Wikipedia

Talk:Circumcision/Archive 41

< Talk:Circumcision
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Coppertwig in topic Circumcision is, of course, surgery
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Replacement of image of intact penis

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User revasser recently edited the article and substituted the existing comparison image of an intact penis with an alternative image. Both I and Garycompugeek subsequently reverted the edit with explanatory edit summaries. By my count, Revasser has reverted our reverts three times in the space of 24 hours, here, here and here. This contravenes the three-revert rule. I've left a message at revasser's talk page warning about the three-revert rule and inviting discussion here.

The image introduced by revasser is, by comparison to the image of the circumcised penis, virtually monochromatic. The image it replaced was taken using natural light, and the comparative circumcised penis image appears to have been taken using a photographic flash, which is closer to the effect of natural light than the artificial, uncorrected lighting, and colouring, in the image introduced by revasser. Revasser's change is unnecessary and constitutes a reduction in image quality and comparability in my opinion. Beejaypii (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to make an "objective" argument on aesthetics, which is highly contestable. Ultimately, the angles fit better, the penis is better looking, and more representative of uncircumcised penises. Not to mention, it also matches the circumcised penis picture nearly directly.
My "contravention" of the three-revert rule is not any argument to support your side. Rather, it is indicative of you trying to "win" a "revert war" before even giving any reasonable justification for change of the image.Revasser (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have an apology to make. I misread the three-revert rule (it's the first time I've felt obliged to apply it, if that's any defence, which it probably isn't). You have made three reverts in 24 hours, but you haven't exceeded that number. I will, of course, strike out the incorrect parts of this section and rephrase accordingly. My humblest apologies.
This discussion about your edits, however, is still relevant. 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
As for your comments above: no, I'm making an objective argument about the realism of the lighting and range of colours seen in the images. You say "the penis is better looking" Hmm, I'm sure that's your opinion, and I'll take your word for it, but that is a subjective argument about aesthetics. You say it's "more representative of uncircumcised penises". I don't see what you mean. Penises are surely, for want of a better expression, as individual as noses. It would help if you explained why the image you've chosen is "more representative" instead of simply asserting that it is. Furthermore, your image may match the other image in terms of angle but it does that at the cost of accuracy (the lighting and colouring problems I've described already). And just because the penises have been photographed at different angles, it doesn't mean the images aren't suitable to the purpose for which they have been included in the article: to show the difference between a circumcised penis and a penis with a foreskin. Beejaypii (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RasterB's changes.

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

RasterB, "surgery" has been discussed here, and the map colours were challenged and made more neutral. Please engage in discussion if you feel these changes are necessary. Blackworm (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to adjust the graphic to whatever colours you prefer, as long as circumcised=maroon and colours and not greyscale are used. Any preference? The original used maroon for circumcised and some pretty bland colours for 20 and 80%. They need to be more colourful than that. Any suggestions? Give me the RGB values if you have them. Black is an especially inappropriate colour to use for an African dominated region (What were they thinking?). RasterB (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you insist that "circumcised=maroon?" The fact that red connotes "danger" or "stop" almost universally is clearly non-neutral, and that's why many editors prefer the current, more neutral scheme. Am I to now understand that you don't like it on the grounds that the colour of the map in several African countries is dark, and natives of Africa tend to have darker skin? That's seems irrelevant to me (perhaps because I see race as irrelevant), but if you feel it's a sensitivity issue, why not inverse the colours so that circumcision is light and non-circumcision is dark? I don't mind; it matches with the message of the whole brochure but it's subtle enough. In any case, the map is challenged on much more fundamental grounds, and I imagine it will disappear entirely, since there's not likely going to be a consensus for its inclusion here. I wouldn't potentially waste time worrying about the current greyscale scheme. (Why do you suppose greys are called neutral colours?) Blackworm (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, could you explain the "more fundamental grounds" on which the map is challenged? Without knowing what they are, I'm not sure whether the following would help to address them. However, I've suggested above that we move the map to the prevalence section. As an alternative, we might move it to the prevalence of circumcision article. Would either or both of these suggestions help? Jakew (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The comments I was referring to are at the current end of this Talk section. They are independent of issues of placement. Blackworm (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the original colours from the reference:

Circumcised percentage
Percent<2020-80>80
Colour

I see now that what they used was shades of increasing red to indicate the prevalence of circumcision. Maroon seems appropriate because of the colour of the exposed glans. The colours used on WP were originally the horribly biased green=circumcised and red=uncircumcised.[1] All I did was reverse these to better reflect the original colour choice and better illustrate the subject (maroon = circumcised, green = natural state, yellow = in between). Greyscale doesn't cut it (no pun intended). RasterB (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexual effects section

Latest comment: 15 years ago42 comments9 people in discussion

This section seems biased and badly structured. Although there are several recent studies indicating negative sexual effects from circumcision, the article does not mention these, listing instead a study of the sensitivity of the glans and a 1999 statement from the AAP. I have added a reference to one such study, however, the structure of the section as it stands does not permit such references to be added without sacrificing style, so more extensive edits are needed. The sentence "There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males" is misleading, in that it implies this assertion has nothing but "anecdotal reports" behind it, and the reference to Boyle et. al. at the end appears tacked-on as a weak gesture toward neutrality. I suggest beginning the section with a sentence that indicates the contradictory nature of the current research, and then providing an array of references organized in a coherant fashion, I see no reason t lead with the 1999 AAP reference, nor do I see the purpose of the "anecdotal reports" sentence, either. If there are studies with findings which agree with these (there are) reference them, and don't bother discussing "anecdotal reports", as these clearly are less significant. Ulumuri (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First, please review WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. In general, it is preferable to cite secondary sources (ie., literature reviews such as that of the AAP or Boyle et al) in preference to primary sources (such as individual studies). This is particularly true of this article, which provides an overview of circumcision. In the detailed article, sexual effects of circumcision, there is more space to discuss the results of individual studies.
Second, please read the AAP's statement again. In it, you will find a section entitled "SEXUAL PRACTICE, SENSATION, AND CIRCUMCISION STATUS", which reads as follows:
A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.13 There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.31
The article quotes this statement (which is why it is enclosed in double quote marks). I'm sorry that you find the second sentence of the quote misleading; unfortunately we can't choose only to include material with which we agree. Unfortunately, you have now modified the quotation on two different occasions, with the result that the AAP are misquoted. In your most recent edit, you have not only misquoted the AAP (who did not say "However, Fink..."), but unfortunately you have attempted to use a primary source (Fink) to contradict a secondary source (AAP). Please see WP:MEDRS#Using primary sources to "debunk" the conclusions of secondary sources. Yet another problem is that you have introduced undue weight by citing a non-representative primary source: of the seven primary sources listed in the table at sexual effects of circumcision, two found that erectile function was better in circumcised males, three found no statistically significant difference, and two found it was worse in circumcised males. Jakew (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (edited 18:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC))
Hi Jakew. I followed the link you provide above to the AAP's statement. I found the section titled "SEXUAL PRACTICE, SENSATION, AND CIRCUMCISION STATUS". It does indeed state:
A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.
However, if you click the footnote link (Numbered 13) after that sentence, you'll find that you can access the abstract of the study they "cite" (EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW Circumcision in the United States. JAMA. 1997; 277:1052-1057). Here's what we find in that abstract:
RESULTS: We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. However, uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices. This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors.
Not quite what the secondary source says is it? But then, the unqualified "less sexual dysfunction" is so much stronger than "slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life" isn't it. And perhaps it's easier to interpret "engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices" as a behavioural adaptation to a reduction in sensation than it is to interpret the phrase "more varied sexual practice" in that way, perhaps explaining the misquoting there. Oh, and the AAP forgot to mention the bit about the pattern differing "across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors." I assume the AAP quote will now be removed from the article. Beejaypii (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Beejaypii, I understand that you have a different interpretation of Laumann's paper than the AAP, but Wikipedia is not the place to present your personal opinions about the AAP's policy statement. If you wish to present criticism, I suggest that you write to the AAP or submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. Jakew (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The AAP summary of the study as quoted above by Beejaypii seems reasonable to me and I wouldn't call it "misrepresenting". They've expressed the ideas in a smaller number of words for brevity, and used "varied" instead of "elaborated"; I think "varied" has a more straightforward meaning. Any paraphrasing of anything can be interpreted by some people as having a significantly different meaning in some way. Anyway, as Jakew points out, we're supposed to rely on published secondary sources rather than giving our own interpretations. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Secondary sources should not be used to obscure the primary sources in cases where the secondary source's interpretation of that specific primary source is disputed by editors here. The guideline Jakew references (which oddly has no tag indicating an official guideline at the top) says, Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, [...]. I see that as meaning that the results of one study can't be used to counter the weight provided by the secondary source on its conclusions regarding multiple studies; not that differences observed by editors here in the secondary source's interpretation of one specific study cannot be juxtaposed with quotes from the original study. Let the reader decide if this secondary source is being "debunked" by the primary source it references, on the specific subject of that primary source's conclusions. Here, in the language of official WP:PSTS policy, we:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
There is a reason that is allowed. Your assigned motivations about "debunking" the secondary source don't hold any water unless you actually believe the AAP contradicts the primary source. In that case, I invite you to present the secondary source, and "debunk" the primary source with the secondary source. Blackworm (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I've reverted your revert. The secondary source, in this case, doesn't just paraphrase or interpret - it suppresses information, namely that the primary source specifically found that "uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life.", and doesn't simply "suggest" that there is "less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men". We are supposed to be producing an encyclopaedic article, not facilitating the suppression of information engineered by secondary sources. Furthermore, the reliability of this particular source has been called into question. Beejaypii (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, it is completely inappropriate to delete material because you disagree with it. Please do not do that again. Jakew (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I removed it because I believe it to be unreliable: it seriously misrepresents a primary source (see discussion elsewhere in this section for further info). Please try to avoid misrepresenting the motives of other editors. Beejaypii (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
JakeW, I'm sorry, I didn't see that the sentences in question were a single quote. I will simply add my reference at the end; however, I still feel that the presentation is POV, and, furthermore, the primary source cited is more recent than the AAP quote. Ulumuri (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
As noted, it is still a primary source, and unfortunately citing only a single primary source is problematic. As noted above, of seven primary sources that have discussed erectile dysfunction (see sexual effects of circumcision), only two found a positive association with circumcision, so citing only one of these two is misleading as to the range of findings. Jakew (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine. But in that case, I suggest adding a summary of the table on the sexual effects article (nothing elaborate, simply the same as you posted there earlier - two showing a positive association, two a negative, and the rest none). Ulumuri (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, though the AAP quote may originally include the phrase about "anecdotal reports", that does not mean it should be included in the article - not because I don't "agree with it" (I do, of course such reports exist, I've heard them personally) but because it is irrelevant. Anecdotal reports from 1999 are less significant than studies from 2002. Ulumuri (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


Jakew, you've performed a revert without even providing a reason why here. Please review this extract from wp:or:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

So, why did you remove the primary source material? And why did you replace the part of the AAP quote which is demonstrably unreliable?

