. The term intact, which means "not damaged or impaired", when used in contrast with circumcised pushes the POV that circumcised penises are damaged or impaired. Nohat 03:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not neutral. Commonness is highly contingent on your environment; where circumcision is not the norm, "uncircumcised" sounds bizarre. It's not neutral. And it's marked by a presumption that circumcision is the norm. I'm reverting again. Matt Gies 09:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the argument that "uncircumcised" implies that "circumcised" is the "normal" state of the penis is patently false. Does "undamaged" mean "damaged" is normal? Does "unambiguous" mean "ambiguous" is normal? Does "uncontested" mean "contested" is normal? The fact that a word has an opposite formed with "un-" doesn't inherently mean that the form without "un-" is in any way a default. Nohat 03:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand. My point is that the term intact (which simply means whole) simply denotes the original state of the penis. It makes no judgement of normality. I feel we must choose the term that makes no judgement over the term that makes a judgement. No, intact does not mean undamaged -- just unmodified. Sirkumsize 03:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is you who misunderstands. You might try looking up the word "intact" in a dictionary: [6] [7]. All the definitions imply that if something is not intact, then it is somehow damaged. Nohat 03:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The dictionary defines intact as having all of its parts. Saying that intact is an invalid term for a penis that is not circumcised would be to deny that the foreskin is part of a penis!!!! Sirkumsize 03:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It also says "not damaged", implying that if something is not intact, then it is damaged. Perhaps you only meant "having all of its parts", but for someone else, that is, the majority of people, who understand "intact" as meaning "not damaged", using that word to describe an uncircumcised penis is an extremely biased and loaded usage. If for whatever reason you don't like "uncircumcised", then just say "not circumcised". But "intact" brings in all kinds of loaded meanings that are inherently POV and completely unacceptable. Nohat 03:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision is surgery. The debate is whether the surgery is therapeutic. Saying that surgery doesn't cause injury is something that I've never heard contended before. Surgery also causes injury in the most literal sense, the question is are the benefits worth it. I really don't understand how you could see circumcision any differently. Sirkumsize 03:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not going to a be a fruitful line of reasoning. No one is arguing that it doesn't make any sense or that it is ungrammatical English to use the word "intact" to describe an uncircumcised penis. What is being argued is that the term "intact" has a negative connotation when used in contrast with the term "circumcised", and the connotation is inherently biased and POV; therefore the term must be avoided to maintain neutrality. It's a loaded word. Nohat 03:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll drop the whole thing right now if you can provide me one academic reference showing that intact is a loaded word in any way. Sirkumsize 03:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Because they tend to be interested in finding out facts and not engaging in pointless semantic debates such as this one, academics don't, in general, make declarations about what is and is not a "loaded word". Furthermore, even if I were to find such a reference, you would simply dismiss it as "not academic", so I am not going to take your bait. As a trained linguist, however, I can tell you that it is a very elementary inference from the various dictionary definitions of "intact" that using it as a substitute for the word "uncircumcised" makes the implication that a circumcised penis is somehow damaged. Nohat 03:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that's just my point. There is no way to prove which term is more NPOV. I withdraw my original reasoning and now put forward the reason that the term uncircumcised literally doesn't mean that according to the dictionary, and given the dispute, I think we should favour the correct, dictionary meaning of uncircumcised regardless of what its come to mean. This is the only way this can get sorted out. Also, I feel that wikipedia should be correct in its word usage regardless of slang meanings. Sirkumsize 04:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You keep changing your point and this is frankly getting quite tiresome. Obviously you will not be dissuaded of the belief that the word "intact" is not loaded and biased. I see no point in continuing to argue with you. The fact remains that the word "intact" is loaded and biased, and the word "uncircumcised" is the normal, neutral, clinical, ordinary term, and the evidence for this is borne out in numerous ways as described here. Nohat 04:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, dictionary.com defines uncircumcised as being non-Jewish or non-Christian. Clearly a different meaning than what this article seems to be implying! Sirkumsize 03:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said previously, if for whatever reason you don't like "uncircumcised", then just say "not circumcised". But don't replace it with a loaded, biased POV term like "intact". Your POV pushing will not be tolerated. Nohat 03:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You have no proof that using intact over uncircumcised is in any way POV. Sirkumsize 03:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the evidence and reasoned argument I have provided is the "proof". Nohat 04:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I also add that "uncircumcised penis" gets more than twice as many hits on Google as "intact penis", furthering the point that "uncircumcised", in addition to being netural and unmarked, is also the more common usage. Nohat 03:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Google is not the authority on such things. Sirkumsize 03:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, considering the Google index is the largest corpus of English text ever collected in human history, it certainly is an authority on what constitutes common usage. Nohat 03:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "uncircumcised" is far more common than "intact" in this context. I do not share your opinion that it has negative connotations. It would be more of an NPOV violation to use the approved vocabulary of the anti-circumcision movement in this article. Rhobite 03:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

First of all the anti-circumcision movement as you say just is. I'm really disliking the idea of associating it with POV and ignoring institutions that endorse circumcision. Second of all, do you have any evidence that the term actually belongs to the anti-circumcision movement and is not just the grammatically correct term for a penis o-natural. Sirkumsize 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about common usage. Its about what's correct. The authorativative references show that the word means something else. Sirkumsize 03:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "intact" is defined by negatives: Unharmed, unblemished, etc. The word "uncircumcised" is both more common and more specific. Wikipedia is about common usage, by definition (WP:NOR, WP:V). We are not a prescriptive language guide. We don't get to decide about what words are "correct" or not. Rhobite 04:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an obligation to recognize that the word uncircumcised has another meaning, just as its obliged to acknowledge that the use of the term intact to describe a natural penis is quite common. The word uncircumcised is also longer. What if someone came here who only speaks Chinese and relied on a dictionary to understand the article? Also any word that uses un- as prefix implies the reversal of, not, in effect a negative of something. The real question here is why does it have to be the negative of circumcision. Can't it be the negative of intact - intact or unintact penis? You have to acknowledge that POV pushers want to the word uncircumcised to be used and its EVERY BIT AS POV as using intact, if not more, and at the very least, not accurate as per the dictionary! Sirkumsize 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, somewhere. But, to me, uncircumcised does not suggest negative. Many people are happily undrugged, undamaged and unimpressed.

If we have to choose between circumcised/uncircumcised and damaged/intact, the first set seems to be less POV. -- Ec5618 17:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

But are as many people happy with being unmale (women), unwhite (black), unchristian (jewish)? Sirkumsize 02:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that there is nothing inherent in the prefix "un-" that grants negative connotation to the word. Some "un-" words have a negative connotation, many others don't. There has not yet been shown any evidence that "uncircumcised", when used to describe a penis, has any negative connotation at all whatsoever. (These ridiculous arguments about the secondary meaning of "non-Jewish" or "non-Christian" are laughably inapplicable because those meanings could only possibly apply when describing a person, not a penis.) However, there is a mountain of evidencethat shows that it doesn't have any negative connotations, namely that it's the most common term, as well as the term used clinically. Furthermore, there is a mountain of evidence that the word "intact", when used to describe a penis, is limited in use almost exclusively to anti-circumcision advocates, and is therefore heavily bound up with strong biased connotations. Nohat 04:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that's debatable. I certainly don't think you made a strong case for the latter. Sirkumsize 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You obviously know very little about how language actually works. Common usage is inherently what's correct. The term "intact", however, is as Rhobite says the approved vocabulary of the anti-circumcision movement. This claim is made patently obvious when one considers the fact that anti-circumcision activists call themselves "intactivists", a portmanteau of the word "intact" and "activists". The very fact that anti-circumcision activists bind themselves up in the term "intact" is extremely strong evidence that the word is loaded. Activists, by their very nature, use loaded words to evoke emotional responses to further their activist goals rather than use neutral, clinical terminology like "uncircumcised". Nohat 04:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a clinical reference that uses the term uncircumcised? Sirkumsize 04:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this one? [8] I'm sure I could find more... that one only took me about 30 seconds. Nohat 04:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Clinical references? Are you kidding? Here's a random one: [9]. 250 more examples on Pubmed for your perusal. Compare to 3 hits for "genitally intact". 9 hits (including a few off-topic) for the words "intact" and "circumcised" in the same abstract. Rhobite 04:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is quite clear that the term "uncircumcised" is the clinical term. Nohat 04:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Also I will point out that it is just your speculation that this is the reason the movement chose to be call intactism. Sirkumsize 04:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not made any such speculations—I have only noted that the fact that an activist group uses a particular word constitutes strong evidence that a word is loaded. Nohat 04:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Then provide me a reference that shows that words used by activist groups must be loaded. Otherwise your argument proves nothing. Sirkumsize 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you provide some references yourself? You've asked for references a few times but have yet to back up anything you say with anything other than a dictionary reference. Rhobite 18:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think the reference I provided was good enough don't you? Sirkumsize 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What reference? You never provided a reference. Rhobite 03:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to find references for things that state the obvious because most people don't find it necessary to state things that are obvious for the simple reason that they are obvious. An essential aspect of activism is propoganda, and a key part of propoganda is use of slogans and virtue words to affect opinions. It is obviously a core element of anti-circumcision advocacy to use the word "intact" because it forms an appeal to emotion that something that is not intact is "damaged" and should therefore be opposed. Nohat 04:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries don't exist because the meaning or connotation of words are obvious. What's obvious to you might not be obvious to me -- or correct. Please see wikipedia guidelines on original research. Sirkumsize 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Good lord. Sirk, when did you stop arguing that circumcision was the primary cause of anti-semitism? You're either clearly misguided or utterly out of touch with reality. I'll let you decide which. In either case, your POV-pushing is utterly inappropriate. That you've been called on it 15 dozen times weakens your case, rather than strengthens it. Tomer ^TALK 05:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be my problem. Every single time I was called on it was a mistake. I provided my references. My goal here is to restore sanity to an encyclopedia that seems more interested in misusing words than use a correct that because so many POV pushers are endorsing circumcision that even neutrality is now being seen as POV. What's going on. If you want to imagine that I've lost my credibility go ahead. It won't be any different than imagining that dictionary.com gives another definition of the word uncircumcised! Sirkumsize 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The above issue has arisen time and time again. In a (probably naive) attempt to resolve it once and for all, let's try a vote, that we can simply refer back to. The terminology used on Wikipedia for a penis that is not circumcised should be:

1. Jakew 11:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Ec5618 11:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC) Intact is correct aswell, but obvious POV.
3. Nohat 17:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC) "Intact" is a loaded word only used by anti-circumcision advocates, and is inherently POV, as explained above. "Uncircumcised" is clearly the neutral, clinical, most common term used, for example, in medical journals.
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) See Nohat's comments. Also, "uncircumcused" is vastly more common, as a couple of Google searches will show, and thus should be used as per Wikipedia policy.
5. Rhobite 18:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
6. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
7. gargoyle888 03:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC) OK, both terms are "loaded" to some extent. I think that the most common word in use by the general public is the word "Uncircumcised." For that reason, I cast a vote in that direction. The purpose of the article is to convey substantive information about the procedure. As such, I think that the most readily understood word is "uncircumcised." The word "Intact" causes the new reader to stop while they figure out what is being said.

