Talk:Circumcision/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

---

Intro to "medical policies" section

"Most guidelines make a distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic circumcision. Therapeutic circumcision (where there is a medical need to circumcise) is rarely controversial. Neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary and is therefore categorised as non-therapeutic."

This was originally removed recently. the rationale for inclusion is that people may not be aware that there are different policies for theraputic and non-theraputic. They also may not understand the terms in relation to circumcision. I think it is a helpful addition and feel it shoul remain. Tremello22 (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Trem, I had pulled it because it was/is redundant with the first sentence in Ethical issues. We have similar/related info spread all throughout the article. We should consolidate it to one location or the other. AlphaEta 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a long article and I am guessing that people don't just read it all from top to bottom so I would argue it is not redundant. If it was in the same section then yes I'd agree. I notice it is in the ethics section, I think it is an exaggeration to say that this info is all over the article. I would argue it is better to just have it under the medical association policies section. By putting this in the ethics section you tacitly suggest that there is ambiguity over the terms therapeutic and non-therapeutic in relation to routine infant circumcision. I think I'm right in thinking there is no ambiguity and that therapeutic circumcision means that there is a medical "need" to circumcise when of course all medical associations agree that there is no medical "need". So what do you think , take it out off the ethics section? Tremello22 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how much of the article people will read in sequence, but I do agree that the following paragraphs should be moved down to the "Medical policies" section:

The American Medical Association defines “non-therapeutic” circumcision as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. It states that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns.[42] The medical harms or benefits of non-threapeutic have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly.[43] Reasons for non-therapeutic circumcision include religious beliefs as well as cultural and family conformity.[44]

UNAIDS state (2007): "Male circumcision is a voluntary surgical procedure and health care providers must ensure that men and young boys are given all the necessary information to enable them to make free and informed choices either for or against getting circumcised."[45]

Anyone else want to chime in before we make the move? Thanks, AlphaEta 22:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the UNAIDS paragraph is not about the policy of a medical organization, and doesn't directly relate to the medical aspects, i.e. the possible benefits and possible harms of circumcision. The paragraph seems to be about informed choice, which is an statement on ethics, not a statement on their medical policy (if indeed they have any). Blackworm (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Blackworm. I've moved the UNAIDS statement back up to Ethics, but in the "Consent" subsection. AlphaEta 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me. Thanks for the boldness! Blackworm (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been circumcised for purely medical reasons at a later (adult) stage in live (and by my own choice). It surprises me that this subject (medical reasons) is so underrepresented in this article. I understand there is much debate about non-theraputic circumcision but this distinction is at best hinted at in the article, and even then largely overshadowed by text about non-theraputic use. There are a number of well-established and documented medical conditions which may necessitate circumcision (Phimosis and Paraphimosis spring to mind); I can't find any of these in this article and a link linking to a link of these is buried atop a minescule paragraph halfway into the article. It seems logical to me to make this simple and fundamental distinction. To such end I added a small sentence to the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.97.5 (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Meatal Stenosis

The Topic currently does not treat Meatal Stenosis as a significant complication of circumcision. Please see the following facts/references:

...“Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. This disorder is characterized by an upward deflected, difficult-to-aim urinary stream and, occasionally, dysuria and urgent, frequent, and prolonged urination. Surgical meatotomy is curative.” [1]

...“Traumatic meatitis of the unprotected post-circumcision urethral meatus and/or meatal ischaemia following damage to the frenular artery at circumcision are suggested as possible causes of meatal stenosis. CONCLUSION: Preservation of the frenular artery at circumcision, or the use of an alternative procedure (preputial plasty), may be advisable when foreskin surgery is required, to avoid meatal stenosis after circumcision.”[2]

...“Meatal stenosis is an under recognised complication of circumcision done in neonatal and nappy aged boys. Symptomatic presentation from meatal stenosis can be very late (two years).” [3]