Oh, and in reference to a comment you made earlier in this section, I have contacted the AAP, via email, about the issue we were discussing. I'll let you know their response, if they respond that is. Beejaypii (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, as I explained above, this primary source is used selectively in a way that constitutes undue weight. As I explained above, "of the seven primary sources listed in the table at sexual effects of circumcision, two found that erectile function was better in circumcised males, three found no statistically significant difference, and two found it was worse in circumcised males." If we're to cite primary sources at all (which is questionable), we would need to cite a representative selection. We should not paint a misleading picture of the literature by only citing one of the two that found a negative effect.
I replaced the AAP quote because you have offered no other reason for its removal other than the fact that you disagree with it. This does not mean that it is "demonstrably unreliable", it simply means that you disagree. There are several sources in the article with which I personally disagree, but it would be similarly inappropriate for me to remove them. Jakew (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the portion of the AAP quote under discussion states that:
A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.
The primary source states:
However, uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices. This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors.
The assertion "slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions" is not synonymous with the unqualified "less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men." The secondary source provides opportunity for a wide range of interpretation (e.g. a lot less sexual dysfunction in circumcised men) whereas the primary source rules this out. This is problematic, and that's not just my opinion, that's a semantic fact.
As I've shown above, primary sources may be included in an article, and we have a situation here where that would be a very useful thing to do, assuming we are striving to improve the accuracy of this article that is. The problematic portion of the AAP quote can be removed, and the primary source can be referenced instead, providing the opportunity to also include the qualifying information about ethnic groups and social factors as a bonus. You do want to enhance the accuracy of this article don't you? Beejaypii (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Beejaypii, to quote WP:PSTS "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims", and that's exactly what the AAP do. You may disagree with the AAP, but they are not obliged to use exactly the same words as Laumann et al used in their abstract, nor for that matter are they obliged to rely upon Laumann's interpretation of the figures he presented. Quoting the primary source instead of the secondary source would be problematic for three reasons. First, WP should prefer secondary sources where possible. Second, the AAP used Laumann to create their general overview, and it forms a part of that overview. The fact that the AAP chose to cite Laumann, and presented it the way they did, is part of their viewpoint, whether or not you personally agree with it. Finally, if we were to cite a single primary source it would give undue weight to that source. Instead, as WP:MEDRS advises, "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." Jakew (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very good. But in this instance, the secondary source has been demonstrated to be unreliable. Explain how the secondary source accurately cites the primary source please. Oh, and "WP would prefer secondary sources where possible." Well, that's just a preference, and in the case in point I'm afraid it isn't possible without misleading the reader about a primary source. And if undue weight is an issue, then it looks as if neither the secondary nor the primary source can be included. Finally, "The fact that the AAP chose to cite Laumann, and presented it the way they did, is part of their viewpoint, whether or not you personally agree with it." Yes, what's your point? I've demonstrated that the AAP have inaccurately cited Laumann, not just my opinion I'm afraid, unless you are going to argue that the AAP have not introduced a large degree of interpretability where there was very little in the primary source, with respect to the information taken from the primary source. Beejaypii (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Beejaypii, you have not demonstrated that the AAP's policy statement is unreliable. You have demonstrated that you disagree with it, and would have chosen to summarise Laumann differently. You focus on the use of the term "slightly" in one but not the other, but while "less" is an objective statement with a mathematical relationship to the data, "slightly" is a subjective qualifier that reflects the author's opinion about how much less. So in essence, your criticism boils down to the fact that the AAP report the objective statement but do not repeat Laumann's subjective assessment. But in any event, our role is to report on viewpoints described in sources, not to decide whether they are correct. As WP:V explains: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Jakew (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Problem with that argument is that the adverb "slightly" is not wholly subjective: it's imprecisely defined, but only at the boundaries of the range of its meaning. Would anyone agree that "appear slightly more likely to" could mean "40% more likely to", or "30% more likely to", and what about "20% more likely to", or even "15% more likely to"? I don't think so. So, it isn't wholly subjective is it? However, when you say "less sexual dysfunction" that allows for a significantly greater range of interpretation. For example, it could mean 50% less, or perhaps even more. I think we need to apply some common sense here: if a secondary source introduces a greater degree of interpretability than the primary source it cites, thereby strengthening the argument the secondary source is supporting by citing the primary source (or, at least, not weakening it as much as an accurate citation of the primary source would have), we should take that seriously, and not just ignore it, as you seem to want to do. This isn't about deciding whether a source is correct in the context of the wider debate, it's about an unusual (hopefully) example where a secondary source can be seen to have introduced spin, whether intentionally or not, to material cited from a primary source. Either we use the primary source for the relevant portion of the material, or we use both, or we use neither. I object to the use of the secondary source on its own, for the portion of the citation under consideration, on these grounds I've set out in this discussion. Beejaypii (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Beejaypii, if A is slightly less than B, then A is less than B. As Jakew points out, "slightly" is subjective, and the AAP no doubt looked at more than just the abstract when summarizing that study. When summarizing something in a smaller number of words, necessarily some details are left out. If the AAP's statement is biassed opinion, that's fine: Wikipedia reports such opinions, and balances them with other opinions such as given in the second paragraph of the section.
I disagree with this revert; if that sentence is deleted, then perhaps some or all of the second paragraph of the section also needs to be deleted to maintain due weight. Ironically, your revert also "withholds relevant info".
Maybe there's some other way to fix the quote besides deleting that sentence. (Maybe we won't be able to find any such way.) Maybe the quote could be enhanced and expanded by the addition of a quote from the primary source. I'm not sure there's any way to do that without violating undue weight or violating WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN by presenting a weighting different from the AAP's. I'm thinking of possibly something along the lines of "Masi and Zuckeman found, based on self-reports, that "uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life.". The AAP mention this study and add that "There are anecdotal reports ..."" This could perhaps be justified by saying that the AAP gave a very brief summary and we want to include more detail from the primary source. However, I think it's more concise to just have the full original AAP quote. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Coppertwig, I think the suggestion that we cite the primary source too is a step towards resolving this issue. Beejaypii (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
(Oops: the authors are "E. O. Laumann, C. M. Masi and E. W. Zuckerman". I copied the AAP in saying "self-reports"; I've only read the abstract and don't think that term appears in it.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Beejaypii has demonstrated the ambiguity of the AAP quote. Should we include this secondary source where as it may mislead the reader from its primary source meaning? Let's look at it backwards. Why must it stay? How does it improve the article when associated with demonstrated ambiguity? Garycompugeek (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Gary, each of the three secondary sources we cite expresses a viewpoint on this issue, and that viewpoint is expressed through the primary sources chosen, how they are described, and what (if any) conclusions are reached. It's unrealistic to expect every WP editor to agree with all of these viewpoints, but what we can agree with is that these viewpoints exist. Like it or not, the sentence we're discussing is part of the AAP's viewpoint, just as the statement that there is "an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males" is part of Boyle's viewpoint. Beejaypii alleges that the sentence may constitute "spin". Maybe, maybe not, but if it is spin then, as Coppertwig points out, that spin is part of their opinion, too. If we treat the AAP quote as a set of claims to be deleted or corrected though reference to primary sources, then we are in effect failing to represent their viewpoint. Secondary sources are more than just a list of references. Jakew (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said, Jake. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
So the AAP official position is they do not recommend circumcision, but if you do not get circumcised you are "slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions". This sounds contradictory to me and seems to cloud their position. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert Jake because you appear to be going against consensus. Rough consensus looks to remove the AAP's quote and keep Finks. I'm ok with this however I feel the entire section could be better written for flow and weight. Ulumuri suggestion seems fair. State controversy in beginning and I suggests a meta of two pros and two cons. Opinions? Garycompugeek (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Gary, I don't know how on earth you've managed to find this "consensus" in the above discussion, and would be interested if you would explain.
Secondly, the edit which you reverted was actually a partial revert that, in addition to deleting Fink due to undue weight, corrected a punctuation error in Gary P88's proposed compromise version of the first paragraph (the opening quotation mark was missing from the start of the Masters and Johnson sentence). Here is the section of the paragraph, with the change highlighted in red:
  • ...however they also stated that "[a] survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men." They continued, "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."...
Since you say that your revert was "by design", I am completely mystified as to why you did this.
Thirdly, if you read the section, you'll see that Gary P88's edit has already stated the controversy in the first sentence: "The sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of much debate." Jakew (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite confused about this alleged "consensus" too, which appears to be imaginary. Jakew has raised serious issues with Fink. Defend it's inclusion rationally and in relation to policy, rather than by invoking some alleged "consensus". Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Easy Jake. Sorry I missed your punctuation correction. Would an admin please correct? Your second objection is clear,(that's what we have been debating), and last I was/am agreeing with Gary P88's addition. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected, Gary, not fully protected. You can correct it yourself. Jakew (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Ok are you referring to this " They continued," right before Masters and Johnsons? Restored. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with how much power Jake seems to have over this article. There seems to be arbitrary assignment of Wiki policies depending on whether it supports his POV or not. Personally I don't have time to come back here and read through the VOLUMES of debates, many of which are so repetitive and circular. Jake's POV may have undue weight simply because he seems to have the most time to devote to these edit wars. Others like me who may be opposed to his dictatorship over this article might also be unwilling to devote the time necessary to counter his assertions, as others on here have (thankfully) been persistent enough to do. Keep that in mind with your discourse as it may be awhile before I'm able to comment again. *steps off soapbox*

Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with your personal comments about User:Jakew. His influence on this article rests entirely on the fact that he is vastly better informed about circumcision than all the other editors here combined. Don't make further comments about Jakew; comment about article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, stop making personal attack on editors here. All comments about Jakew are in relation to article content; more specifically his stranglehold on article content, supported by biased administrators who call anyone who opposes Jakew "anti-circumcision zealots." Your days of attacking and intimidating any editor who dares question Jakew's ownership of this article should have been over long ago. You have yet to address the fact that you approved the sentiment expressed by an editor who came here and told editors that their statements smacked of anti-Semitism. That kind of intimidation and accusation has no place here, and it betrayed your lack of neutrality on this matter. I thought you'd figured that out by taking your long wikibreak immediately afterward, but apparently that was not the case. Blackworm (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, I haven't attacked any editors, but you certainly have, including in this latest edit summary. Take this seriously, and desist. Jayjg (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop your threats and intimidation, which is exclusively directed at what you label "anti-circumcision editors" (new term apparently moderated from the time you called them "anti-circumcision zealots"). Blackworm (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
From personal attack:"Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack." I'd say that being Jewish is a conflict of interest. It isn't anti-semitic either to criticise circumcision because the majority of those circumcised in the USA are not Jewish - so it is fair game. Being circumcised is also a conflict of interest too. Which you and Jakew appear to be. I would also disagree that Jakew is better informed than everyone here combined. Given that there is a policy against original research I'd say that being better informed isn't that much of an advantage anyway. It definitely shouldn't discourage other editors from working on the article or make their view less valid.Tremello22 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think describing one's religion or circumcision status as a "conflict of interest" goes too far, and certainly doesn't approach WP:COI. We all come with our biases and preconceived notions, and we have to be open to others' notions, especially when backed by reliable sources. Issues are solved by inclusion of multiple viewpoints, and attribution of those viewpoints. When editors suppress material presenting opposing viewpoints, or fail to attribute viewpoints they support (presenting them as fact), or claim a "majority POV" with minimal evidence, or intimidate editors who don't share their viewpoint such that they leave, or consistently band together with editors they feel share the same viewpoint regardless of the edit being discussed, or canvas other editors based on their affiliations (especially affiliations correlated to specific views on circumcision), then we have a problem. An editor's suitability to edit a given article isn't determined by their background or personal views, but by the neutrality and other appropriateness of their edits. That should be the focus of the attention given Jakew -- his consistently one-sided edits, and the misinterpretation of policies and invalid arguments ad nauseum he uses to defend his edits or oppose others' edits. Not the story of his extraordinary personal relationship with adult circumcision, not his other real-world circumcision advocacy, and not his openly expressed POV and reason for being here, i.e., countering the "deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision." It is difficult to separate those two concepts at times. Blackworm (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, how could you possibly know anything about me, and that I am somehow less informed than Jakew? Seems like personal attacks are your problem, not mine. If you look at my statement, I simply said I was uncomfortable with his domination of the arguments. I did not say anything about his personal character as I'm sure he's an upstanding individual, however, I do disagree with a lot of what he says. The relation to content is appropriate to this discussion page because it involves one editor's ownership, and/or claims of consensus (thank you for the personal message, Coppertwig, but I respectfully disagree). As was previously stated, the intimidation and persistence factors should not be ruled out as a supposed "consensus", when it often clearly isn't. The argumentation of this discussion is almost unbelievable. Penises have such personal meaning for men and society in general, and it really shows by the vehement disagreement here. In the meantime, stop making assumptions about how qualified or unqualified each of us is to evaluate the research. In fact, it is not my or Jakew's or anyone else's prerogative to censor information provided it has substantial support and passable methodology.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
In reply to various comments above: I'd prefer not to see comments about editors' religion or personal views. If being Jewish is a conflict of interest, maybe being a confirmed atheist is, too. I don't see how being circumcised would be a conflict of interest: if so, then maybe being uncircumcised is, too: in fact, I think it would be easier to predict the views on circumcision of an uncircumcised adult than of a circumcised one. Whether one is circumcised or not is a private, personal matter. We all have our personal biasses, or beliefs about what exactly an unbiassed position is, which amounts to more-or-less the same thing. The point is to work together to create a NPOV article. If someone has beliefs about what in their opinion a NPOV article on this topic should look like, and if all their edits tend to shift the article in the direction of that ideal, I see nothing wrong with that, because those edits are balanced by those of other editors with a different idea of what NPOV should look like; unless their beliefs are based on a misunderstanding of policy, but it may be a matter of opinion whether something is a misunderstanding of policy or a different interpretation of policy. Let's try to make this a pleasant editing environment for all participants. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Position of POV tag and hatnote

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At first, I thought the hatnote should go at the top: a reader using the hatnote is not going to be reading this article, so they don't need to know that it's considered POV and they'll save time if they just get to the hatnote immediately. However, I then realized that the POV tag is also meant to apply to the hatnote: that is, that some editors believe that the wording of the hatnote is not sufficiently NPOV. Therefore, having the POV tag first may make sense in the case of this article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


RFC: Does WHO/CDC paragraph belong in LEAD?

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

tag removed

Does the WHO/CDC paragraph make Circumcision notable?

Not in proportion to its current prominence in the lead. This is a clear case of recentism. Certainly if it does at all, its contribution is a tiny fraction of how the circumcision of females makes circumcision notable. The circumcision of females is not addressed at all in this article, which is one fundamental flaw that several other flaws flow from. Circumcision is not what this article says it is. Circumcision is the 1 a: the act of circumcising;[2] and circumcising means to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)[3]. Correct that flaw, and you see how dozens of other flaws have no flaw to stand on (pardon the pun). Blackworm (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, you're ignoring what I've pointed out to you previously: there is more than one definition of the word "circumcision". Any particular use of the word may happen to only be using one of those definitions. A Wikipedia article is, as I've explained to you before, centred around a topic, not around a word (see Wiktionary for that). Here, the topic is male circumcision. Male circumcision is one of the definitions of the word "circumcision", and that's how the word is being used here to refer to this topic. A Wikipedia article has no obligation to explore all topics that relate to all definitions of a word.
My opinion on the RfC is expressed in these posts above:
☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

While hoping to attract outside opinion to this debate I will never the less add my two cents. Sticking to the question of the RFC, (not that I don't agree there are many other issues) I feel the last paragraph of the lead dealing with WHO/CDC is mainly about HIV/AIDS prevention and a poor one at that (slight reduction in transmission of STDs when not practicing safe sex). There is plenty of evidence that the above benefit does not outweigh the negative effects of circumcision and I will quote a recently added source "There are some minimal advantages in some circumstances, particularly in some infectious diseases, but they're overwhelmingly balanced by disadvantages in other areas," from the AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn Walters. As far as making an item notable based on search results... well there are so many reasons why that is not feasible I will not list them here but other editors and myself have tried to in the section Edit War. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RFCStlye Comment: First, please to read WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the important points of the article, not selected important points in detail. Myself and many other editors actually believe there should never be a reference in your lead; instead, the lead should only summarize things and every point made in the lead should be made in more detail (and with sources) in the article.

Look at your table of contents. Each major heading is a paragraph, and the minor headings are sentences within that paragraph. Something like this would work:

The medical aspects of circumcision are debated by the medical community. There are known medical risks due to the procedure itself. Some studies have shown an impact to transmission levels of HIV and other STDs. Hygene...Cancer...Etc... One sentence on each minor heading.

That's how I would rewrite it if I had been requested to Copyedit this article. Livitup (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about this paragraph:

  • "The World Health Organisation (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.[15][16]"

If we are , I agree - it seems out of place - not exactly right for the opening paragraph. Also this review shows there are serious flaws in the study. Tremello22 (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite is from 1999 and the WHO apparently bases its advocacy of circumcision on later studies. The article you cite is still noteworthy however, despite Coppertwig's and Jakew's inappropriate belief in a proof. The question this RfC asks is malformed anyhow -- why would a paragraph in a Wikipedia article make the topic notable, and why should we discuss that idea here? This paragraph is just part of the brochure intro. There are more fundamental flaws -- for example the view of multiple editors that this is a non-neutral brochure for circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tremello. The paragraph is out of place - there is no objective reason why this particular (nine year old!) study should recieve this placement, as opposed to any other reference in the article. If we include this paragraph, NPOV would require also including the criticisms of the study, which would, of course, be absurd in the lead. Move it to the relevant section. 71.176.86.220 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, it is makes the paragraph more notable by virtue of the fact that it is in the introduction. Do you know which studies/figures were used in the AIDS report? I believe it was based on old studies and they didn't conduct any new ones.Tremello22 (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear which report you mean, Tremello. The WHO/UNAIDS statement was issued in response to three randomised controlled trials, one of which was published in late 2005, and the other two in late 2006. The CDC's report cited these trials, too. Jakew (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct - I am informed now. But the 3 randomized trials also have some questions about their reliability. So, can we be sure that circumcision reduces AIDS? Criticism of 2005 Orange Farm Auvert study: here, here (scroll down) and other criticisms of the 3 trials here Which is why I think it shouldn't be in the introduction section. I think we should reserve that space for information that we are sure about.Tremello22 (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All request for comment from editors not already involved have been to remove WHO/CDC paragraph from the lead. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

so shall we remove it then? Tremello22 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Removed and RFC closed. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision is, of course, surgery