   I think too that Jake does have a valid point that "Intact" is not necessarily an accurate description. A penis that has never been circumcised may still be very far from an intact penis.

   I see nothing wrong with the inclusion of a paragraph that explains the use of a different term, I just would not use that different term in the main body of the text. (Sorry about the length of my vote.) (UTC)

8. Agree with Nohat. Mark¹ 03:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
9. KHM03 13:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
10. Pretty sure my view is a "given", but figured I'd better vote anyways. Tomer ^TALK 18:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
11. Uncircumcised seems to me to be the more neutral term. Nandesuka 20:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
12. Oh, good Christ, it's Ualabio and company again. Well, at least Robert's gone. --Ardonik.talk()^* 11:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
13. I've been convinced that the alternatives are worse and uncircumcised isn't as bad as I thought. So I support uncircumcised until foreskinned is added to the OED, as noted in the discussion below. LizardWizard 20:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

1. Woodstone 15:18:10, 2005-08-16 (UTC) Intact is simply neutral; Natural might also be used; Uncircumcised is rather POV
2. Liftarn 15:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Sirkumsize 16:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) - Not only is uncircumcised POV, its literally not correct as per the dictionary definition. Even if the word intact is rejected, I feel that the word uncircumcised should be discarded, if for nothing else this reason.
4. — Ualabio? 23:53:47, 2005-08-16 (UTC) — Uncircumcise literally means to sew back of a præpuce. Intact literally means not altered. — — Ualabio? 23:53:47, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
5. DanP 23:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC) According to Webster's Dictionary[10], uncircumcised is defined as "1 : not circumcised, 2 : spiritually impure : HEATHEN" That is simply POV and does not belong in Wikipedia as a "neutral qualifier" any more than mutilated does. Intact (Latin "not cut") is the correct counterpart to circumcised ("to cut around").

   Interesting which definition you choose to bolden. If your dictionary says "intact" comes from Latin for "not cut", I submit to you that it's time to get a new dictionary, as yours was clearly written by POV-pushing anti-circumcision...what was the word you used? Lunatics? While you're waiting for Amazon to ship you your new dictionary, you might consider checking out WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Thanks, and cheers! I wish to add "Behatzlacha!" for when your new book arrives! Tomer ^TALK 00:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

   So your objection seems to be that a terminally stupid reader might ignore all clues from context and assume that we mean a secondary, infrequently used sense that blatantly does not apply to a penis ("a heathen penis?"). And at the same time you ignore the fact that the term "intact" has positive connotations in the sense in which it is intended. Does this not strike you as slightly irrational? - Jakew 10:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I believe that there are problems with both 'uncircumcised' and 'intact'. Both are skewed; only the direction is different. I think the best solution is to find a more neutral term than either 'uncircumcised' or 'intact'. My choices would be 'with a foreskin' or 'men with foreskins' and 'circumcised'. However, when quoting an author who uses another term, the author's choice of word should be respected. Michael Glass 11:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
2. DanBlackham 23:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC) - "Uncircumcised" is not a neutral word because it also means "unclean", "impure", and "heathen". No other normal, healthy part of the human body is described in terms of the amputation of that body part. Normal breast are not described as "unmastectomized". A normal clitoris is not described as "unclitoridectomized". Describing a normal intact penis in terms of the amputation of the foreskin indicates a strong cultural bias in favor of circumcision.
3. Intact seems to be used almost exclusively by "intactivists," so it carries some bias. However, uncircumcised does imply that circumcision is the normal state of affairs. As an analogy, LGBTTQQ people prefer long unwieldy acronyms to describe themselves rather than saying "non-straight" because non-straight implies that straightness is normal. It's true that uncircumcised beats intact in a Google test, but if we just go by Google test we should use uncut ("uncut penis" beats "uncircumcised penis"). I'm not advocating the use of uncut, since it seems to me to simultaneously carry bias in both directions (it's essentially a double-negative), but some neutral term should be found. LizardWizard 21:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC) Vote changed as per discussion below. Note that the numbering is now off. If you can fix the numbering, please do so. LizardWizard 20:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

   I'm just curious about something: does "unpasteurised" imply that pasteurisation is normal? - Jakew 11:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, yes it does. Any milk sold that had not been pasteurised should be clearly labelled "unpasteurised" because pasteurisation of milk is normal. By contrast, bottled water that has not been pasteurised need not carry the label "unpasteurised" because no one expects water to be pasteurised. So you see, something should be labelled "unfoo" only when "foo" is the normal state of affairs. Thus one will infer upon reading "unfoo" that "foo" is the normal state of affairs. Does that help clear things up?

   What about 'unimportant'. Are things important, unless proven otherwise? Unimpressive? Unbolded? -- Ec5618 16:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

   Splendid examples, but the wrong question. The right question is "is it normal to be important, impressive, bolded?" - Jakew 17:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether the word 'curcumcised', without the un- prefix, suggests that it is normal to be circumcised (damaged)? I'd say that it is as normal for a person to be important as it is for them to be unimportant. I'd say that the term 'uncircumcised' wasn't coined to promote circumcision, whereas 'intact' is used to oppose it. And I'd say that for a penis, either state is 'normal', just as both blue and brown eye colour is normal. -- Ec5618 21:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

   I'd agree with your conclusion. To explain, my question refers to the initial objection to "uncircumcised", which was that it "implied that circumcised is normal". In context, the unstated objection seems to be that it is in some way "more normal". To test this curious concept, we must apply the test to other words. - Jakew 11:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

   [Note: the following paragraph was written contemporaneously with the above paragraph, so it does not respond to it in any way] It is not the mere existence of "un-" words that makes their opposite "normal." Were that the case there would be no point to this discussion. To address your specific examples, I felt lucky about them with google to see them used in context. "Unimportant" leads of "Observations of an unimportant man." I believe he specifies that he is unimportant because normally people prefer to read the observations of important men. "Unimpressive" leads to a place "where beauty comes naturally." The site doesn't quite make sense to me, but the idea seems to be that normally beauty is impressive, but there even unimpressive people can be beautiful. "Unbolded" finds a bug report where colons that should be bolded (by comparison with the normal practice of bolding them) are not. So yes, in the context in which those words are used their antonym is usually "normal." LizardWizard 21:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

   Can "usually" be determined by examining three web pages? I don't think so. Regardless, the question is whether the word itself implies normality. - Jakew 11:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

   No, usually can only be determined by an exhaustive analysis of all use of language ever. By pointing out that you're being unreasonable, I show that I expect Wikipedians to be reasonable. Anyhow, I did some research to try to support my position. Here's a glossary entry on disability from The Annotated Bibliography of Universal Design: "The negative prefix dis is considered to be problematic due to the built-in negative bias. Some of the other terms we use to describe people with disabilities have the same built-in attitudinal bias: infirm, deformed invalid, and impaired" (emphasis mine). Here's an excerpt from a scientific guide to quality of life improvement: "A general recommendation is that items should be positively worded whenever possible. The avoidance of negatively worded items means that the use of items which use words such as "not", "rarely", or "never", or which have words with negative prefixes, such as, "in-", "im-", or "un-" is not advisable." I'll also direct you to our own article on Cisgender, particularly the bit about how "there was no standard word used to describe non-transgender people without the use of negative prefixes while still avoiding terms like "normal", "born" or "genetic" (women or men)." Really my argument has evolved somewhat through this research. I still hold that use of negative prefixes tends to indicate that the word without the prefix is standard. However, research also shows that many object to words like "uncircumcised" simply because any word that begins with "un-" carries a negative bias. LizardWizard 16:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

   And by suggesting that Wikipedians should be reasonable, I could be implying that you are UNreasonable. By claiming to be informed, I am suggesting that I am not uninformed. Reasonable is the exact opposite of unreasonable. That is all. Whether the un- prefix gives a word a negative meaning depends on its initial meaning. Good becomes bad (ungood), informed becomes uninformed. By suggesting that the un- prefix in the word uncircumcised makes the word negative, you are claiming that 'circumcised' is good, and 'uncircumcised' is bad. Nothing else. -- Ec5618 17:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

   I still think "un" carries negative bias. Here's a thought experiment: Which would you rather have, something supoxed or something unsupoxed? Would you rather be orzed or disorzed? If I told you that some people were fotic while others were anafotic, which group do you think is larger? Would you be more dismayed if your doctor told you you were shofixtal or ashofixtal? Ultimately I think this little game with made-up words may be the best indicator of whether use of negative prefixes is unbiased. LizardWizard 18:14, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

   No, no no. I thought this line of reasoning had already been nipped in the bud. I guess I was wrong. The argument that "uncircumcised" implies that "circumcised" is the "normal" state of the penis is patently false. Does "undamaged" mean "damaged" is normal? Does "unambiguous" mean "ambiguous" is normal? Does "uncontested" mean "contested" is normal? There is nothing inherent in the un- prefix that imposes any negative connotations: there are plenty of examples of un- words that are "good" and un- words that are bad. Each word has to be evaluated on its own merits. "Uncircumcised" is the most common term, the least loaded word, and importantly, the word that is used clinically. Unfortunately the anti-circumcision activists have engaged on a campaign to imbue the term with negative connotation. IMHO, we should not buy into their nonsense that there is anything negative about the word "uncircumcised". My proposal remains uncommented upon: use "not circumcised" instead of "uncircumcised". Nohat 10:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

4. Much as I hate to do this I'm going to have to add my vote to "other." Neither "intact" nor "uncircumcised" seem to be neutral enough for such a contentious series of articles, but surely there are ways to get around using either word. Exploding Boy 00:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

   After some reflection, I'm not as sure as you that there's a way around using a biased word. All the words I can think of that don't sound awful for foreskinful men fall into one of two categories: 1) Words that begin with a negative to contrast with circumcised men. This includes uncircumcised, uncut, unaltered, nonmutilated, etc. or 2) Words that indicate the penis is its whole, original state. This includes intact, natural, whole, complete, as-God-made-him, etc. The problem with words of the first category I am discussing above, but basically it is that they are (to coin a term) circumcisonormative (cf. heteronormative). The problem with words in the second category is all such words carry positive connotations. I would suggest that we brainstorm other words that we might use in the interests of finding one that carries neither of the common biases. LizardWizard 21:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

   Might this be an impossible problem? After all, what we seek is a word that describes a penis that has not been circumcised. Surely, any word that attempts to do so must contrast with "circumcised", in order to be accurate. - Jakew 11:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

   To return to the point I made originally, one way to avoid loaded language is to use 'with a foreskin' or 'with foreskins' in place of both 'uncircumcised' and 'intact'. This is admittedly more cumbersome but it gets round the problem of loaded language. Michael Glass 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

5. Though intact is the proper term, some people find it biased. So what about “unaltered” "Remaining in an original state; "persisting unaltered through time" [syn: unchanged] [ant: altered]" - 68.162.183.15 (sig added by Jakew)

   Actually, no authority has weighed in on the issue, so you are incorrect in describing it as the 'proper' term. Regardless, 'unaltered' is too imprecise. Consider an uncircumcised penis that has been tattooed. It is not unaltered, is it? - Jakew 12:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

   Think whatever you like, it doesn’t bother me, but just don’t push your POV on everyone else. We’re not talking about tattoos now are we. I find it very hard to believe that when referring to a difference between muted and nonmuted people, that “unaltered” would be ambiguous in any way to a reader. - 68.162.183.15 (sig added by Jakew)