...“Meatal stenosis may be the most common complication (7.3%) following neonatal circumcision. The frequency of this complication and the need for surgical correction need to be disclosed as part of the informed consent for neonatal circumcision.”[4]

...“Meatal stenosis is generally a direct consequence of circumcision that is seldom encountered in uncircumcised men; meatal calibre is know to be greater in uncircumcised individuals. The incidence of meatal ulceration following circumcision is from 8 to 20 per cent14,46,64. The aetiology is thought to be irritation of the external urethral meatus by ammoniacal substances present in wet sodden nappies. Such irritation is unlikely in the presence of a normal prepuce, which serves to protect the glans from these irritant substances46. In a prospective study of 140 consecutive neonatal circumcisions, Mackenzie64 found a 20 per cent incidence of meatal ulceration within the first 2-3 weeks after circumcision. It is thought that meatal ulceration after circumcision is the initiating event in a vicious cycle of stenosis and ulceration, followed by more stenosis64. Meatal stenosis following circumcision has been advanced as a cause of recurrent pyelonephitis and obstructive uropathy, for which meatotomy is curative64,65.”[5]

The current Topic text reads:

Meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urethra) may be a common longer-term complication of circumcision. This can lead to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination and urinary tract infections[96][97]

I suggest (in it's own paragraph):

Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening) is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 7-10% of males two years on average after being circumcised. This narrowing can lead to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination and urinary tract infections. Meatal stenosis is generally alleviated with surgical meatotomy.[6].[7][8]TipPt (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, TipPt. For the most part I agree with the changes; however, I oppose including this until all the problems are cleared up. This is a highly visible article; material should be polished before inclusion.

• One source (Upadhyay, the 2nd link) says 48 months on average. 48 months is 4 years, not 2 years.

I should have written 4 years.TipPt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• One source (Angel, the 1st link) says 9-10%; where do you get the 7-10%?

One study gave us 7.3%. The 9-10% is better, being International in scope (versus one hospital).TipPt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The references should be formatted. I might help with that if there's consensus for the change.

I'll need your help with the ref format.TipPt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The wording gives a misleading impression that 9-10% of circumcised people experience symptoms such as discomfort, bleeding etc. and that that proportion require surgery to correct the condition. I assume it's a minority that experience significantly problematic symptoms such as discomfort, or that require surgery. One of the sources you quote uses the word "occasionally"; it could be used here. I suggest the wording:

  Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening) is an acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males four years on average after being circumcised. This narrowing can occasionally lead to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination and urinary tract infections; symptoms can be alleviated with surgical meatotomy.^{(19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC))}

I try to leave as much prior work as possible. Occasionally is better.TipPt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that we need 3 references. It may be better to use just one or two. A version with more references can perhaps go in the Medical analysis of circumcision article.

☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In what percentage of uncircumcised males is meatal stenosis observed? While more common (I guess), it is not exclusive to those who have been circumcised. Any numbers on this? Thanks, AlphaEta 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The first link TipPt gave (Angel) says "Because this condition is exceedingly rare in children who are not circumcised, circumcision is believed to be the most important causative factor of meatal stenosis." In the 3rd link (van Howe) the study included circumcised and uncircumcised boys, and all the ones with meatal stenosis were circumcised. They use some statistical terminology I don't understand to report what that tells us. It sounds to me that it's usually caused by a combination of circumcision plus diapers. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The two refs over at meatal stenosis only say that uncircumcised males can, and do, get the condition (especially as a secondary effect of lichen sclerosus and phimosis). However, no rates are provided in the Buechner paper, and I haven't had a chance to read the Parkash et al. paper yet. Supposedly it is more rare in uncircumcised men, but we should make sure before dedicating a whole paragraph to it in the circumcision article. I'll try to dig through the literature and see if I can find something more concrete. Thanks, AlphaEta 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear thinking, AlphaEta. Looking at the wording again in light of your comments, I prefer much of the current wording. The proposed new wording makes it sound as if it's only circumcised people who get the condition. And we shouldn't assert that a certain percentage get the condition, or that it's on average 4 years after circumision, just based on one study; it would be more accurate to say that a certain study found that rate. (The rate is not objective fact; if another study is done it might well find a slightly different rate, or rates could differ from one country to another, etc.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, a "relatively common" "under recognised" complication, which "may be the most common complication of circumcision" ... that's easily preventable (post circ) ... gets almost no coverage!. AlphaEta ... The sentence below does not say meatal stenosis is exclusive to the circumcised, only that it's a complication of circs.TipPt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening) is an acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males four years on average after being circumcised. This narrowing can lead to difficult urination, and occasionally to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination and urinary tract infections; symptoms can be alleviated with surgical meatotomy.[9][10]TipPt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical reasons in lead