Latest comment: 15 years ago87 comments8 people in discussion

Blackworm, I find this edit of yours to be highly problematic. It was not a "minor" change, and your edit summary says "Discussed many times." Yes, discussed many times, and you agreed that it was surgery; see, for example, this discussion which you conclude by conceding the obvious fact that circumcision is surgery. Please don't make these kinds of edits again, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was minor because the version without "surgical" has had consensus for months. There is no consensus for its new inclusion. I conceded that argument, as I said, because at the time (April 2007) I believed that "One more misuse of the word here isn't the end of the world. I concede the point." Since I don't hold that opinion anymore, and the version without surgery has been described as "fine" and "neutral" by editors like Jakew and Coppertwig, I think it's better to leave it out, since surgery doesn't form part of the definition of circumcision. In a professional medical context, there's no doubt that's what it is; but it's non-neutral to assign that medical context while defining the topic. Blackworm (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, except for all the neutral sources that described it that way. The fact that anti-circumcision editors dislike the word only confirms that fact. Please abide by the consensus, which included you, before you found some like-minded allies. Jayjg (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, tell us more about what pro-circumcision editors like and dislike, Jayjg. Blackworm (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I have no problem with: In a medical context, male circumcision is described as surgery. Put that in there somewhere if you feel the point needs to be stressed. Blackworm (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, before you talk of supposed "consensus," perhaps you should review your protege Jakew's latest theories, which I will now label temporal rough consensus. Please comment on that theory before proceeding further. Blackworm (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems appropriate that you are making a strawman out of these "anti-circumcision editors" and their "dislikes", Jayjg. There may be a consensus, but from the tone of your post it seems you are indeed without conflict of interest here in your politicization of such a trivial issue, even though I agree with you that circumcision is surgery in any sense of the world. But clearly you like to view this article in a very "us" vs. "them" tone - which may legitimately be the case, given how Jewish and Israeli Wikipedians have tended to view this heated subject. Revasser (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Revasser, given your claim that you are concerned about "'us' vs. 'them'" tones, why are you singling out "Jewish and Israeli Wikipedians"? And by the way, which Wikipedians in particular were you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg I find your talk of pro vs. con disturbing. It smacks of drawing a line in the sand and pointing out division when we should be trying to work together and compromise. I consider circumcision surgery and I'm firmly in the "anti-circumcision editors" group. Regardless of our personal beliefs we need to be open and try to keep a neutral tone. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about; please focus on article content. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What you mean to say is, when you think of male circumcision, you think of surgery. You think of a hospital, clean conditions, a nice Circumstraint(tm) infant restraining device, etc. That's fine, but that's not part of the definition of what circumcision is. A circumcision performed by a barber in Turkey with old scissors, using the "pull and snip" method, is hardly "surgical," but it is definitely "circumcision," as are the circumcisions done to unwilling adult men with knives. The attempt by the medical community and other advocates of male circumcision to define male circumcision as "surgery" is just like attempts to define female circumcision as "mutilation;" it's based on advocacy and POV. It's not part of the definition of circumcision, it only describes (most) male circumcision (and a growing number of female circumcisions). Blackworm (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I started reading this thread thinking of course it's surgery. Blackworm raises a valid point: not always. It may be worth mentioning that it is often a surgical procedure (as I believe the article already does, or at least alludes to), but Blackworm's convinced me it's not necessarily intrinsic to the definition. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see below. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines "Surgery is a medical technology consisting of a physical intervention on tissues. As a general rule, a procedure is considered surgical when it involves cutting of a patient's tissues or closure of a previously sustained wound." and personally in my limited medical background I consider any cutting of tissue to be surgery. IE - The removal of a wart or mole with a scalpel would be considered minor surgery. I do not see how it effects the article one way or the other and am indifferent to the outcome. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense in a therapeutic medical context. Stabbing someone with a knife is a cutting of tissue, but it's not surgery. How about the ear-cutting scene in the film Reservoir Dogs? Is that surgery? It is simply not part of the definition of circumcision that it must necessarily be surgical (i.e. done in a medical context, or "the work of a surgeon" [4]). Advocates of male circumcision would prefer that it be defined in a medical context, as that validates and legitimizes it (we tend to assume that any "surgical" procedure is beneficial). It's for that reason that advocates of female circumcision are now doing the same; medicalizing those procedures.[5] I prefer accuracy over advocacy, thus my stance on this. Others seem to agree. Blackworm (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with blackworm. The word "surgical" should be left out. I wouldn't call what a mohel does surgery. Surgery is about rectifying a problem - there is no proof that the foreskin is a problem in ALL cases. Tremello22 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that if this is a critique of the medicalization of male circumcision in general, it is a prescriptive view, rather than descriptive. But again that assumes that circumcision is "surgery" and carried out in medical settings - which is definitely not true. To call it surgery implies a homogeneous worldview of the procedure - that it is surgery everywhere. But clearly, it is not, and carried it very rudimentary outback settings in countries such as South Africa. In this regard, male circumcision is no different from female circumcision in terms of not being "surgery". Indeed, that is a parallel critique among anti-female circumcision activists, who dread the medicalization of the practice the same way it happened to male circumcision.
The fact of the matter is that for some places, male circumcision is surgery - and in other places, it is not. With a heterogeneous prevalence of the procedure, it is best to leave out the word "surgery" - because it clearly is not surgery for everybody. Revasser (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And what about Plastibell? That's not really a surgery, but a ligation. Even in a medical context it falls short. Circumcision is not always surgical, but surgical removal of the prepuce is always circumcision.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All this original research is besides the point: circumcision is a surgical procedure because that's what reliable sources say it is. In fact, even anti-circumcision sources insist it is surgery. I've provided at least 10 reliable sources now, and as many more can be provided if required. Now, which reliable sources say that circumcision is not a surgical procedure? Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Blackworm's right to change his mind. If editors never changed their minds we would have a hard time arriving at consensus. However, in order to avoid forum shopping, which can lead to a tremendous drain on volunteer resources because people feel they have to keep constant watch over an article and participate in repetitive discussions simply to maintain the article in a constant state, once something has been decided, it may be better to avoid starting up a new discussion simply because there's a different mix of people present; a good reason to start a discussion might be that new reasons have been presented. RasterB has introduced an argument which I think is new: that simply saying "removal" is ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean retraction of the foreskin. This seems to me to be a serious problem: the definition in the first line should be clear and not easily misinterpreted. The following wordings would solve this, I think: "is the removal by cutting or other means of the foreskin...", or "is the removal by cutting or with clamps of the foreskin...", etc.
I did a web search for pages containing "mohel" and "surgery" and found some pages that use the word "surgery" in the context of an action performed by a mohel. I conclude that "surgery" doesn't necessarily mean something done by a doctor in a hospital. I think Blackworm has a good point, though, that "surgery" is not a properly descriptive word for forced circumcisions.
Leaving out the word "surgery" does not amount to a statement that circumcision is not surgery. Definitions using different words need not contradict each other.
"Due weight" refers to the balancing of different points of view; it does not mean that it's OK to make false statements such as "Every American has two eyes and two legs". There could be a large number of people who hold the POV that it's important to use inclusive language that recognizes the existence of exceptions to something even if the number of exceptions is extremely small.
(ec) Jayjg, it's not necessary to have a source saying that circumcision is not surgery in order for us to decide to leave out the word "surgery". "Surgery" is simply a word that is used in some definitions of circumcision. Dictionary definitions not using the word "surgery" have also been presented in the discussion I link to below. The first sentence of a Wikipedia article is a collaborative effort, not an exact quote from a source.
It appears to me that the wording was changed with consensus after an extended discussion here, to "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis" on Nov. 6, 2007. It seems to me to have remained stable with this wording, suggesting a wiki-consensus, for about 7.5 months until RasterB's contribution on June 27, 2008.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, reliable sources have no problem with describing it as "surgical removal", including other encyclopedias:
All the original research in the world doesn't compare to that. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point, Jayjg. However, the point has also been made that many such sources are medical sources, and thus present specifically the medical POV, rather than the Wikipedian NPOV. It would be interesting to know how you collected those definitions, i.e. whether you also ran across any definitions not containing the word "surgery", or not. I doubt we could find any reliable source stating "all definitions of 'circumcision' must contain the word 'surgery'".
In order to attempt to find non-medical definitions of "circumcision", I did a web search for "mohel" and "circumcision is". These may not be reliable sources, but I found
  • "Circumcision is a mitzvah of the Torah and not merely a health practice", [6]" Understanding Judaism: A Basic Guide to...", By Mordechai Katz Published 2001 Mesorah Publications Judaism 389 pages ISBN:1578195179
  • "Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin of the penis." [7] (Jewish Virtual Library)
  • "The Brit Milah ceremony is a beautiful life cycle event; a circumcision is a surgical procedure." (came up in Google search but link is broken)
  • "Circumcision is an operation to remove the foreskin covering the glans penis," The Great Immigration: Russian Jews in Israel By Dina Siegel Published 1998 Berghahn Books Jews, Russian/ Israel/ Identity 214 pages ISBN:1571819681
  • "Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce" [8] Mohel Joel Shoulson, etc.
Some use the word "surgical" and some do not. What about the word "operation"? Could it possibly be used as a compromise? (Just an idea.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's as the anti-circumcision activist Paul Fleiss says: "Some, like rigidly Orthodox Jews, may deny that circumcision is surgery at all." Paul M. Fleiss, Frederick M. Hodges. What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision, Warner Books, 2003, p. 107.
Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With the exception of Encarta, the sources above from Jayjg are all sources discussing circumcision in a medical context. My dictionary says nothing about surgery, and articles such as this [9] that talk about circumcision do not bring to mind the word "surgery," in fact only a moron would describe those circumcisions as "surgery" in my opinion. Circumcision may be described as surgery in a million places; and in a million places I'm sure it's an accurate description. It's just not part of the definition, and cannot be. Fortunately several editors' common sense in understanding this seems to trump Jayjg's apparent obsession with defining circumcision as surgery. I suggested an edit above, where circumcision is described as surgery. What is the objection to it?