   I'm not pushing my POV. Why do you think I asked people to vote? Jakew 12:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

6. Instead of either "intact penis" or "uncircumcised penis", why can we use the phrase; "penis with foreskin". It may seem clumsy, but it describes it well, with no bias, and if you try it out in the article, it does work well (in my opinion!). To be honest I am fed up with both sides bias in this article (and related articles) and of the continuous bickering that is going on. This is all to the detriment of Wikipedia as an information source. The bias is understandable, as it is an emotive issue. And of course there are lots of us out there who think we are unbiased, on many subjects, but all of us are subject to it. Glad to see the article starting to look a bit better, but there is still a way to go. --Dumbo1 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I went through this article and found very few usages of 'uncircumcised'. It wasn't a big deal to change them to something more neutral. Michael Glass 15:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we really be dictating better English? Uncircumcised is the commonly used term, and avoiding it is not what Wikipedia should do. -- Ec5618 17:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually uncut is the commonly used term. Regardless, we should be dictating better English. If unmutilated was the commonly used term, we would not use it because of bias. If retard is still used more commonly than person with a learning disability, we nonetheless use person with a learning disability because it is less hurtful. LizardWizard 18:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree there. We should be choosing an appropriate term that is consistent with our policies. I assume we're all agreed on that. - Jakew 18:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

By doing so, Michael, you've made an action directly opposing the community consensus here, as expressed in this very vote so far. At the present time, 'uncircumcised' has 12 votes, 'intact' 5, and 'other' 4. You have therefore changed the language from the democratically expressed preference to the opposite. Do you have no respect for the Wikipedia community? - Jakew 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no community consensus to use the term "uncircumcised" in the article. Nine out of twenty-one people who have voted so far, voted against "uncircumcised" in favor of another option. Clearly a significant portion of the community feels that "uncircumcised" is a biased term and is not appropriate for use in the article. DanBlackham 07:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The word 'consensus' was a poor choice. Nevertheless, 'uncircumcised' has more than twice the number of votes for any other option so far. - Jakew 11:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes to see what difference it would make to the article. The effect as far as I can see is almost zero. So the whole debate is largely symbolic. It's a fight to control the language, like whether to refer to differences of religious opinion as heresy or whether to refer to a payment for money lent as usury or interest. Heresy, and usury were once the words of choice in English, too. So we have a clear choice here: follow Wike policy and use neutral language, or follow the straw poll and use conventional but loaded terminology. Michael Glass 01:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Now there i was, happily commenting on Harry Potter, and I follow a link into a debate on circumcision. I read the debate. As far as I can see you are stuck. All the words are the sort which make a distinction between something with a bit removed, and something without a bit removed. It is very hard to get around that this is exactly the meaning which is being expressed. Everyone is trying to find words which do not mean what the words have got to mean in order for anyone to refer to the two possibilities. I suspect the issue of whether a particular term is loaded reflects on their own bias, or later on the readers. So i suggest you use a variety at different places. Roll on a good cover-up, and make all whole again. (sorry). Sandpiper 02:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That's actually a really interesting suggestion. We could use uncircumcised and intact (or whatever other synonym strikes us) such that both sides of the bias are represented equally in the article. There's some risk of the article sounding strange always switching, but I think the merits outweigh the possible harms. LizardWizard 02:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, that's an nobody-wins-and-Wikipedia-loses proposal. It would make the article demonstrably awful. No one seems to have a problem with "circumcised", so what exactly is the problem with "not circumcised" for penises that are, well, not circumcised? Nohat 10:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You don't get an NPOV encyclopaedia by expecting bias to balance out. Taken to the logical extent, that would mean having equal numbers of pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi articles we're NPOV on that issue. - Jakew 11:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

well, I personally would take no offence whichever word is used. I do not see it as a loaded subject. In the UK I come from a society where non-cirumcision would be normal, and a circumcised penis something of a curiosity. (very strange conversation, this). It is something of a non-issue, because everyone accepts that circumcision is either an uncommon medical procedure for medical reasons, or more frequent religious ones. So there is no real issue about whether it is inherently good or bad in itself. Reading the debate I was struck that sometimes I felt the bias imputed to certain words was, if anything, the opposite of how they struck me. Also, I take the point about using the same wording to make clear what you are talking about, but in general if I am writing something I try to vary the language, within the bounds of precision, just for variety because I think it reads better. Anyway, try not to end up wielding scalpels at each other. Sandpiper 17:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with "not circumcised" is the same problem with "not Christian," "not straight," "not Democrat," and "not male." I think if we referred to women as "unpenised" women would be upset. Referring to Buddhists as "unholy" in an article on Christianity would probably also be a bad idea. Generally, defining someone based on what they're not is a bad idea. I'd settle for using the term "uncircumcised" along with "unforeskinned" so that the bias is equal, but it would be better to define both groups positively: "circumcised" and "foreskinned," perhaps. LizardWizard 18:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

If we specifically wanted to draw attention to the fact that somebody wasn't Christian, wouldn't "non-Christian" be suitable (eg., "Christmas Day has no religious meaning for non-Christians.")? "Not male" is a bit daft, because the word "female" is the only alternative and is obviously suitable (possible exceptions being languages with neutral, male and female words). "Not straight" is fine in some contexts (lines, for example), but controversial in others (sexual orientation, though as a gay man myself I don't understand it. If I mean everyone except heteros I just say so). I object to unforeskinned because "foreskinned" is not a word in any dictionary I have checked. - Jakew 18:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Others do not agree with you that "non-Christian" is a fine term. We used to have an article at Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus, but it got moved to a name that doesn't have "non-Christian." Even the Catholic Church, not known as a bastion of tolerance and forward-thinking, abandoned the term Secretariat for Non-Christians. LizardWizard 19:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

According to Talk:Religious_perspectives_on_Jesus#Title_of_the_article:_whether_it_is_POV, the problem seems to have been that some of the groups were in fact Christian. As a non-Christian (agnostic-atheist), I certainly have no problem with the term. As for the Catholic Church, well let's just say that I consider it unwise to base my decisions on theirs, at least uncritically. - Jakew 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat amusing, LizardWizard that in your discussion of why "uncircumcized" is offensive you use the example of how it would be offensive to "women" if we referred to them as "unpenised," when in fact the word "woman" means "wife of man." Yet somehow it's not a problem to use that word. The larger point is that the mere prepending of the term "un" categorically does not imply that the opposite is normal. The larger question is whether the word has a connotation that is inherently offensive. I don't think the word "uncircumcised" meets that criteria. Other's opinions may vary. But this sort of argument by analogy reveals the underlying weakness of the argument: referring to women solely as not-males would be offensive precisely because it is an unusual, unaccepted usage. You can argue that you would like "uncircumcised" to be viewed in the same way, but the fact is that it is not currently viewed that way by anyone except "intactivists." And Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Therefore we should use the largely accepted term. Nandesuka 18:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong that only intactivists see uncircumcised as biased. I am not an intactivist and I see it as biased. I don't believe "woman" is offensive because, first of all, very few people are aware of that etymology, and second, "wife of man" is a positive definition: it tells what a woman is (inaccurately), not what she is not. Analogously, adaptive equipment for persons with disabilities should be described in a positive way, showing what it helps the person with a disability to do rather than in a negative way, showing what it prevents him or her from doing. See Disability for more info. LizardWizard 18:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the non-existence of the word 'foreskinned'. If it existed, it would be fine. Words such as 'intact' and 'natural' have two problems: first they are loaded with positive connotations, and second, they imply more than just the presence of a foreskin - they imply no other alteration. The only accurate and precise word with the same meaning is 'uncircumcised'. I'm sorry that the English language only has a word for a penis with a foreskin that is defined in terms of circumcision, but maybe that's just too bad. - Jakew 19:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-existence of words is hard to define. Did you check the OED? It's generally regarded as a good measure of whether something is a word or not. I don't have access to it now, but can check in a week. Meanwhile, Google shows 2800 hits, including one in our own Body parts slang. "Foreskinned" even appears in some translations of the Bible. Incidentally, I don't have the sources to check now but I bet uncircumcised gained most of its use through appearance in the King James Version of the Bible. LizardWizard 20:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Foreskinned" is not in the OED. Nandesuka 20:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for checking. How about this: I withdraw my objections to the term uncircumcised for now, but when/if foreskinned is added to the OED, we start using that. Is that an acceptable compromise? I'm willing to gamble that the wait won't be too long (foreskinned was used by an editor of the New York Times). LizardWizard 20:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Why do I have this gut feeling that I'm about to see a press release saying "Activists lobby OED for inclusion of 'foreskinned'"? - Please go ahead and change your vote above. Jakew 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You underestimate how lazy I am =). LizardWizard 21:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I dont remember: is uncircumcised supposed to be pejorative because being a negative (un-) it imputes that being circumcised is the proper state, or because by drawing attention to the physical act of circumcision it implies that being circumcised is a deviation from the natural state? I thought the common word for the uncircumcised penis, was penis (or any of a million euphemisms for the same)? In the same way that you would describe a penis with a ring piercing in terms of that act carried out on it, or not having been carried out if you were seeking to dscuss it in an article Sandpiper 20:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think your idea about being perjorative by drawing attention to deviation from the natural state is new and original. The trouble with the word "penis" is that it doesn't specify whether it is circumcised or not. It is thus useless for this purpose. To answer your question, the original objection was that it apparently implies that circumcision is the proper state. - Jakew 21:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

A penis has a foreskin until someone cuts it off. Unless there is a birth defect all males are born with a foreskin. DanBlackham 01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Since votes don't determine consensus, how many people would be opposed to a brief sentence that sums up some of the concerns brought forth in this discussion, at the beginning of the article, probably right after the lead, in a separate section, so that it doesn't end up entangling the reader immediately in the argument. In that section, clarify what "uncircumcised" is, as well as "intact", by whom each term is predominantly used, and the opposition to each, and the rationales given for such opposition, and then conclude it by simply stating that "in an effort to remain neutral, this article will simply use the term unmodified rather than either "uncircumcised" or "intact""? As I mentioned, votes don't determine consensus, so if anyone thinks this is unreasonable, just briefly say so and why, and perhaps it can be fixed. If it can't be fixed, then we'll just let it drop, and try to come up with some other solution. Tomer ^TALK 00:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I'm not sure it's the best option. If we mention the disagreement, I think the more precise term uncircumcised is preferable to unmodified, because we don't want to include men with foreskins and Prince Albert piercings along with those without foreskins. In fact, I now realize that even uncircumcised and circumcised are not as precise as is optimal, since presumably much of what applies to circumcised men also applies to men with aposthia, and much of what applies to uncircumcised men also applies to men who were circumcised and then underwent foreskin restoration. So in that term defining section we could also explain that by "circumcised" we mean without a foreskin, for whatever reason. We could even be super-thorough and mention that by "men" we also want to include anyone with a penis, e.g. transwomen before surgery and (when applicable) people who have undergone phalloplasty. The more I think about it the more there is to clarify. LizardWizard 01:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

shhhhh!!!! :-p Tomer ^TALK 03:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a brief discussion of terminology either, though I agree that 'uncircumcised' is preferable, since it is more specific. Your observations about restored men or aposthia are probably true, but are probably original research. - Jakew 12:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I think I understand the potential objection--the term "unmodified" is imprecise. I don't see how we're going to get away from that, however with either "intact" or "uncircimcised", however, since it can be argued quite easily that a man w/ a Prince Albert has an intact penis--it's just got a hole in it--nothing's been removed. So, my proposal to avoid any nitpicking readers' objections, is to clarify, as I said above, that the term "unmodified" is used specifically to refer to penes which are not circumcised. Aposthia is actually completely irrelevant to the discussion, as is foreskin restoration, since aposthia has nothing to do with circumcision (the subject of this article) and foreskin restoration is not foreskin restoration, it's body modification to "regain something that was lost" (<puke>), but in neither case is the subect matter relevant to those two subjects germane to the discussion at hand. A man who's undergone "foreskin restoration" does not have a foreskin, he has really loose penile skin which looks perhaps and possibly even exhibits similar behaviors to the foreskin, but is, categorically not foreskin restoration--it's little more than a façade. As for transwomen and and phalloplasty, like I said, shhhh :-p Tomer ^TALK 00:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the common usage plural of penis be penises? I am not aware that i have ever heard or seen penes Sandpiper 00:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Both are correct. I once thought that it was penes, too, but I was corrected. I'm not sure which is 'more proper' - probably penes - but thinking about it 'penises' is probably used more commonly, and so we should probably use the term on grounds of accessibility. - Jakew 11:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there an objection to the proposal in there somewhere? Tomer ^TALK 02:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