Re this edit, which added "Male circumcision may be performed for medical reasons such as Phimosis": I suggest saying something similar but later in the lead; it doesn't seem to fit in well where it is. Other than this edit, the lead doesn't seem to say anything about circumcision as a treatment for particular conditions as opposed to a purely optional procedure. It used to. The lead used to mention phimosis. We could look back at how it expressed it before, to see how to fit it in smoothly. As the lead was immediately before this edit, it included the words "medically unnecessary" but I don't think it mentioned anything about it being sometimes a treatment for particular conditions; that was misleading, I think. Perhaps a good place for this new sentence would be at the end of the paragraph about arguments against and for circumcision. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

Isn't circumcision both male and female, therefore when circumcision is searched for it should link to an article about circumcision as a whole, including male and female circumcision in brief, and link to each of the main articles on circumcision according to gender. In a similar way searching for China will take you to the China article, which is about China as a whole and links to each of the main articles about the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China as both are equally China. Or similar to if someone searches for Ireland links them to the Ireland article about Ireland as a whole, which links to the main articles of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as both are equally Ireland.

I suggest an article called Circumcision, which is about both male and female circumcision, and the article links to a main article on male circumcision and a main article of female circumcision/cutting as both are equally circumcision. I can't see any better way of resolving the naming dispute than that and it resolves erroneous idea of circumcision being male only. Circumcision is both male and female, regardless of whether one is promoted and the other discouraged, or one is more popular than the other. This is an encyclopedia to state the facts, not to pander to certain political ideologies, pursuations, or be religiocentric to certain religions. Usergreatpower (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up many times over the past years (please see the 40+ pages of archives). In English, the term "Circumcision" is almost exclusively used to refer to the male version. We already have a hatnote at the very top of the article directing people to Female genital cutting for female circumcision. Recasting the article would be an WP:NPOV violation of WP:UNDUE. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Avi's analysis. If anything the current title is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This issue will never go away until it is corrected. We have recently had an attempt to change the name as you suggested Usergreatpower but were too split to reach any consensus. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that the current title is a violation of your POV, and that you will not stop raising the issue until we all agree with you. The current name is fine, and has been since the article was first created. Renaming it now to something else on the basis of NPOV would simply be the adoption of a different POV, this time one advocated by WP...which is a leap in the wrong direction. Tomer^talk 04:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as we are told, in the English language circumcision almost exclusively refers to male circumcision – how come then that OED makes no reference at all to 'female genital cutting' and only refers to 'female circumcision' under the 'circumcision' entry? In fact, in the current (far more popular) concise version, it goes further than that and under 'circumcision' only goes into the detail of what female circumcision is:

the action or practice of circumcising and (in some cultures) the traditional practice of cutting off the clitoris and sometimes the labia of girls or young women.

It sounds to me like someone is engaging in some very original research with that “almost exclusively” claim, because the OED is by far the most widely accepted arbiter of the English language. Finn (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Avraham ("Avi") has one opinion, but this matter is in fact disputed. I believe the article should be called "male circumcision," as that's what this article is about. You can read the views and policy presented in the latest Requested Move here and add your voice to the discussion about how we can resolve this dispute.