Coppertwig, I have no idea why you also now seem keen to define circumcision in beneficial terms such as "operation" and "surgery," but I can't support that. We've already bowed to Jakew's insistence that it cannot be called "cutting" (such negative imagery evoked there!), I suggest that's enough pandering to POV. Blackworm (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems bizarre you would object to how the most reliable sources describe circumcision. Nevertheless, I've added non-medical sources too. It's also strange how you insist that there are two types of circumcision, "medical" and "non-medical" - can you please provide some reliable sources that make this distinction? Until then, please desist from removing relevant, sourced information. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
While I may feel that circumcision is surgery it is clear that this is my POV. Other arguments and sources do not always support me. Would is not be best to find a more neutral term that other editors do not object to? Garycompugeek (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It would all depend. If their objections are based on policy, then they should be taken into account. However, I haven't seen any sign of that so far. All the reliable sources I can find say it is surgery. None say it is not surgery. Therefore... Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, from your comments I am forced to wonder whether you have considered my comments seriously, since I make clear I am drawing a distinction between describing circumcision as surgery, and defining it as surgery. I don't "object to how the most reliable sources describe circumcision" at all. In fact, my suggested edit above indeed uses that very language. Did you consider it at all? No, rather I object to your attempts to define male circumcision in terms of surgery in this article, where the only place that is consistently done is in a medical context. It is a minority of sources outside a medical context, and possibly even in a general context, that define circumcision as surgery. My objection is based on WP:NPOV, which states, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Somebody could come here and attempt to define circumcision as controversial -- something like, Male circumcision is a controversial procedure that involves the removal... They could bring plenty of sources indicating that it is controversial, and I suspect very few if any would be found that claim it isn't. But it's not part of the definition of circumcision that it's controversial, and I would oppose attempts to define it as such. Same goes for surgery.
Incidentally, all of the reliable sources I can find say circumcision is cutting. (See this.) None have been presented that say is it not cutting. Despite this, Jakew, who I have never seen you disagree with much less oppose, seems to insist that "cutting" be suppressed from this article's definition of circumcision. I think a better case can be made for "cutting" than "surgery," especially since the Latin-based suffix -cision literally means cutting. Even if you disagree on "cutting" vs. "surgery," I'm sure you can see why your argument doesn't carry much weight with me. Perhaps a compromise pleasing all of us can be found, however. Again, please comment on suggested edits. Blackworm (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What other "significant viewpoints" are you referring to that do not consider circumcision to be surgery? Please cite them. Jayjg (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict.) Also, Jayjg, you may wish to read this, from the Australian government web site. It is a document from the Department of Human Services. The phrase non-medical circumcision appears six times on that one page document. (Note also that the first three occurences of the word "circumcision" are each disambiguated to make clear the document discusses male circumcision.) There are plenty of other examples of "non-medical circumcision," which is essentially the same concept as "non-therapeutic circumcision." Blackworm (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
They don't define it as surgery. We need our definition to be neutral and not biased. Blackworm (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What does the fact that they refer to "non-medical circumcision" have to do with whether or not it is surgery? If a doctor in a hospital O/R uses anasthesia and a scalpel to remove a foreskin for "non-therapeutic" reasons, does that suddenly mean it's not surgery, but has become something entirely different? Even though it's the identical procedure? If a doctor enlarges a woman's breasts by inserting breast implants, is that not surgery? If a doctor re-shapes or makes smaller someone's nose, is that not surgery? And by the way, I'm still waiting for those reliable sources that say that circumcision is not surgery - please provide them. Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, you tell me; you said: "It's also strange how you insist that there are two types of circumcision, "medical" and "non-medical" - can you please provide some reliable sources that make this distinction? Until then, please desist from removing relevant, sourced information." I was responding to that tangent with the source you asked for, despite it seeming obvious to me, and for which you made me waste time, and then did not acknowledge, choosing to make it sound like I was bringing it up out of the blue. I don't respect that.
I've already explained my position on why circumcision cannot be defined as surgery; either address my points and the other editors' points, or seek another form of dispute resolution. Perhaps an RfC? By the way, you implicitly suggest that any surgery (or any circumcision) requires anaesthesia; if only most people performing circumcisions thought like you, and actually used anaesthesia when circumcising, perhaps it would calm some of the controversy.
I've provided plenty of sources that do not define circumcision as surgery. I believe this, and the other sources I've brought which describe circumcisions only a fanatic would regard as surgical, to be sufficient to make my point. I'm sorry that you disagree, and I invite you to seek dispute resolution. Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, I don't even understand how your brain works. The question you should be asking is whether using a scalpel and anaesthesia for circumcision is different from using a knife and three henchmen, or the same thing. You seem to be answering that it is the same thing, by misinterpreting the categorization of the first instance as "surgery" as being intrinsic to circumcision, perhaps unaware that other instances described as circumcision in reliable sources may not merit that categorization as surgery. Ultimately, I suggest that most people are much more likely to characterize the first instance as surgery and much less likely to do so for the second. Maybe most people have never even heard of the second kind of instances of circumcisions. But then, that's fine: "Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it." – Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Tutorial. A great read, that document. Fine language. Blackworm (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I rely on actual policy, WP:NPOV and WP:V, rather than suppositions about what "most people" would think, or the opinions of editors on Talk: pages. You seem to be trying to make the claim that if a source doesn't use the word "surgery" or "surgical", it means that the source does not consider it to be surgery - however, this if a form of logical fallacy known as the "argument from silence". You need to find reliable sources that say that circumcision is not surgery, to show that there is a contrary view to the many reliable sources that say that it is surgery. I've shown above that anti-circumcision activists say it is surgery. Even popular anti-circumcision websites say it is surgery; CIRP's very first statement on its website says "The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are an Internet resource that provide you with information about all aspects of the genital surgery known as circumcision." (emphasis mine). As far as I can tell, the only people who state it isn't surgery are some Wikipedia editors (and, if you believe Fleiss, Orthodox Jews who deny the fact). Wikipedia is a sourced-based encyclopedia. Bring reliable sources that support your contention that circumcision is not surgery. Jayjg (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Follow dispute resolution. Your new edit doesn't have consensus, and this issue has been stable for months and months, as Coppertwig kindly notes above. It seems that around here, the stable state is preferred when there is a dispute, and especially a dispute in which the new change clearly lacks consensus. That stable state must remain. Please self-revert, and/or follow dispute resolution. Blackworm (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand policy; I find nothing in it about "the stable state must remain". This is a wiki, the one that anyone can edit. I've added information sourced to over a dozen reliable sources. You have objected, based on original research. Find sources supporting your opinions. Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS (official policy): Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Blackworm (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
And in Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (essay linked from above policy): The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is. Remember, we're discussing the first sentence of the article, the definition of the topic, and this aspect has been unchallenged for over seven months. Please, stop. Blackworm (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I have an idea!! Let's turn the first sentence around: "The surgical removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis is called "circumcision", from Latin circum (meaning "around") and cædere (meaning "to cut")." This avoids implying that there is no such thing as non-surgical circumcision, without actively implying that there is; and also flows naturally into what is now the second sentence.
Jayjg, your many references are interesting in the discussion on the talk page, but are not needed by the reader of the article. Superscripts in the middle of a sentence are usually best avoided. The fact that the word "surgery" is used in multiple sources is not really disputed, I think, and I don't think the reader needs to have all those sources; I think they just get in the way and may be confusing to some readers who may wonder why they're there. This has been discussed previously.
Would people on both sides of the dispute please avoid editwarring and wait until there's been agreement on the talk page before editing the first sentence of the lead?☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and creating a new problem in doing so. The goal of the first sentence of the lead is to tell us what circumcision is -- neutrally. Not to give us some examples of things that have been called circumcision. WP:LEAD: The first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. We need to outline what is denoted by "circumcision." The current consensus (and not Jayjg's current edit) does just that (at least for "male circumcision," the true topic of this article; but that's another dispute). Since circumcision clearly doesn't denote surgery, i.e., surgery is not universally seen as intrinsic to circumcision, then it can't form part of the definition. Blackworm (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for not reverting while we discuss this, Blackworm: that's commendable.
I may have missed it, but I don't remember seeing you replying to the problem RasterB raised, that "removal" can be ambiguous.
The idea of turning the sentence backwards is that maybe the vast majority of reliable sources consider "surgery" to be a reasonable way to describe circumcision: they don't necessarily all consider that the word has to be mentioned every time, but they may (perhaps) all consider that describing it that way is one valid way to describe it; therefore including the word "surgery" is OK as long as the sentence is true, which it is when turned backwards. According to this way of looking at it, the first sentence backwards does adequately describe what circumcision is according to the vast-majority POV (if that is what the vast majority of reliable sources think), so that's OK.
The problem being addressed is that apparently some people think it's very important to include the word "surgery", although I don't understand why; I'm not sure whether any reasons have been given except that it appears in a lot of definitions in the reliable sources, which might be a good reason in itself.
Do we have any reliable sources that describe circumcision as "surgery" in the context of a religious ceremony that doesn't involve a medical practitioner? (I'm not sure if some of the sources I listed above would count.) Many reliable sources may be describing circumcision in the context of a service provided by a medical practitioner; this article may have a responsibility to describe circumcision in a wider context, e.g. including forced circumcisions, which a medical practitioner would have no reason to mention, so a different definition may be needed here. The first sentence's job is to describe what this article is about, not what various particular reliable sources are about.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, thanks for your thanks, but as I make clear here, that new edit must be reverted, barring evidence of a consensus for it. The edit currently has support of, to my count, two editors; with seven editors opposing. Policy calls for its removal, due to these circumstances. I find myself at a complete inability to comprehend Jayjg's juxtaposition of continued reversions, and appearing to wave away opposing arguments from multiple editors in Talk. He seems to be resisting normal Wikipedia process in favour of his challenged interpretation of policy, a trend I've commented on (though perhaps ungraciously) almost a year ago, after my first interactions with him.[10] Perhaps this is a result of his once having been in a position of great respect in Wikipedia. I feel he's owed respect. I'm sure he's seen a lot of kooks. However, he now apparently trusts his own singular judgment on an edit against seven editors in disagreement. That's not how Wikipedia works. Non-mutual respect is very difficult to give. I've tried my best to give him respect above by responding to his arguments the best I could, as clearly as I could, and in good faith that I might be mistaken.
You again use the word "describing" multiple times, when you should be using the word "defining" in your arguments and analogies, considering the placement of the edit under dispute. It is clear from the cited evidence and reasoning I've presented that male circumcision cannot, in an encyclopedic way, be defined as surgery.
On the (irrelevant) description of male circumcision as surgery, maybe those people consider it reasonable to describe circumcision as surgery because they know of no other type of male circumcision, or even perhaps do not wish to bring to light any other type of male circumcision. That's all well and good, everyone is allowed their POV and perhaps even their agenda. Just not in defining male circumcision. I have no problem with: Most sources, especially medical sources, describe male circumcision as non-therapeutic (serving to treat no disease or disorder), elective surgery. It is also often described as controversial. Perfectly neutral sentence, in my opinion, even for the second and third sentences of the lead, after the definition. Again, I ask that replies addressed to me comment on my suggested edits.
RasterB's point about the possible ambiguity of "removal" is indeed interesting; however the obvious, non-controversial,[-BW] neutral way to resolve that, if it is an issue, is by inserting the word "cutting" in the definition, not the word "surgery." You'll note my arguments and analogies against "surgery" above would fail to prevent us from defining male circumcision as cutting. For now, it's always cutting (I say "for now" because I'm sure someone will someday invent a way to burn, freeze, wormhole, vaporize, or otherwise send the male prepuce into non-existence). Male circumcision is not always surgery. Defining it as surgery is not suitable for a general encyclopedia. Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean; not only to many reliable sources say that circumcision is surgery, but you have yet to provide a source that says it is not surgery, or even "not always surgery" though you keep making that claim. Please provide some reliable sourcing for your claims; until you do, it's merely a personal opinion, and there is little to discuss. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Many say that it's controversial and many others define it as cutting, too, and I presume few or none could be found saying it isn't controversial, and few or none saying it isn't cutting. Also, many sources may be brought calling the topic "male circumcision," and I believe none would be found calling anything falling under the definition of circumcision used here "non-male circumcision" or "female circumcision" or imply anywhere anything else other than the fact that it is male circumcision. Therefore, by your own argument, would you accept, "Male circumcision is the controversial surgical cutting and removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." (?) If you do, I do. I would then be at least be convinced, despite my disagreement with your reasoning, that your strong desire to define circumcision as "surgical" is truly based on an editing philosophy rather than a political philosophy. Blackworm (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't counted the editors myself. Perhaps you could list the names, or it might be a good idea to have a poll or an RfC or both. I oppose both versions that you and Jayjg have been reverting to, for reasons I've stated already.
Jayjg mentioned that some of the sources he listed are encyclopedias. That's an interesting point: how do other general encyclopedias define circumcision? Only one of the sources in Jayjg's list has "encyclopedia" in its title, and it's a medical encyclopedia. Medical encyclopedias would tend to have a narrower focus, describing (in their whole articles) circumcision in a medical context, and therefore defining it (at the beginning of the article) as surgery. I searched for non-medical encyclopedias. I found one print encyclopedia on my shelf, and a number of online encyclopedias in a Google search for "encyclopedia". I ignored one medical encyclopedia, and I ignored those that had no entry for "circumcision" or no easy online access. I got the following:
  • High beam encyclopedia: [11] Quotes these encyclopedias:
    • The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition "circumcision , operation to remove the foreskin covering the glans of the penis."
    • Gale Encyclopedia of Children's Health: Infancy through Adolescence Circumcision Definition "The surgical removal of the foreskin of ... clitoris in a female." (Note: could be considered a medical encyclopedia.)
    • World Encyclopedia circumcision "Operation of removing part or the whole of the foreskin of the penis or of removing the clitoris. "
  • MSN Encarta: [12] Circumcision: "Surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin of the human male or of the corresponding tissues of the female."
  • (Medline plus -- medical encyclopedia -- skipping)
  • infoplease [13] (Encyclopedia) circumcision "circumcision , operation to remove the foreskin covering the glans of the penis. "(from Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition.)
  • Circumcision -- Catholic Encyclopedia [14] "The Hebrew, like the Greek (peritome), and the Latin (circumcisio), signifies a cutting and, specifically, the removal of the prepuce, or foreskin, from the penis. "
  • Lovetoknow Encyclopedia: [15] "CIRCUMCISION (Lat. circum, round, and caedere, to cut), the cutting off of the foreskin. This surgical operation, which is commonly prescribed for purely medical reasons, is also an initiation or religious ceremony among Jews and Mahommedans, and is a widespread institution in many Semitic races." (Note: the word "surgical" appears in the second sentence.)
  • Howstuffworks: [16] (Health) "Circumcision, like most surgery, is easier if you know what to expect. Learn about Circumcision and how to prepare for this procedure...Definition Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis. It is often performed in healthy boys for cultural or religious..." (Note: marked as under the topic "Health": similar to a medical encyclopedia, then?)
  • (print) Encyclopedia Americana, 1970. (International edition. First published 1829. Americana Corporation, New York, New York. Library of Congress Catalog Number 72-97500. Standard Book Number 7172-0101-5. "CIRCUMCISION [pronunciation] is an operation involving, in males, the removal of the penis foreskin. In females, parts of the external genitals are removed."
Setting aside the medical encyclopedias and the one that puts circumcision under the topic of "health", I count five encyclopedias that define circumcision without using the word "surgery", and three that use the word "surgery".
To my mind, definitions also describe. WP:LEAD says the first paragraph should define the topic; it doesn't say the first sentence has to define the topic. As I see it, the definition of the topic can be achieved by describing. As I interpret it, the topic to be defined is the topic of the article. Arguably, the topic of the article doesn't include forced circumcisions: they aren't actually mentioned within the article as such, but on a subpage.
The problem with the word "cutting" is that some people don't find it a good description (definition?) of what happens in the methods that use clamps and crushing of tissue. "permanent removal" might be another option to consider. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Circumcision sure seems ambiguous in those definitions. This article should be called "Male circumcision". Garycompugeek (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Notice the male and female definitions in most of the circumcision entries. Not only should this page be "Male circumcision" but Female genital cutting should be "Female circumcision". I am astounded that it is otherwise. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to find something better than an argument from silence. Any number of reliable sources state that circumcision is surgery. A number are quite emphatic that it is surgery and nothing else, and that attempts to claim it is something else are deceptive or "denying facts". And those sources are well aware of all the different varieties and methodologies used to circumcise. We now need sources claiming that it is not surgery. Are you aware of any? Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Now Jayjg is claiming that these sources explicitly state that circumcision "is surgery and nothing else, [...]"? Jayjg is now asserting that according to these sources, circumcision and surgery are synonymous? Where are these sources? If this wasn't the intent, I ask that the statement please be rephrased.
Does Jayjg have reliable sources that name the sources he has brought and states that they all are well aware of all the different varieties and methodologies used to circumcise? I challenge that statement of Jayjg's. Blackworm (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? The sources say it's surgery. You claim it's not always. Provide sources for your claim. As for the different methodologies, the anti-circumcision books and sites in question go on at length about the different methodologies, but if you want to assert that they're ignorant, I'm fine with that too; I haven't used them as sources in the article anyway. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's easy: [17]. common sense. I didn't assert anyone was ignorant; that's your word. Blackworm (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, that article doesn't even use the word "surgery". Can you quote the section where is states that circumcision isn't surgery? Or can you quote some other source making that claim? Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ummmmm, my claim was, as you note above, that circumcision isn't always surgery. My source for my claim is the above, as it is the basis for my claim that male circumcision isn't surgery. Yes, it requires interpretation. So, dismiss it; I don't care. I still claim you haven't shown that surgery is so intrinsic to the definition of male circumcision that it must be included. I claim that any honest examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that it isn't, always. Since dictionaries and general sources don't call it surgery, people observing a forced male circumcision call it "circumcision," which it is, by their definition of circumcision. We can't use a definition that narrows the topic in such a way that makes some reliable sources appear to claim that forced adult male circumcisions with knives in the bush are "surgery," because common sense indicates they are working from a different definition; namely the one suppressed by your desired edit, that fails to define circumcision as surgery. Blackworm (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
my claim was, as you note above, that circumcision isn't always surgery. Great. Now find some reliable sources that also make that claim. The rest is original research. Jayjg (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I choose to invoke common sense, supported by sources, in lieu of your legalistic interpretation of WP:NOR, to determine what I claim to be absolute inherent properties of male circumcision. I call that intellectual honesty; if you want to call it OR, be my guest. It's ultimately another irrelevant tangent; regardless of the truth of my claim above, male circumcision isn't consistently defined as being surgery outside a medical context, thus since we are looking to define the topic neutrally and generally, we must adopt a definition that reflects the common elements of circumcision as most general reliable sources define it (including dictionaries, encyclopedias). Blackworm (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I chose to use WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV to guide my edits. Please find a source for your argument that circumcision is not surgery. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sir, I believe that to be a non sequitur. Blackworm (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I to interpret that as a threat to remove everything sourced from what you determine to from an "anti-circumcision" POV, based on your expression that they are ignorant? Are you trying to convince me of my non-neutral POV, or yours? Discussion of our POVs are irrelevant and inappropriate, anyway. Why do you keep bringing it up? Blackworm (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, huh? I haven't been discussing "our POVs", or any of the other stuff you're talking about. Please focus on article content. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, huh? I'm not putting words in your mouth, Jayjg; you wrote: "The fact that anti-circumcision editors dislike the word only confirms that fact." in your second post of this discussion, But indeed, I'll focus on article content, as I have from the beginning, except when you bring up "anti-circumcision" editors and sources, in which case you need to be reminded that it's a straw man argument and inappropriate. You may continue to focus on "anti-circumcision zealots" and "anti-circumcision editors" and "anti-circumcision books" and "anti-circumcision" whatever else, but it doesn't help your case, as other editors here have pointed out. Blackworm (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait, are you now claiming that Paul Fleiss is not an anti-circumcision activist? He's famous for it! Or that CIRP is not an anti-circumcision website? I supposed you can deny these facts, but it doesn't help your case. Jayjg (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop putting words in my mouth. You brought up Paul Fleiss, no one else did, and no one else even made any comment about him, or CIRP, or "anti-circumcision zealots" or any other of your useless, divisive original research characterizations. You said stick to discussing the edit, so discuss the edit. You make clear you believe anything "anti-circumcision" is "ignorant" and that you have no desire to use any such material in the article, but I'm sorry to inform you that the neutral point of view disagrees with you. Blackworm (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, please focus on article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, please follow your own advice. [18] Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you found any reliable sources saying that the topic of this article, circumcision, is not surgery? Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't entirely follow your logic, Jayjg. To me, stating that circumcision is surgery is a definition, not a fact. (Maybe you see it differently.) There can be more than one valid definition for the same word. There might be any number of references stating things about circumcision: for example stating that circumcision is something that is often performed in hospitals, and no references stating that it is never performed in hospitals; I don't see that this would in any way compel us to necessarily include "is often performed in hospitals" in the first sentence. Therefore, I disagree that we need sources stating that it is not surgery. The definition we need here is of the topic covered by this Wikipedia article, which may be different from the definition in some other encyclopedias, e.g. medical encyclopedias. For example, some encyclopedias define it as covering both male and female circumcision; for purposes of this article we choose to define it as male circumcision only. The existence of a number of dictionaries stating that it includes female circumcision does not compel us to choose that particular definition here. Dictionaries may list more than one definition: there's no one particular definition that we're forced to use. Jayjg, there are a number of arguments that have been presented in this discussion that you don't seem to have addressed. I'm sorry: I didn't see the sources stating emphatically that it is surgery and nothing else and that attempts to state otherwise are denying facts: could you please give the specific references for those statements? (preferably telling me which paragraph of the source to look at).
Garycompugeek, I'm not saying I necessarily disagree, but we already had a poll on the page naming; let's not take up time re-opening that discussion. Discussion of renaming of another page can take place at that page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes and that poll was pretty even and not binding regardless. I was illustrating a point Coppertwig. That point happened to cover both pages. You, in fact, made me think of it with your circumcision definitions. Time is something Wikipedia has in abundance, please don't brush off my comments if yours is short. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, again, I point out that an argument from silence is weak. Just because other definitions don't use the word "surgery", it doesn't mean they don't consider circumcision not to be surgery. If reliable sources took issue with this notion, then you'd think at least one or two would somehow bring up the issue, perhaps discuss it in some way. And yet, there don't seem to be any reliable sources even raising the issue, much less making the assertion. We cannot base our article on issues which the reliable sources don't raise. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It also doesn't mean they consider circumcision to be surgery, which would be required in an overwhelming majority of general definitions of "circumcision" for us to narrow our definition further. Further, you seem make an argument from silence yourself by writing the above, i.e. (paraphrasing) "They don't say it's not surgery, and some say it is, so we have to say it is." Really, since you are the one supporting the additional language, we must examine what your argument is for the inclusion of surgery in the definition. Your argument seems to be that some sources define it thusly, and that is what you've shown with your sources. We easily find that it leads to a fallacy of accident: 1.) Circumcision is surgery, (overgeneralized premise), and 2) Surgery is "the work of a surgeon" (apparently true), therefore 3) All circumcision is "the work of a surgeon" (demonstrably false). Blackworm (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
We have many reliable sources stating that it is surgery. You claim it is not. Please provide sourcing for your argument. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Asked and answered. (Incidentally, you never answered my call for you to present sources for your claims above.) As I said above, my claim that it is not always surgery is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether we must generally define male circumcision as surgery, your medical sources describing it as such notwithstanding. You can keep repeating your claim of OR at my claim, but since my position doesn't entirely rest on that claim, and others' positions may not either, I suggest you begin to address the arguments of the editors opposing this edit instead of ignoring them, and begin commenting on their suggested edits instead of ignoring them. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, and you are still unsatisfied, then please open a Request for Comment, ask that an impartial editor mediate this dispute, or follow some other form of dispute resolution. Blackworm (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My claims aren't reflected in the article, though, while you insist yours must be. If you are unsatisfied with what reliable sources have to say on the matter, and unwilling to provide sources for your arguments, then please open a Request for Comment, ask that an impartial editor mediate this dispute, or follow some other form of dispute resolution. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not insisting that my claim appear in the article at all, in fact my suggested edits above clearly show the contrary. I'd appreciate it if you made a better attempt not to misrepresent my position. And since I'm not pushing for your new edit, and since there is no consensus for your new edit, it seems you are in the position of requiring assistance to get the article edited the way you want it, not I. I'd be glad to support the process you initiate, however, if you feel we can come to a consensus about this. Blackworm (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have sources. Where are yours? Until you find them, you have no leg to stand on. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) I consider it incivil of Jayjg to demand "sources," without qualification, when I've already clearly linked to and referenced reliable sources above. These sources support my counterpoints and counterarguments to Jayjg's vague, scattered argument for the necessity of Wikipedia's adoption of this narrower definition of circumcision. Unless I'm mistaken, Jayjg has pointed to no sources and no Wikipedia policy indicating or even suggesting that we must necessarily adopt this new definition of the topic. All he has shown is that several sources, almost exclusively in a medical context, describe circumcision as surgical. Then, he is silent on all comments opposed to the proposed edit, and also silent on the suggested edits incorporating the sourced information he brings into the article, he instead proceeds to repeatedly revert to his new desired version, apparently asserting that his sources show that Wikipedia must also follow the lead of these sources and use surgery or surgical in Wikipedia's definition of circumcision. The proper inclusion and attribution of the views espoused by those sources seems insufficient to Jayjg, but he has not provided a supporting rationale. (Again, I'm speculating on what seems sufficient to Jayjg, since Jayjg just reverts to his edit and refuses to discuss the objections and suggested edits.)