As a technicality, modern body piercing techniques use a hollow needle that actually removes a core of tissue. But more importantly, 'intact' means more than just having all parts: "Remaining sound, entire, or uninjured; not impaired in any way." dictionary.com 'Unmodified' means that no modification of any type has taken place, and is thus clearly inaccurate in the case of an uncircumcised penis with, say, a tattoo on it, let alone a piercing. The only way to convey accurate meaning is to use accurate language. - Jakew 11:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again I would like to suggest that the best way to use the most neutral language is to use the exprressions 'circumcised' and 'with a foreskin' or 'with foreskins'. This gets round the problem of the negative connotations of 'uncircumcised' and avoids disputes about what 'intact' or 'unaltered' means in practice. Michael Glass 08:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wholly opposed, but I see two issues here. Firstly, it's cumbersome. Secondly, it could be argued that it is biased and POV, for "penis with a foreskin" implies that the penis and foreskin are separate entities (hey, I can play devil's advocate as well as anyone!). - Jakew 11:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Woops! I should have put 'men with foreskins'. I agree that 'penis with a foreskin' would not be satisfactory. Yes, as I have acknowledged, 'men with foreskins may be a little cumbersome, but it would also have more bite. Take this example:

Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus ...

Several studies have shown that men with foreskins are at greater risk of human papilloma virus...

I think that the second version is marginally shorter but more vivid. Now, another example:

The skin was then stretched over the glans and allowed to heal, giving the appearance of an uncircumcised penis.

The skin was then stretched over the glans and allowed to heal, giving the appearance of a natural foreskin.

Once again, the second version is shorter. A third example:

the percentages of circumcised and uncircumcised males dissatisfied with their status are approximately equal

the percentages of males with and without foreskins who are dissatisfied with their status are approximately equal

This time the first version is shorter. Now, a fourth example:

There are also support groups for men dissatisfied with being uncircumcised, and considering adult circumcision.

There are also support groups for men dissatisfied with having a foreskin, and considering adult circumcision.

The foreskin version is marginally shorter.

Now there are only four examples in the whole article, and in three of the four examples given, the version using 'foreskin' was shorter than the version using 'uncircumcised'. But really, changing to a 'foreskins' version would make very little difference. Michael Glass 13:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.... There are times at which talking about the penis, rather than the man, is unavoidable. How would you propose we do so? Jakew 20:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael, having read through your examples, it becomes painfully obvious that the entire preceding discussion if it gets us to the point of forced wording, will make the article sound just plain dumb sometimes. In your 2nd example, for instance, the 2nd version makes sense, the first sounds like circumlocution. On the other hand, in the first and third examples the first version of each is what people would say, the send version is simply an attempt to use "approved wording". The 4th example, however, sounds kooky both ways, leading me to guess that it probably needs to be completely reworded. That said, I'm not sure that the length issue (of the sentences) is particularly relevant. We should be writing for good style, not for letter count. Tomer ^TALK 03:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, I sympathise with your point about attention to style, but the question at issue is the use of neutral language. If there's a clash between using neutral language and conforming to conventional style I would suggest that the obligation to use neutral nanguage should prevail. In the last example you rightly say that the passage should be reworked because it is so clumsy in either version. However, in the 2nd example I very much doubt that the procedure would lead to anything that looked 'natural', so I would say that it would also have to be reworked. There's just one more point that I would like to make: any attempt to rid the article of 'uncircumcised' would have a minimal impact on the article as a whole, because there are only 4 examples in the whole article. Michael Glass 02:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What might work is refering to 'intact penis' and 'uncircumcised men'. I can imagine someone finding it odd when 'intact men' is used. As far as I can see there are only 2 instances in the article where 'uncircumcised penis' would be replaced with 'intact penis'. Possibly (I doubt it) that's something everyone could live with. --Scandum 13:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Intact is too imprecise. Reasons discussed above. - Jakew 14:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would argue, that since the article is about circumcision, and there is apparently no english word referring to the absence of circumcision, without any other possible meanings or bias, the words 'not circumcised' is closest to what is looked for. It is the way you usually talk when you want an antonym, and an exact antonym doesn't exist. It is also the most detached way of saying it. I disagree with the opinion that it somehow states circumcision is the norm. If I say I am not french, does it make french the norm? 128.178.42.200 20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Explain to me someone why the Circumcision Support Network link keeps on getting changed from its original subcategory of emotional support/support group to circumcision opposition. Since when can there be only two categories? Clearly this groups primary mission is emotional support? Also why can the only two categories be general information and opposition. What's going on here? Shouldn't there be a category for circumcision endorsement? Oh, yeah, I guess that would go under general information, because surely we all know that people that endorse circumcision are really just providing unbiased information, and organization that help people recovery from trauma are POV and trying to destroy the health of our babies or something? Give me a break. This is nothing but censorship and why should it be tolerated? Sirkumsize 02:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's censorship to say that a work which claims that "circumcision is mutilation" is against circumcision? It seems more like pointing out the obvious to me. Rhobite 04:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rhonite: Its POV pushing actually. Its not so much the question of is the site against circumcision, but why must it be put in that section and not another one? This is what is yet to be explained. Sirkumsize 16:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be misleading to do otherwise. If there is a section labeled "Against circumcision" and this link is listed not in that section, then readers will assume that the link is not "against circumcision", which is false. Nohat 17:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a wikipedia policy against telling the reader what to think? The reader has the right to decide for themselves whether they think that a site is for or against circumcision without having the view forced on them. Are you afraid people will think its a pro-circ site? What about the right of the reader to be accurately informed that the site's purpose is emotional support? Are you trying to censor from Wikipedia the fact that circumcision has emotional impact in some cases? You are a POV pusher!

Labelling a site as against something is POV because its your own interpretation and not based on references, which is known as original research. It draws a conclusion! Sirkumsize 03:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out the obvious is not original research. We have categorized the links so that users will know whether the site they are visiting is anti-circumcision or not. Placing a site which is clearly anti-circumcision not under the anti-circumsion section is misleading. Nohat 03:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links: "One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is." Right now there is no warning that CIRP is a heavily biased site. We need either section headers, or individual labels on each link. Rhobite 03:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sirkumsize does have a point here - 'general information' and 'opposition' are not the only categories. I've added "circumcision promotion" accordingly. In accordance with Wikipedia:External links, we ought to remove some 'opposition' links since "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." Nominations? - Jakew 09:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The division of references into general/pro/contra is good progress. I reassigned some of the refs to better fit this new grouping. −Woodstone 11:18:52, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your categories were incorrect. Csn-recovery.org is clearly anti, as discussed above, as is historyofcircumcision.net. To quote: "Although this site does not intend to take issue with contemporary claims for the "advantages of circumcision", I hope that the historical perspective it provides will encourage people to take a sceptical view of reports that it should be enforced on children as a preventive of AIDS, cervical cancer, urinary tract infections etc, and show them to be not so far removed from nineteenth century assertions that circumcision should be enforced to prevent or cure masturbation, syphilis, epilepsy, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, hernia, pimples and other disorders too numerous to mention. And also to wonder whether it was ethically acceptable to inflict such a mutilation on helpless children even if such therapeutic claims were true." [11] (my emph)

In case anybody wonders, I had to remove the link for Flavius Josephus because of an erroneous spam filter. I've notified WikiEN-l about this, and hope to reintroduce it soon. - Jakew 12:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why you disagree that the following are pro-circumcision?

• Circumcision. In: The Jewish Encylopedia, 1901-1906.
• A Judaism-based view of circumcision

And why do you disagree that the following are contra-circumcision?

• A Catholicism-based view of circumcision

What is the bias in:

• History of Circumcision Pages by Robert Darby PhD
• Circumcision Support Network a site devoted to helping people recover if they feel traumatised by their circumcision.

−Woodstone 12:25:56, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

A Judaism-based view of circumcision is pro-circumcision, though only for Jews. It could be argued either way. The Jewish Encyclopaedia times out when I try to load it, so I cannot comment. I agree with you regarding kensmen.com.

Bias is not the issue. Opposition to circumcision is the category and so must be the test, not bias. - Jakew 12:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Now you have me confused. If there is no bias, there can be no opposition or support. The two last references in bullets above show no visible bias to me. So they should not be classed as either pro or contra. −Woodstone 18:07:38, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

You have me confused. If a site which boldly states on its main page "Circumcision is Mutilation" and claims that people get "trauma" when they are circumcised as infants that they need to recover from as adults is not opposed to circumcision, it's hard to imagine what would be. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My point is that its synthesis. Is it not possible for someone to believe circumcision is mutilation and yet support it. Is it not possible for someone to say circumcision causes trauma and yet support it. The only thing this shows it that you are POV making your own interpretation of sites and trying to discredit ones that threaten your own political agenda. The only sites that belong in circumcision opposition would be a site that specifically states that it is opposed to circumcision. Otherwise it belongs in a different category such as sites that claim circumcision is mutilation or sites that claim circumcision can cause trauma. Its arrogant to assume that your interpretation is obvious or the only possible one. Its against wikipedia policy. Sirkumsize 21:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

They are not saying that all circumcised people get traumatised. They just say that IF someone feels traumatised, they can help getting over it. Read their FAQ. I concede that the "Circumcision is Mutilation" statement may be interpreted as provocative (but justifiable). It is however the only place in the site that could be interpreted as contra. −Woodstone 19:26:19, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

The assumption that there is some sort of "trauma" to get over is anti-Circumcision. The bold statement that "Circumcision is Mutilation" is obviously anti-Circumcision. The fact that you think the latter is "justifiable" merely exposes your own bias in the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that there is no trauma associated with cutting off a normal, healthy part of a child's genitals (often without anesthesia) indicates a pro-circumcision bias. DanBlackham 23:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that adults need to "recover" from the "trauma" they received from minor surgery as days-old infants is far greater bias. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well no, there really are men out there who feel that their infant circumcision was an assault. There are men who are angry that their penis has been, in some manner, reduced. Now, maybe you want to tell those men to "just grow up and get over it," but the fact of their existence is inarguable. It is the fact of their existence rather than the merits of their claim that is important to this article because it is precisely that person who is likely to hunt on WP looking for information about the procedure that he feels was unjustly inflicted upon him. That man, sissy though he may be, is your audience. He needs information that will help him. --gargoyle888 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There are also men out there who believe that aliens are traumatizing them by reading their thoughts. The normal response is to try to cure their mental illness, not encourage them by helping them deal with this "trauma". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that I used the word "encouraged." Though quite frankly, I don't believe that they should be discouraged either. If you feel that they are mentally ill, then perhaps this article can serve a very useful purpose in getting them started on the way to a cure. Right now, what I see you doing is removing anything that would admit of the "illness." If you want to put in the article that "There are sick men out there who want to bemoan an imaginary wrong." That would be better than denying their existence entirely.--gargoyle888 00:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: First, I haven't removed anything at all from the article. Rather, I have agreed with the people who rightfully point out that a website which boldly states on its front page that "Circumcision is Mutilation" is, indeed, anti-Circumcision. Second, the purpose of links it not to help individuals get therapy, but to provide additional information from encyclopedic links which is not present in the article. Third, I haven't denied the existence of these individuals at all. And fourth, any individual who feels he is suffering from trauma because he was circumcised as an infant will also be anti-Circumcision, and will no doubt look in the anti-Circumcision links. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My my, aren't we full of assumptions. First off, the purpose of including that link I believe is to back up the fact that men do feel traumatized by circumcision -- an important reference given that some deny it. Second, it might be possible for an unbiased person to acknowledge that circumcision meets the literal definition of mutilation. You are saying that any website that points either of these has to labelled that way because this is obvious? If its so obvious then why are you so concerned if its not pointed out? Sirkumsize 04:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

1. The purpose of link headers is to categorize and group the links for the convenience of the reader. These categories are not obvious from the link names alone. 2. The purpose of article links is not to prove that some men believe they are traumatized by their circumcisions as infants; rather, it is to provide access to encyclopedic information that is not in the article itself. Currently it appears the only "value" of this link is advocacy, or perhaps advertising. Your every statement makes it clearer that the solution to this issue is, in fact, to delete this link, rather than re-categorize it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I totally agree. Why don't we delete every link that makes the suggestion that circumcision is traumatic and then -- in the spirit of unbiased intellecutal pursuit -- erase the section about emotional impact from the encyclopedia. After all its obvious that circumcision is beneficial and any site that doesn't point this out, well the author is just sick. Not cut off a baby's foreskin? What's wrong with that person? Sirkumsize 23:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! Are you going to take the initiative? Or shall I? Tomer ^TALK 00:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tell me, is this site "general information" about water, or is it "water opposition"? Jakew 20:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That some (few) people feel (subjectively) traumatised is not an assumption, but a fact. Trying to help them does not imply any POV. I have some trouble taking the "water" reference seriously. They are not even saying "water" a single time. Meanwhile we agree on a few of the other revisons of classification. Will you change them or shall I? −Woodstone 20:49:42, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

Trying to help people is different to putting up a web page stating that they need to be helped, and that they have been 'mutilated'. As for water, see Dihydrogen monoxide. Go ahead and change classifications. - Jakew 10:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Just curious: Would you consider Alcoholic Anonymous to be a neutral organization, or one opposed to alcohol? Sirkumsize 18:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting question. Neutral in what respect? On alcohol, or alcoholism? As far as I know, they aren't against alcohol itself, or drinking it in moderation. They don't say "alcohol is mutilation", or equivalent. So far so good. On the other hand, on their site, they have pamphlets advocating caution against dependency, which appears to be a POV, albeit an entirely reasonable one. So I think I'd have to say that if given the choice between labelling AA as pro-alcoholism, neutral, and anti-alcoholism, I'd have to choose the latter. Do you think this is reasonable? - Jakew 18:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting Jakew, now tell me, do you consider the Jewish religion to be netural on circumcision or POV? 64.229.13.96 05:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Previously, I wrote: In accordance with Wikipedia:External links, we ought to remove some 'opposition' links since "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." Nominations? - Jakew 09:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has yet nominated links for removal. Would somebody please do so? If not, I'll be bold. Jakew 21:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you also propose the number of links in favor of female circumcision be equal to the number of links opposed to female circumcision since "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." ? DanBlackham 22:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in proposing that, Dan, the proper venue would be at Talk:Female circumcision. Regards, Nandesuka 04:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the number of links in favor of medically unnecessary genital surgery on boys should be equal to the number of links opposed to medically unnecessary genital surgery on boys. DanBlackham 04:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:External links clearly states: "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." Clearly opposition to circumcision is a POV, as is being in favour. Need I explain further? - Jakew 09:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that "should not overwhelm", which Jake quoted, is not the same as Dan's paraphrase of "should be equal." Nandesuka 12:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. This leaves some 'wriggling room', of course, but I suspect that most would agree that 8 links to 2 fits the bill. I suggest that we remove:

• Protect the Child - Questioning Circumcision in Israel (written in Hebrew) (on grounds that a Hebrew article will not be useful to most readers of an English language encyclopaedia)
• MgmBill.org (on grounds that it isn't particularly informative, and borders on advertising (see WP:NOT and WP:EL)
• Circumcision Support Network (on grounds that this has been suggested by several parties already)
• Ashley Montagu Resolution (same grounds as MgmBill.org)

And perhaps replace Mothers Against Circumcision with a more prominent organisation such as NOCIRC.

This leaves 4 of the most relevant anti- sites, compared with 2 pro-. Though not equal, I would say that the pros are not overwhelmed. Comments? - Jakew 18:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion. Tomer ^TALK 19:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Makes eminent sense. Clean out the least useful links, leave the best ones there. A two to one ratio of anti to pro is still kind of overwhelming, but at least it's not four to one. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There are more than two pro-circumcision links. The links to "The Jewish Encyclopedia" and "A Judaism-based view of circumcision" are pro-circumcision and should be moved to that section. DanBlackham 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither of these two actually promote circumcision. You may care to read the section on 'for and against' and the section on reform views in The Jewish Encyclopaedia. The fact that circumcision is a religious requirement for non-reform Jews does not mean that any page mentioning this promotes it, any more than a page describing the way in which oxygen is essential for human life is pro-oxygen, or a study on the complications of diabetes is anti-diabetic. Advocacy is different from fact. - Jakew 21:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Any web site that promotes cutting the genitals of a child without a valid medical indication as an acceptable practice has a pro-circumcision POV. Both web sites promote a number of related points cutting off a normal, healthy part of a boy's penis without a valid medical indication as an acceptable practice. "A Judaism-based view of circumcision" contains the following pro-circumcision myths, "A common misconception is that the baby experiences a great deal of pain from circumcision. In truth, the performance of RITUAL circumcision is almost painless for the child. ... In addition, it should be noted that the nerves in a newborn on the eighth day are not fully developed." DanBlackham 23:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You might find that if you choose less emotive language with which to express your points, you will realise that they are weak. And I have to say, choosing a "myth" to attack that itself claims to attack another myth is a poor way to try to demonstrate bias. Perhaps you could find a less controversial example? - Jakew 10:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the paragraph about Islam is biased. What does "an important element of Islam" mean? There is no evidence in any Islamic source that circumcision is a requirement to being a Moslem, or that not performing makes one a non-Moslem. There is no basis for the sentence "Most Muslims believe that Muhammad was born circumcised." Although it seems to have been commented out. Also, Abraham is not seen as the founder of Islam. Yodakii 04:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

If we can't find credible evidence for the story that Mohammed was born circumcised it should be removed. Michael Glass 12:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea about the authorship, but this article is comprehensive and well-cited. Might be a good starting point. In particular, this citation caught my interest: Kister, M. J. "And He was Born Circumcised . . . Some Notes on Circumcision in Hadîth." Oriens. 34 (1994): 10-29.

Perhaps someone can look it up. --April Arcus 04:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The mainstream belief is that Muhammad wasn't born circumcised, but that he and muslims are circumcised because Abraham was.

Being circumcised isn't a pre-requirement for being a Muslim; however, some scholars are of the opinion that circumcision is a religious duty for hygienic reasons, i.e. so one can perform the ritual prayer, which requires one being clean and urine is easier to remove if one is circumcised, according to these particular scholars.

From the glans? I don't doubt your sincerity, but objectively, it demonstrably takes about a two seconds to dry the glans with a tissue. --Paul H.

You will notice the result of the vfd on uncircumcised was keep/redirect and its been pointed at this article. I interpret this as meaning merge. Why hasn't the information on uncircumcised been included in this article as per the keep part of this outcome? 64.229.13.96 06:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added some material to the section on consent, striving to be NPOV. If there are any issues with the wording or the links - such as the balance of cases both for and against - please discuss them here, remembering that there is a whole article on Circumcision and Law on Wikipedia [12]. Michael Glass 02:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I reedited that material, striking some and reordering others. Keeping in mind that we have other articles on this is a good suggestion. I'm not utterly opposed putting the discussion of disagreements between parents back in somewhere in a case can be made for it, but (1) it needs recognition that this issue is a factor in any medical treatment of a child, not unique to circumcision, and (2) we really don't need 6 inline links to various and sundry news articles on such disagreements; it stops the text flow dead in its track and makes it unreadable. Nandesuka 04:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the way the consent section is structured could do with being divided into the pros and cons, at the moment it’s too ‘wishy washy.’ And mixed together, “some people, other people etc”

The major arguments of consent for a operation like this are completely missed out, its also illogical to argue that only circumcision is a good way of preventing disease in later life, when its perfectly logical to argue that all the other procedures like appendectomy should also be carried out as soon as the child is born, for all the reasons that’s have been put forward for the caregiver to go ahead without the child's informed consent with circumision.

Agreed that this is a issues steeped in tradition, but by missing out important consent issues I feel its not giving the reader a full picture.

I will note that the link to the circumcision support network has been removed. This is a dangerous trend. I believe it is a prelude to censorship of any information regarding emotional impact of circumcision from this article by pro circumcision POV pushers. 64.229.146.223 09:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

See section 'linkectomy', above. - Jakew 10:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, that page would be worthy of removal even if it was the only link of any type on the page. The entire contents of the site, as near as I can tell, are: (1) a brief FAQ, (2) a "donate money" link, and (3) a single wandering personal essay by the site's owner that explains how thinks that circumcision is directly responsible for his failure at college, his family's generational shame, and war in the Middle-East. If that's an encyclopedic link, then I am Marie of Roumania. Nandesuka 12:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

True or not, the question is was it removed unilaterally or with consensus? I am seeing a definite trend here. Any link that supports anything that could be remotely construed as not being boldly pro circumcision is first discredited and then censored altogether. The only consensus here seems to be on making the article's pro circumcision POV. Sirkumsize 01:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I had trouble getting past the very first clause of your sentence: "True or not." "True or not" is not some sort of side-show, but is the very crux of the matter. My assertion is that the content of the link, if you bothered to follow it, was useless garbage. Had you done a text search-and-replace of that site and changed all of the anti-circumcision hysteria to pro-circumcision hysteria, it would still be useless garbage. As near as I can parse your sentence, you are saying that we should continuing linking to useless garbage as long as it maintains the point of view that you happen to agree with, because if we stop linking to the useless garbage sites, we might someday stop linking to valuable, reputable, and useful sites. Am I misunderstanding you? Nandesuka 03:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If this garbage useless site were pro-circumcision we would not be having this discussion. The link would stay and any time anyone decided to remove it, it would magically reappear a few hours later. Sirkumsize 18:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. But at least you're admitting it's anti-circumcision. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not admitting that its anti-circumcision. Admitting that its not pro-circumcision POV which would seem to be the only kind of source allowed in this article! Sirkumsize 20:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey y'all. I scanned through this page but didn't have time to go through the archives, just had a quick note. Has it been discussed that none of these have any references?