Several of the most prominent and most reliable general tertiary sources defining the topic of circumcision (rather than primary or secondary sources describing a typical Western male circumcision) do not invoke the concept of surgery as intrinsic to circumcision, and thus have a different, broader definition than the one Jayjg desires Wikipedia adopt: Merriam-Webster Dictionary ( [19], [20]), American Heritage Dictionary ([21], [22]), Oxford English Dictionary ([23]) Dictionary.com ([24], [25]). Even encyclopedias (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition; World Encyclopedia, via Encyclopedia.com) don't say surgical or mention any surgery while discussing the topic. One encyclopedia takes care to first define, then descibe circumcision (Encyclopedia Brittanca (1911) [26]). Another is apparently vague on the definition (The Jewish Encyclopedia [27]), but repeatedly calls circumcision "a rite" of males, but also describes it or relates its description as a "surgery," a "commandment," a "mark," a "precaution," a "condition for the admission of a proselyte," and a "seal." That one also states, interestingly: While in Biblical times the mother (perhaps generally) performed the operation, it was in later times performed by a surgeon, [...] also called by the specific name "mohel" [...] Surgery is the work of a surgeon.[28] Perhaps an argument could be made that if a reliable source says circumcision came to be performed by a surgeon, it was clearly at one point not the work of a surgeon, i.e., not surgery. Anyway, the point I'm making is there is clearly a range of opinion, both in reliable sources, and from editors here, on the topic of how best to define circumcision, and I see no valid reason for Jayjg to be demanding we adopt Jayjg's favorite definition of the topic to the exclusion of all others. I prefer a path of choosing a broader, common, general, and in my view more neutral definition that more editors can agree on. Others seem to agree.