"Circumcision may also be advised in cases of recurrent balanitis and urinary tract infections, Zoon's balanitis, and penile cancer."

Please let me know if this has been discussed or if I am missing something in the article.

If not I'll remove the line in a few days.

--Johnjosephbachir

"Most pediatric urologists recommend circumcision in boys who have anomalies of the foreskin, such as acquired phimosis, paraphimosis, and recurrent balanitis. Circumcision also is recommended in boys with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) or boys at risk for UTIs." [13]

Zoon's balanitis treated by circumcision. [14]

"Surgery removes the abnormal tissue in or near the penis, and may involve circumcision," [15]

Jakew 10:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Further, many medical studies have found that being circumcised reduces a man's risk of developing penile cancer."

anyone have a source?

--Johnjosephbachir

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Jakew 09:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to put up the penile cancer rates as a % of the male population. I believe it to be very small. HIV/AIDS is a much bigger problem. I propose that the section on medical reasons for circumcision be added to so the general reader will be better informed. As it stands this section does not inform as well as it could. --Dumbo1 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Male population of...? The species? It's tricky to get right, since rates vary enormously across the world. Jakew 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

About penile cancer, perhaps it is worth mentioning these articles find it is related to phimosis more strongly than to the state of not being circumcized. Also, these associations are done with invasive carcinoma but not carcinoma in situ, which seems to be unrelated to both.

Why stop at phimosis? Why not include other conditions to which the uncircumcised are more prone, such as HPV, BXO, and smegma? The answer, perhaps, is that this is an article on circumcision, not those particular conditions. Jakew 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have seen a statement that it's more likley a man will get breast cancer than penile cancer so it's probably utterly rare. // Liftarn

"Some argue that circumcision is a significant public health measure"

source? this one actually doesn't even need to be a medical study... just anyone organization or recognized figure at all who has argued that.

--Johnjosephbachir

It's not hard to find examples.[22] [23] [24]

- Jakew 10:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Johnjosephbachir, please be aware that these articles are highly controversial and tend to exist in an uncomfortable balance. More in-depth discussion of many of these issues can be found at medical analysis of circumcision. - Jakew 10:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

How could what I mentioned be involved in any controversy at all? I was merely requesting a reference for bare asserted facts, particularly in the first two cases which are scientific/medical facts. And the community delivered! :-) --Johnjosephbachir

I would also recommend comparing the article medical analysis of circumcision with the statements of professional medical organizations.

• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2004.
• British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003.
• Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. 1996 (reaffirmed March 2002)
• American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. Dec 1999.
• American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850). March 1999.

You can then judge for yourself if the Wikipedia article is written with a neutral POV. -- DanBlackham 21:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

wow, that's interesting. so all of these national health organizations recommend against routine circumcision. but the article doesn't mention that prominently. is this because the authors of this page feel that all of these statements from health organizations are biased or misinformed? if so then there should be a section, or a separate article, explaining that. otherwise readers who are familiar with the recommendations of the health organizations, and then read the article, will think that the article was constructed to have an activist message that attempts to mask the message of widely referenced scientific institutions. --Johnjosephbachir

I think we ought to credit the reader with slightly more intelligence than that. Compared with, say, the AAP's statement medical analysis of circumcision is very similar in structure. We discuss various benefits, as they do. We discuss complications, as they do. Finally, they sum up the evidence, concluding that the benefits "not sufficiently compelling to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for all newborn males. However, the Task Force did recommend making all parents aware of the potential benefits and risks of circumcision and leaving it to the family to decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their child", to quote the Task Force themselves.[25]

If you look at the Costs and Benefits section of that article, you'll find that we do indeed discuss their conclusions. It is hard to see how this is 'biased'. But the purpose of the article is to discuss the evidence. It is not titled positions of medical associations on routine circumcision, which would have a different emphasis. Jakew 12:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Other professional medical organizations have taken a much stronger stand against non-therapeutic circumcision than the AAP. For example:

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2004. [26]

"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (emphasis in original document)

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit."

"Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision. Jun 2004. [27]

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

The introduction of the medical analysis of circumcision article used to say, "Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the potential medical benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the potential medical risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death)." --DanBlackham 05:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

(re: "significant public health issue") jakew all the references you mentioned are in regards to the spread of HIV. perhaps that should be mentioned? --Johnjosephbachir

No, others have argued it based upon other benefits (eg [28]). Furthermore, we cannot possibly hope to explain why every single point of view is held, and there's really no need. We only need demonstrate the diversity of views. - Jakew 12:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you care to read medical analysis of circumcision, you'll find that we already include that quote from the British Columbian group.

The second quote from the RACP is irrelevant to medical analysis, and thus ought to be excluded. The first and last say essentially the same thing, but if you want to include one of them in the 'costs and benefits' section of med. anal., I don't object. Jakew 10:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha. I thought at first glance that this section said "significant pubic health measure"... hahaha. . Tomer ^TALK 02:58, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jakew reverted an addition of a link and gave the following as his reason: rv. by all means replace an opposition link, but do not further imbalance the links -- whoa -- wait a second! What is he saying here? Its now impossible to add a new opposition link without adding another promotion link? Does this seem reasonable to you? Is there some sort of wikipedia policy that says there has to be exactly the same number of opposition and promotion links on this page? If so this policy needs to be debated. Its silly and cannot be achieved. This whole thing about labeling links as promotion or opposition seems silly to me to begin with. I suppose jakew gets to decide what belongs in what category. I would think it hard to believe that jakew would remove a promotion link for this reason. If I start acting like him you have permission to shoot me. If there were 10 opposition links and one promotion than I think there would be a problem, but this new bullshit doesn't make any sense or follow any kind of wikipedia policy except for the jakew policy. Sirkumsize 20:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see the section 'Linkectomy', above for discussion of the underlying reasoning.

The Wikipedia policy you ask about is this: "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." (from Wikipedia:External links. Jakew 21:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Jakew, I do not like the way you are misinterpreting this policy to justify pushing your POV. I have made some suggestions on the policy's talk page that could help to discourage this. In particulair not labelling links as POV to lead the reader, and not using link ratio to justify censoring good sources. Sirkumsize 18:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion above; the link is of little value, and does not qualify for inclusion under Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sirk, I've read your comments, and I feel that you've missed the point somewhere.

I agree that 'should not overwhelm' does not mean 'should be exactly equal to', but your proposed solution is unworkable. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. To quote: "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." In other words, no, we shouldn't just keep adding links to articles. We should aim to have a few of the best, most informative sites representing major points of view, however.

What information did the link add that was not already provided? What merit? In what way does it represent a substantial enough improvement to the article to justify the trend towards overwhelming?

Next, what on earth is wrong with describing a site's POV? Jakew 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with labelling a link's POV if that link states its POV clearly. What I disagree with is synthesizing the position of a source based on content or use of language. For instance, is it not possible for a website (hypothetically) to give a neutral and accurate account of Black History yet use the word nigger? I think that a site's choice of words is irrelevant to its content and cannot be used to universally determine its position. Sirkumsize 02:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Links are included or excluded based on their quality and whether or not they provide significant encyclopedic content not available in the article. A reasonable semblance of balance must be maintained as well. The current links do so. And please peruse Wikipedia:Civility. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, jakew's action do not make sense under this policy. The addition he reverted did not overwhelm anything. 64.229.12.137 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The addition he reverted was a low quality link that added little content; it was, in fact, a one-man website with no information relevant to this article. Wikipedia is not a link-farm or advertising service. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I shall try to diffuse the situation (I have a feeling that this attempt will fail):

• Absolute parity of numbers of links is impossible.
• Each side should have more than one dozen links, but less than two dozen links (12>24 links (13-23 links)).
• For every less than two links added, we should remove more than one link (+<2x->x).
• The side with the most links should have less than twice as many links as the side with the least links (m=<2n)
• When these heuristics fail, we should workout our disagreements on the talkpage rather than editwarring.

—

— Ualabio? 02:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A dozen links per side? Do you realize how many links that is? Here. Let me demonstrate:

Here are some related sites:

• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site
• This is a pro-topic site

• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site
• This is an anti-topic site

That's a HUGE block of text, and I think that a better solution is to follow the recommendations at the Wikipedia:External links style guide page. Consider also the sage advice of WP:NOT: "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Nandesuka 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Rather than making up bizarre new mathematical rules for link inclusion, let's just follow existing policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. Jakew 18:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the concern was always about trying to use the existing policy to justify pushing pro-circumcision POV. 64.229.122.133 07:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

JAKEW is obviously fixating on the images of penises and has NO VALID REASON for his edits.

I read the uncircumcised versus intact discussion with interest.

It seems to me that the term uncircumcised should be abandoned in favour of circumuncised.

Broadly speaking, circum means "around" and cised means "cut". Thus, uncircumcised means "not-around-cut", implying "cut, but not around". My neologism, circumuncised, means "around: not cut", which far better illustrates the preputial status quo.

I cannot see my linguistic innovation catching on, but I thought I'd share it for the good of all.

Dubbin 21:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Dubbin

Interesting, and funny, but it'll never fly. Tomer ^TALK 06:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Glad that someone can inject a bit of humour! --Dumbo1 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it sound better with circumINcised, more Latin-like? =S 81.232.72.148 23:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the religious meaning of uncircumcised has been censored from this article. Obviously some people are trying to push the agenda of suppressing from the reading that uncircumcised is a POV term for reasons discussed above! People here are bent on this idea that the term intact is POV and uncircumcised is NPOV (the opposite of the truth) and are doing everything in their power to distort the article to reflect this. 64.229.122.133 07:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this extensively discussed somewhere else? 128.178.42.200 19:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The result of the discussion was that almost half believed that the term was POV. There needs to something in this article to that affect, or at the very least, include information that supports this or else the article itself becomes biased. Uncircumcised was redirected to this article because it was thought this article could adequate cover it as well. If there isn't space in this article for a good NPOV description of uncircumcised that addresses all of its connations as per its dictionary definition it needs to be resplit into a different article. If this is not done, I would put forward that it has not been discussed extensively enough. 64.229.11.197 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem with taking Jewish sources on circumcision as NPOV. The same goes with Islamic, Christian or any other religious source from a religion that has anything to saw about circumcision. 64.229.122.133 07:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

To define circumcision, one must remove religious connotations from its definition. Of course, adding a part about religious meanings of circumcision would be appropriate, but not in its definition.