I'm happy to reflect circumcision's description as surgery by medical sources and other sources, as I've suggested with a specific proposed edit above, but Jayjg apparently argues and acts as if bound by no policy and no controls, seeing fit to be incivil, to endlessly revert, to resist due process, and to refuse to comment on counterarguments and counterproposals -- preferring a tactic of repeating a tangential mantra, an apparent proof by assertion ad nauseum. Sorry, Jayjg, I believe you have not made a valid argument in support of your new desired edit. I am emboldened in that belief by the clear lack of support you have in discussion. I further believe you have made little or no effort to address the concerns and comments of editors opposing your desired edit here, to the point of grave incivility. Blackworm (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Coppertwig (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
As has been explained, an argument from silence is a logical fallacy. You keep insisting that circumcision is not surgery. I have dozens of reliable sources saying it is. You have none saying it is not. Please provide sources for your claim that circumcision is not surgery. Until then, please don't remove actual sourced information, and please stop making non-consensual edits. Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, Jayjg, please do not edit my discussion posts. Should you believe it warranted, please leave a message on my talk page, and I'll consider clarifying or rephrasing the statement you believe inappropriate. If that is unsatisfactory, then please follow other Wikipedia process to have the comment removed or edited. Please consider WP:CIVIL, which states: Only in the most serious of circumstances should an editor replace or edit a comment made by another editor. Only in the event of something that can cause actual damage in the real world should this be the first step (i.e., disclosing the name, address or phone number of an opponent). That policy also states that Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves is incivil; and as I make clear above I believe your comments and actions in this discussion, especially editing my comments a second time after I specifically asked you to refrain from it the first time[Apologies Jayjg, I have no reason to assume you saw that edit summary -BW], are now reasonably interpreted as taunting.
Again, I'm sorry, but I read your comment above as another non-sequitur. Blackworm (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If your referring to this [29] then Coppertwig was responsible not Jayjg. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to this and this, although I am also dismayed by Coppertwig's edit to my comment, as I indicated here. Blackworm (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary

This is my attempt to summarize this debate so far, based on this section and the edits to the article since June 27. I apologize for any inadvertent omissions or misrepresentations of peoples' positions: please let me know so I can correct them, realizing though that this is a brief summary. I encourage further discussion. Numbers indicate (Support/Oppose)