There is a separate religious meaning to the term uncircumcised (don't know about circumcised) listed in dictionary.com . Since uncircumcised is merged with this article, that meaning must be addressed. It shows that there is a negative connation to the use of the term uncircumcised -- it could imply gentile or non-christian. If this is not included in this article there is a need to split uncircumcised back into a different article. 64.229.11.197 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, making circumcision "primarily male" is also a bias, since the term "female circumcision" is commonly accepted as a term to describe procedures of a similar nature (removal of the prepuce) for women.

It's very masogynistic to retain a definition that refers primarily to male circumcision.

Circumcision refers to both male and female genital manipulation, often tied to culture and traditions, usually religiously-based, though from a non-biased view it can be seen merely as a cosmetic procedure. The term "female genital cutting" is obviously an ignorant mis-nomer, as it refers quite adolescently to something referred to as "circumcision" - the on-going debate as to the "FGC" "FGM" is far from appropriate. This article is full of political innuendo and male chauvanism masked as some sort of soap-box for arbitrating male egos. Circumcision does not refer to only the man, and the constant revision and seperation of male and female shows that a lot of Wikipediaists are obviously chronic masturbators, possibly homosexual or bisexual in their penile infatuation. Circumcision and the term "female circumcision" should be combined into one unbiased definition, and the chauvanism removed to provide an NPOV. JC

"Circumcision" is far more often used to refer to male than female circumcision, as far as I can tell. Female genital mutilation is a horrible thing, but I have no idea how it's POV to not call it "circumcision" when that's ambiguous and less common. Please do not make personal attacks. ~~ N (t/c) 13:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there might be some merit to moving it here - I can see why having it at "female genital mutilation" is POV, but having it at the much less used "Female genital cutting" just seems like a bizarre misuse of the NPOV policy. Circumcision is widely defined as applying to female circumcision as well as male, so I see no harm in including it here (although moving it to female circumcision might reduce clutter).StuartH 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming the articles to "circumcision (male)" and "circumcision (female)" or something similar? --Yodakii 15:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

For a time the articles were called Male circumcision and Female circumcision and there was a branch at Circumcision. // Liftarn

Yeah I know, as an anonymous user, I started these articles; I agree with that as being as neutral as possible. Thanks Stuart Jenchurch

Tasty: [29]

The Mergefrom Tag has been up for about a week and so far it really hasn't been discussed so I have decided to kickstart the discussion with my own opinions about Merging Female genital cutting with circumcision. First, about the title of the article(FGC), I prefer how it is currently titled for the simple reason that it descrbes what it contains really well. Female circumcision implies a homologue to male circumcision which would really be a small subset of FGC cases. Now, about merging the articles.

Although MGM and FGM are very similar, I don't think that it would be a good idea to combine the articles. As both articles are very long, I'm concerned that the article resulting from a merge would be unmanageably large. I think that we would do much better to create a disambiguation page that explains the difference between Circumcision and FGC and why the articles are titled as they are. I realize that this goes against Disambiguation but I think it would be the best way to present non-medically necessary genital surgery as a whole to the reader. With a disambiguation page, readers traveling to the circumcision article would quickly learn that it does not apply only to one sex and conversely, readers traveling to the FGC article would realize that a very similar but less radical surgery is routinely performed on western men, especially Americans. The readers would then still be able to access articles that deal with only one of the considerably different practices and not have to deal with the confusion of a combined article. I also think that we would do well to link the disambiguation page to an article that details alternative procedures to circumcision.

If the articles are merged or linked more closely together, I think it is important that we include the following to differentiate circumcision from FGC.

Male circumcision is limited in how severe it can be because if too much of the penis is removed, the person will be unable to function sexually(ejaculate sperm). Therefore there will be no future generations to perform the more radical circumcision. Female...circumcision is not limited in the same way. All of a womans genitals can be removed and the woman will still be able to reproduce. The future generations will be able to continue the radical practice.

This is an important difference and one that is often missed. Christopher 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Christopher: I don't think that we can use that wording because, firstly, its original research (do you have a source) and second it makes considerable judgements which make it sound POV. I don't think we can draw too many conclusions at this time about the severity of the procedure or its basis in physiology, although I have had similiar thoughts at this time. I think the best we can do is simply explain what procedures are done to each sex and what the side-effects are and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Sirkumsize 11:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't back myself up with a source at this time (although I will be doing some research in the near future so hopefully I will come up with somthing) However, my statement was the clearest way that I could come up with to point out to the reader that FGC and MGM are essentially the same thing (WRT the reasons for which it is performed and what is removed) while at the same time they are fundamentally different. Christopher 04:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it should be merged here, there is no point combining two pages about relatively different subjects. The discussion should be more about where "Female Genital Cutting" eventually ends up (and might best be conducted there if no-one is responding here). In that respect, I support a move to "Circumcision (female)" and a disambig link at the top of this page.

Please note that this is very dependent of cultural context. Male circumcision being the obvious meaning of circumcision and Female Genital Cutting having a negative connation is something true in North America but not true elsewhere. The current arrangement is extremely geographically centred and myopic to a society that condomes male circumcision while demonizing female cutting as mutilation. 64.229.11.197 15:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Female Genital Cutting", to me seems like moving murder to "Unlawful Termination of Human Life" - completely correct, but an obvious example of avoiding the negative connotations of the most commonly used phrase by going with a largely unused phrase. Circumcision is a neutral term, which is more widely used than just "cutting". StuartH 22:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the term "Female Genital Cutting" even used? What about "Male Genital Cutting"? // Liftarn

FGC is indeed used. The UN suggests that it is a more neutral term:

Recently, some organizations have opted to use the more neutral term ‘Female Genital Cutting’. This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term ‘mutilation’ demeaning since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers. The use of judgmental terminology bears the risk of creating a backlash, thus possibly causing an alienation of communities that practice FGC or even causing an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGC. In this respect it should be noted that the Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices (ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights) recently called for tact and patience regarding FGC eradication activities and warned against the dangers of demonizing cultures under cover of condemning practices harmful to women and girls (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/14). [30]

As far as I'm concerned demonize all you want, whether it be for female or male circumcision. This is just my opinion. My point: Maybe the term Male Genital Cutting MGC should be adopted for the same reason. Sirkumsize 11:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that male genital cutting would be a good solution. It would also give us the opportunity to add very related practices like sub- and super-incision which do not belong on the circumcision page.

Alternatively we might want to turn circumcision into a disambiguation page that links to FGC, MGC, and 'male circumcision'; have MGC explain all of the other MGMs and link to 'male circumcion' which would contain the contents of circumcision. This however might be too confusing as it would take a few links to get to a page about male circumcision if readers only searched for 'circumcision'.Christopher 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The pages certainly can't be merged, they're far too large. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the answer is obvious: Turn circumcision into a disambiguation page and point it to male genital cutting and female genital cutting. There isn't enough room in one article to cover both. They each deserve their own article. 64.229.11.197 15:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to merge the articles. They are about different procedures, they are both long articles, they have vastly different cultural histories, legal positions etc. In terms of dab page that is secondary, but as there are likely to be only 2 links, a dab link at the top of (male) circumcision is probably sufficient, but lets get rid of the stupid merge first. Justinc 00:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Since both articles are quite large I don't think merging would be a good idea. However having a disambig page that describes circumcision of both males and females would be an idea I would support. The operations are simmilar and performed for simmilar reasons so there should be enough material for an article. // Liftarn

After a 3 week "reversion war", the type of changes proves two or three individuals are ruining this article for these reasons:

• 1: "female genital cutting" is some bvllshit made up term, so why make another mistake with "male genital cutting" - that is the most absurdly un-clinical term I've ever seen
• 2: censoring "female circumcision" for the purpose of 'avoiding future generations practicing the act' is altruistic censorship, but censorship none-the-less and does not paint a clear picture of the truth; also violating NPOV; and might I add places far more faith in Wikipedia's longevity than any sane person would
• 3: any argument that "uncircumcized" also means "heathen" is obviously a judeo-christian moralist, biased and possibly radical and thus violating NPOV

Do you have any arguments that aren't personal attacks? The article itself refers to multiple types of genital cutting, only some of which would be considered "circumcision". The reference to "heathen" is simple historical fact. And the article itself is far too large to merge anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, thank you for acknowledging the reference to heathen as fact. The person that wrote the original post seems to have neglicted to sign it. In any event I totally disagree with, and fail to comprehend his optional third reason. How is acknowledging the fact that the term uncircumcised has a negative connation due to an historical meaning NPOV? The only kind of person that would argue this would be someone desparate to shield the term for criticism (probably out of fear that the term intact will prevail). This is censorship which he (or she) himself acknowledges is against policy. No personal attack on the unsigned individual intended. Sirkumsize 11:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

According to WHOSE history? Indians don't attribute circumcision to "heathenism" or heracy. The Chinese and Japanese don't give a rat's ass about your Christianity. The fact remains that this article is poorly devised and your reverts (JakeW and others) are merely pot-shots at any attempt to make this article neutral.

Uh, the indians, Chinese and Japanese have a different word for it. This is an english article about an engish word. The word uncircumcised has been used to mean heathen in cultures that use the term. Sirkumsize 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be awfully nice if those who object to the current layout and naming of the articles would bother to read and comment on the existing discussions in this page and Talk:Female genital cutting first... Jakew 11:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be viewed as a personal attack when you and others constantly remove "unbiased" statements in favor of "biased" statements, and continue to promote a reversion war.

By listing "CIRP" (a website that is scientific and non-biased, which delves into many of these issues) as an "opposition resource" this shows the obscure and non-neutral way in which this article has been constructed. It is not a "personal" attack to cite things, remove bias, and properly organize this article so that it is not biased toward MALES. Since you keep removing my corrections of the made-up term "female genital cutting" and the obvious non-clinical nature of this term. Wikipedia is devalued by people like JakeW because they create reversion without any proof or reason other than his own ego that he edited the version he keeps reverting to. This article won't move forward as long as JakeW, "keep of the sacred circumcision article" continues to destroy its merit and devalue its bias.

CIRP is a quality resource that seperates religion from science to depict the least possibly biased view of the topic. It has enough accolades to indicate this resource is recognized for its quality.

Would an admin care to enforce the no personal attacks policy? Jakew 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As inappropriate as the unsigned individual is, she make some good points. I have serious concerns about the labelling of the links, CIRP in particulair, as well as the removal of Circumcision Support Network. I also feel that JakeW and others could edit more harmoniously. Sirkumsize 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Jenchurch's previous versions, in which she declared "Wikipedia is devalued by lame-brained adolescent males" "JAKEW is obvious a homosexual who is fixating on the images of penises and has NO VALID REASON for his edits." "It proves morons are ruining this article for two reasons:" and so on. Jakew 14:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I retracted my comments, Jake. You are not the 'circumcision expert' - many times you have reverted to previous versions out of spite, despite my careful addition and reorganization of this article, your actions continue to have no reason behind them other than person ones. I view this ongoing debate as a JakeW vanity. Also, you ARE a homosexual, how is that a personal attack? Jenchurch

If you have a problem with my edits, say so. Do not extend them into accusations against myself. Making such comments as "rv JakeW has no reason other than his ego for these reverts" and (your revised version of) "JAKEW is obviously fixating on the images of penises and has NO VALID REASON for his edits." is not helpful. Jakew 14:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, JakeW- she has, you've chosen to ignore them. Mad Merv

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mad Merv. It's interesting that your very first edit (contribs) was at 15:39 today. On the other hand, Jenchurch's last edit (contribs) today was at 15:38. Jakew 14:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If it were not obvious enough that you and Jenchurch are one and the same, you pick a new username containing an obscure word that is one of Jenchurch's edits. Come on, you break the rules, you're informed about them (nicely, too: I could have requested that you were blocked for the 3RR violation, but I didn't), and you try to evade them by changing your username. I'd like to assume good faith, but you're making this impossible (there is no be deluded policy). Jakew 15:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged by general consensus. Mad Merv

Interesting version of 'consensus'. As far as I can tell, nobody agreed with the suggestion. Would you please take some time to learn Wikipedia's policies, and have some respect for the community? Still, somebody else will need to revert you, since I can't without breaking the 3RR (you have already exceeded three reverts as your 'Jenchurch' sockpuppet). Jakew 15:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jenchurch is not a sockpuppet, she's my sister. She thinks you're putting too much bias on your vague claims and revision war. Mad Merv

There was clearly no consensus for any merger, and it created an unacceptably large article (66k) discussing disparate topics. Please try to get consensus for major changes first, rather than ramming these kinds of huge unilateral things down peoples throats. Also, use of sockpuppets for edit-warring is forbidden according to Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. No consensus for the merger. Totally inappropriate action. I do however share some concerns about the over-zealousness of JakeW which I have hopefully expressed in the past. In any event, unprofessional behaviour will not gain you sympathy. Sirkumsize 10:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; the article has minimal edits and is merged. Discussion on the "female genital cutting" page lead to its merger. Mad Merv

No agreement was made on the FGC page to merge the articles. The merge is, and continues to be inappropriate. Jakew 14:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You are obviously suffering from penile fixation, probably part of your personality traits which make you gay. Circumcision is not a male-specific issue. Your fascist reverts are more indication that you are acting out of self-interest and not out of a desire to accurately inform. Mad Merv

The above, along with the following two edit summaries, are wholly inappropriate.

• "rv To less biased modification of the "JakeW" version that doesn't include references to homoerotic pro-judeo-christian non-science"
• "rv To less gender-biased version that doesn't double as JakeW's personal gay porn page"

Please read the policy on personal attacks and ensure that you comply. If not, I will request that you are banned from editing. Jakew 18:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've already requested you be banned. I did so the moment you censored my sister. Mad Merv

Stop this. Do not merge this article. If mad merv makes any more personal attacks I will block him, but can you lot stop fighting each other and start ,aking sensible arguments. Justinc 12:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read both articles and a portion of this talk transcript, but have not been a contributor. My wisdom on this matter is that the two articles should not be merged. Most readers would expect to see the two topics covered in separate articles, in my opinion. While both articles deal with modifications to the external genitals, the cultural, sociological and medical aspects are largely distinct. -Walter Siegmund 17:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Either: I think they should be merged because circumcision is not gender specific. OR' I think, also, that "male circumcision" could become a second article, and "female circumcision" could be a third article, all leading back to a single non-gender specific, amoral/areligious "circumcision" article. This, I believe, is the fairest way.

         Mad Merv

Please stop taking unilateral actions in defiance of both consensus and policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting to JakeW's versions just because they are JakeW's versions. Please stop being a sexist, racist, moral or ignorant! Mad Merv

The existing versions of the article are not "JakeW's versions", but rather the consensus of a significant number of editors. If you want to change article names, you need to get consensus - you could try at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, please respect the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the merged article was a failure. I consider the current Circumcision and FGC articles too long as it is and that merged one was way too long. Fortunately merging is not our only option. My current thinking is that we should rearrange all of the Genital Modification related pages in such a way that it is easy to navigate between them. I also think that Circumcision and FGC would benefit from being broken up into smaller subpages so that it is easy to get both a superficial and also super-in-depth treatment of the subject. This might not be the right talk page for this, but here is what I am thinking for heirerarchy at the moment. Every article would be linked to both its parent and all of its children.

• Genital Modification

• Male

• Circumcision

• History of Male Circumcision
• Medical analysis of Circumcision
• Adult Circumcision

• Posthectomy
• Frenectomy
• Phimosis

• Routine Infant Circumcision

• Circumcision Scar
• Bioethics of Neonatal circumcision
• Circumcision Advocacy
• Circumcision and the Law
• Circumcision in the Bible
• Genital Integrity
• Medical Analysis of Circumcision

• Castration

• Orchidectomy

• Penectomy

• Female

• FGC

• FGM

• Clitoridectomy
• Infibulation

• Clitoridotomy
• Labiaplasty

Redirect Pages should be in there as well, I think, as siblings of their redirects.

I await your comments and suggestions. Christopher 04:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not organize it like this: Circumcision is going to be a branch again, to two sites:

1. Circumcision on males, where it is a wonderful, healthy, good for sexuality and whatever practice. Also, it cures AIDS.
2. Female genital cutting, where it is an evil practice, dangerous, destroys the sexuality.

Now why is this? Sexism, as in, Violence vs Men is OK while it is not vs Women? Culturism, as in, my society mutilates men and protects women so it is ok, societies who do it the other way around are totally evil?

Why not start an article on amputating baby feet so they can jog better later in their life? I'm all in favor of it, so any article that discusses amputating baby feet should have the same number of pro and contra arguments!

In fact, I think about editing murder so it contains more pro-murder arguments because I think the article is too biased in the direction of murder being a bad thing.Dabljuh 12:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The articles on "circumcision" and "medical aspects of circumcision" have grown into a useful overview. However, there is a need for the political, religious and cultural aspects of circumcision to be discussed more fully. The meagreness of the medical argument in favour of mass infant circumcision -- as distinct from singular, elective and assessed surgical intervention -- is especially evident. It is straightforward biological science to presume that, for the majority, "Nature", by which I mean, natural selection, has "designed" the genitalia optimally for function. This does not preclude our acknowledging that, in some cases, the individual with a congenital malformation may make corrective surgery advisable. This is the rationale we use for managing all other parts of our bodies, after all. We respect natural design, but amend where foetal development has gone demonstrably wrong in the individual cas or where the adult requests a change to suit his aesthetic or functional desire.

The premise that our bodies are "optimally" designed or selected for whatever purpose seems to me to be very original researchy. Nandesuka 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't it exactly Darwin's point that nature provided pressure to optimize? Christopher 17:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was also his point that evolution is an ongoing process. If something is optimal it can get no better. It hardly matters, anyway. Speculation on the basis of the theory of evolution is original research whether right or wrong. Jakew 20:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not suggested that optimal be interpreted as implying the species had reached an end point. Circumcision is a rite from paleolithic times. "Optimal" {q.v. dictionary.com} is defined as "most desirable possible under a restriction expressed or implied" so let us not presume a definition that is not meant. I avoided the word "perfect", and that is not what optimal means anyway. The nub is, there is no evidence from functionalism that removal of the foreskin is an improvement on the naturally arrived at state of the species on its journey to date. We are familiar with the Darwinian theory and its much debated aspects; perhaps, we may agree that selective pressures have "optimised" the foreskin as integral to the penis. My point is that there is no evidence here that the generic design of the human {or primate, or even dog, cow, horse etc.} male genital has been "improved" by modification in any sense. The other point was that we don't, e.g., trim the eyelids to improve vision or remove our children's lips to allow easier cleaning of the teeth. If we agree that evolution, can obviously be seen as an endless process of adaptation, not the end point of the species development, (given the environment is ever dynamic), the foreskin as a functional penile component is as optimal as natural selective pressure has been able to make it, given the time and the environment.

This is because the glans is ideally kept moist, sensitive and protected, and the foreskin ensures this. I recognise that circumcision is not generally catastrophic, and it does not seem to affect overall fertility, but I believe it can rightly be seen as a painful hangover from irrational, and I would argue, superstitious religious rituals we can now dispense with without loss. Few, who have a foreskin, freely elect to lose it, whereas many, who have lost it, opine they wish they still had it. Some, in the US and Australia, are sueing the doctors who, they allege, robbed them of it, on the grounds of loss of pleasure; others, because of damage to the glans during surgery etc. Trevor H.

Well, no prizes for guessing your stance on the issue, then. ;-) Jakew 11:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, J. While I respect the wiki neutrality in articles, I believe a POV can be justified in discussion, though I hope it will always reflect the outcome of coherent argumentation and be open to contradiction. :)Trevor H.

Well evolution does optimize but does not make things perfect, it is blind trial and error, let me give you a example: Take for example the testis (balls for you layman), how many mammals have to suffer the pain of externalized testicles? Being exposed protected by nothing but a thin layer of skin, why you might ask? Sperm can only be viably produced at temperatures lower then core body temperature, so then nature did the right thing by moving the testis out into the open for keeping them cool? Wrong! Why not just evolve sperm that can grow at core body temperature, in fact birds maintain their testis at core body temperatures (as high as 41°C!)[31] and still produce plenty of viable sperm. When mammals and birds evolved from reptiles (birds from dinosaurs (likely already warm blooded) that evolved from reptiles) the evolving warm blooded body systems needed to find a solution to the still cold-blooded biochemistry of sperm production, in birds evolution though seemingly random trial and error corrected the biochemistry to a warm-blooded system, in mammals in seemingly random trial and error moved the testis outside of the body to keep them in a colder climate. So what does that have to do with foreskin, well the belief that foreskin being there thus is must be good is a fallacy, I’m not saying it is not for a good reason we retain foreskin, I’m saying “natural must be good” logic is not logical and thus is not a argument you can use to support foreskin. Lets make the opposite argument just for clarity: the appendix and coccyx are usually consider vestigial, an old remnant of evolution, what are the signs of this, first of all medical research find them the cause of more problems then benefits and second their shape and form varies greatly from persons to person and third in many animals these organs are far more evolved. The length of the foreskin varies greatly from man to man, some have very long foreskins that extend far beyond the head of the penis even during full erection, and others have foreskins that are so short they only cover part of the penis. In many animals (take a look at a dog's foreskin) the foreskin is very developed as a full sheath for storing the penis and the whole penis can be retracted into the foreskin, in humans the foreskin only manages to hold the head of the penis at most. The argument has been raised that circumcision of the foreskin evolved socially in desert areas because of a lack of water to clean it and dust and sand getting in there causes pain, thus all of this would lead one to believe the foreskin is vestigial! For many of the anti-circumcision people here that might be very objectionable, but let me be clear on this: the biological arguments FOR AND AGAINTS foreskin is in fact very frivolous and theoretical even hypothetical in many cases with little to no science behind it, just guessing. Of all the frivolous arguments the one I like the must (the one that makes the most sense to me) is: the foreskin is used in humans as a semen trap for collecting opponent males semen, unless you are untrusting of your woman there is no reason to keep it, LOL! --BerserkerBen 04:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought it best to put a simple explanation why I put Muslims before Jews in the survey of numbers in the article. The reason is simple. There are about 1000 million Muslims and 14 million Jews so Muslim numbers are overwhelmingly greater. Michael Glass 07:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)