  • surgical removal: (3/6) Supported by Jayjg and Nandesuka because numerous sources state that circumcision is surgery and none state that it isn't. Supported by RasterB because "removal" by itself is ambiguous. Opposed by Blackworm because some circumcisions (e.g. done by a barber, or forced circumcisions) are not surgery. Opposed by a number of other editors for the same or similar reasons as Blackworm's: (14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)) Opposed by Tremello22 because the work of a mohel wouldn't be considered surgery. Opposed by Coppertwig per other editors. (Apparently) opposed by Luna Santin per Blackworm. Opposed by Revasser because it is not surgery when carried out in rudimentary outback settings. Opposed by Gimmethoseshoes because Plastibell involves a ligation rather than a surgery.
  • removal: (1+/4) Supported by Blackworm per consensus in previous discussion plus 7.5-month wiki-consensus. Opposed by RasterB and Coppertwig because retraction is also removal. Opposed by Jayjg and Nandesuka because numerous sources state that circumcision is surgery and none state that it isn't. Perhaps implicitly supported by some of the editors who oppose "surgical". (15:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC))
  • operation: (1/1) Suggested by Coppertwig; used in some sources' definitions. Apparently opposed by Blackworm because it sounds beneficial.
  • cutting: (1/1) Suggested by Blackworm. Opposed by Coppertwig because clamps (Plastibell?) are not necessarily considered cutting.
  • permanent removal: (1/0) Suggested by Coppertwig to resolve ambiguity in "removal".
  • The surgical removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis is called "circumcision"... (turning sentence backwards) (1/1) Suggested by Coppertwig. Opposed by Blackworm because surgery can't form part of the definition. it fails to define the topic and misleads the reader (14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)) (15:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions for Blackworm and Jayjg.
Blackworm, thank you for describing your concerns about the use of the word "surgical" here. (Re edit summary and "suppressed by your": Ouch.) Re your comment where you said "We can't use a definition that narrows the topic in such a way that makes some reliable sources appear to claim that forced adult male circumcisions with knives in the bush are "surgery," because common sense indicates they are working from a different definition..." I hope you don't mind this series of questions, Blackworm, which are intended as an invitation to clarify your position a little further. I don't necessarily need yes-or-no answers to these if you can express your position better in different words. Are you concerned that someone might read the Wikipedia article, then read another source from somewhere else and think that it's claiming that forced circumcisions with knives in the bush are surgery? Or, are you not expressing concern about that in general but in particular that someone might read the Wikipedia article, follow a link to a source, and figure that the Wikipedian definition applies because Wikipedia linked to the source? Could you be more specific about what you think the harmful effects would be if sources appear to claim that such circumcisions are surgery? Do you think some readers would be misled about the nature of such circumcisions? What do you think the readers would think: are you concerned, for example, that they would conclude that the forced circumcisions confer a medical benefit on the victims? Or do you think they would start to interpret the definition of the word "surgery" differently? Are you concerned that a reader might think an article is claiming that circumcision is "surgery" even if the article doesn't contain the word "surgery"? Is what you're concerned about not so much any fact-like ideas the reader might get, but an emotional colouring, associating to "circumcision" beneficial ideas that are associated (by some people) with "surgery"? Does it make any difference whether this article links directly to any articles about forced circumcisions, or whether a subarticle does?
Jayjg, with respect, I would like to suggest that there seems to be a part of your argument that you're not telling us, possibly because it seems obvious to you. Please try to understand the part where I'm having trouble following, and explain the reasoning behind that part. Your argument seems to be that many reliable sources state that circumcision is surgery, and none that we know of state that it isn't, therefore the first sentence of this article must contain the word "surgical". The part I have trouble with is the "therefore". Perhaps it would help if you would explain what is the difference between "surgical" and other terms such as "rite", "controversial", "is often performed in hospitals", etc., such that if we can find many sources stating that circumcision is those things, and no sources stating that circumcision is not those things, we're compelled to put "surgical" in the first sentence but we're not compelled to put "is a rite", "is a commandment", "is controversial", "is often performed in hospitals", etc. into the first sentence.
WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." I believe the word "threshold" here is widely interpreted to mean that in order to be included in a Wikipedia article, something must be verifiable. but that being verifiable does not guarantee that something will be included. Other considerations, such as NPOV, NOR, relevance, due weight, brevity, level of interest, avoiding near-repetition, whether it fits into a narrative flow etc. can also sometimes exclude material even if the material is very well verifiable. You've established that "circumcision is surgery" is stated by many sources, but I don't think you've provided any reason beyond that for including the statement in this article. Why is it so important to you that it be included? How do you feel about the suggestions Blackworm made about including information about surgery in another section of the article?
I would appreciate a specific answer to the following question, Jayjg, because I think it's essential in order to be able to understand what you've been saying. When you provide a number of sources that state that circumcision is surgery and you feel that it's been verified that circumcision is surgery, do you think of that as a definition, or as a statement of fact? If a definition, do you acknowledge that one word can have more than one definition? If a statement of fact, would you please explain what that means, in your opinion: i.e. what would be different in the world if circumcision were not surgery? I hope you will understand that I'm offering these questions in a friendly spirit, as someone who enjoys discussing ideas, and in an attempt to find a way to bridge the gap between two different positions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's start with your summary, Coppertwig. I don't think it's fair at all, since you make it appear as if opposition to "surgery" is for varying, fragmented reasons, ignoring language other editors use that clearly support my position: "Blackworm's convinced me it's not necessarily intrinsic to the definition" (Luna Santin), I agree with blackworm. (Tremello22), it is best to leave out the word "surgery" - because it clearly is not surgery for everybody (Revasser), Circumcision is not always surgical (Gimmethoseshoes).
You suggest: The surgical removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis is called "circumcision"... You state: Opposed by Blackworm because surgery can't form part of the definition. Actually, that's not why I oppose it. The way you write it fails to define the topic at all, even using quotes around the topic to be defined. You merely state one specific procedure, and note that it's called circumcision. Absolutely true, but not appropriate as the first sentence of the article. Why? Because after reading it, one could WAY too easily jump to the conclusion that all circumcision takes this form. For example, I could write, "The controversial cutting of adult male penises against their will in order to remove their foreskins is called circumcision." Unchallenged facts, and yet absolutely inappropriate for the lead sentence, because:

Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

— WP:NPOV
We are expecting (WP:LEAD) the presentation to begin by establishing the context of the topic, defining the topic, noting exceptions and controversy on usage (so the reader isn't confused when reading reliable sources like e.g., this, having taken Wikipedia's word that circumcision is surgery), noting the different contexts in which the topic has been explored, and summarize views from those contexts from a lot of sources.
Your suggested edit seems to commit the same error Jakew, Jayjg, Avi, and Nandesuka do, by attempting to present facts that narrow the topic of discussion implicitly and extremely quickly, to the specific kind of circumcision you believe is "most common" and therefore you believe apparently defines circumcision. Besides being based on invalid reasoning, this has the unacceptable result of excluding other documented examples of "circumcision" referred to as "circumcision" in reliable sources.
Finally, your "ouch" isn't merited, as I am using the word "suppress" completely without prejudice. I am referring to the effect of excluding the definition of the topic of circumcision which makes no reference to surgery, which is what Jayjg's proposed edit does. I am not referring to editors' motivations. I use the word in sense 2 b. or 5.' of this dictionary entry. Blackworm (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
One cannot "suppress" something for which no evidence has been provided. Please provide sources for your claim that circumcision is not surgery. Until the, the consensus, sourced version will remain. Oh, and I've added another source. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You are the one adding material, thus you are the one in the position of claiming something. What is your argument for Wikipedia to define circumcision first and foremost as surgery, again? I really, honestly didn't catch it. And it "will remain?" I don't respect that tone; I don't respect your judgmental attitude since you are clearly the lead advocate for your position, and I don't respect your endless reverts and resistance to due process. I've been through mediation recently, on trivial, clear, personal issues such as this. Have you? I respect you, Jayjg, I'm sure your contribution to this encyclopedia is 100x better than anything I will ever do for it; and I fully acknowledge that I've hurt you with insensitive and inappropriate language in the past; but we must find some compromise or agreement on this issue, and you must accept that your categorical assertions no longer carry any weight with me. Block me, ban me, send it to AN/I or ArbCom or RfC or whatever, but I'm tired of this farcical waste of time ("discussion"). I really don't have the impression you're speaking to me as you normally would an adult human being, and I'm confident that should you summon the effort to do so, we will find the Wikipedian way together. If you can't do that, please just let this one go. I won't think any less of you or hold it against you any other time you disagree with me. Honest. Blackworm (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, I'm editing my summary in an attempt to address your comments. I had intended to do so immediately but was occupied with other things. I hope you find it an improvement. Regarding the version with the sentence turned backwards: that was an attempt at a compromise, and recognizing the argument some have made that we don't necessarily have to cover situations that may be unusual. However, I prefer a more truly NPOV presentation, as you do, and appreciate the relevance of the NPOV quote you give above. I don't think readers will be confused, but will easily generalize a concept when a qualification such as "forced" is added to it in another article; nevertheless, a definition that covers all cases is preferable. Re "ouch": I think I'm going to reply on your talk page a little later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Defintions

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I got into a discussion with User:Blackworm on his talk page. It was about general editing principle, but he provided the example of this article he has worked on. The question came up of what should be a primary article and what should be a redirect (and to where), particularly among Male circumcision and Circumcision. I believe a portion of that discussion that exhibits some sources might be valuable to other editors on this article. I have not been involved in this page, and have no particular opinion, but I did a little bit of research. LotLE×talk 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[...]To circumcise is to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female).[30] By definition, the general term for the topic of circumcision is "circumcision," not "male circumcision." Blackworm (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The defintions seem mixed. Obviously MW describe two sexes. However, look at http://www.answers.com/topic/circumcision. That summarizes several dictionaries and reference works:

  1. Medical Encyclopedia: Male only
  2. Surgery Encyclopedia: Male/female
  3. World of the Body: Male only
  4. Children's Health Encyclopedia: Male/female
  5. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Male only
  6. Columbia Encyclopedia: Male only (but secondary description of "so-called female circumcision")
  7. Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia: Male/female
  8. Health dictionary: Male only
  9. Veterinary Dictionary: Male only

I skip Wikipedia itself since... y'know. Based on the sources, it seems like it could go either way whether the primary meaning is inclusive of FGC. I'd lean against that, but both seem plausible. LotLE×talk 03:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, could you please format the text I wrote above in such a way that it is clear that I did not post it to this page? I offer my help if you like. Blackworm (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision/Archive_41&oldid=1083937076"