Finncalder ("Finn"), the compact OED defines "circumcision" as a derivative of "circumcise," which discusses the circumcision of both males and females.[11] Blackworm (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Blackworm, we know that you and I disagree on this issue, as we disagree on whether or not circumcision, as a whole, should be permitted or forbidden. However, as the most recent move request filed (that you linked to) has shown, and the others that proceeded it, there is no consensus to move away from the accepted current definition that the article now shows. As the first reference shows (and a perusal through the archives for the multiple times this has been discussed) I still maintain that the majority of definitions, and certainly the colloquial usage in the English language, associates the unvarnished term "circumcision" with the male version. We prevent any misunderstandings with the first hatnote. -- Avi (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Very pretty Avi. Anyone who uses colloquial gets points with me. Yes our viewpoints are known. The point is your initial statement encourages the status quo instead of pointing out a split debate that lacks consensus. The very fact that it is continually brought up should tell you something. Let's reverse things momentarily shall we? If the article's name was "Male circumcision" do you think people would continually come to the page and say hey this should be changed to just "Circumcision"?Garycompugeek (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed my vocabulary . Gary, the very fact that the article was created as Circumcision and not as "Male Circumcision" is extremely telling in and of itself, no? -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I am assuming one person started the article and numerous others joined in. That said then only one person made the initial decision and band wagon followed. Perhaps that is why we have 40+ talk pages with name change discussions? You also dodged my previous question with one of your own. I have tried to answer yours. Quid pro quo. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi, the fact that an article was created as circumcision tells us only one thing: that the person who created it thought it should be created as such. To suggest anything else is as bizarre as your constant, and quite tiresome, inference that only orthodox Jews can possibly have a true understanding of Judaism and be qualified to comment on it. Finn (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Finn, I have never said that Orthodox Jews have the only true understanding of circumcision. I do feel that if we are to discuss the Jewish traditional technique, we need to go to the Jewish traditional sources, and not the Catholic Encyclopaedia or a website of people who could not read the Jewish sources if they tried. That is all. I apologize if you were made to feel uncomfortable by anything I said. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the directors of circumcision.org are likely not Orthodox, and perhaps not even observant, they are not reliable for the purposes of traditional Jewish law. .. despite the fact that much of their information comes not from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, but from the Jewish Circumcision Resource Centre; who - despite having the support of many observant rabbis - on account of not being orthodox, I presume aren't qualified to comment either. I was simply commenting, not looking for an necessary apology. I'm a big boy, Avi; I can take it ;) Finn (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My meaning was that their non-Orthodoxy would indicate that they were not cognizant of the traditional sources in and of themselves. They remain an inappropriate source for the tradition in my opinion as they are unlikely to know the tradition and understand the source texts and legal case precedents, as well as their being less interested in tradition and more in modern interpretation. By all means, they are an excellent source to substantiate the fact that many Jews in the modern era no longer practice, or support the practice of, circumcision, but I do not believe that that particular fact is being contested. -- Avi (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gary, I was not trying to be facetious. It is a time-honored rhetorical practice to respond to a question with another question that itself points out problems with the original question. Back to the matter at hand, my point was that notwithstanding, and agreeing the existence of, alternative interpretations of the term "Circumcisison", the fact that the article was created as "Circumcision" ipso facto demonstrates the connotation of the term. The early discussions that compared this article to the practice of female genital mutilation did not call for this article to have its name changed (See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 2). The first discussions about this were in response to a non-consensual page move in 2004 (See Talk:Circumcision/Archive_5#Page_move). Since then the issue has been raised semi-regularly and the continued consensus each time was that the current title, with associated hatnote (my addition, if I recall correctly), is the most appropriate version. I understand that this is not very appealing to people who share your point of view, but each time, there has been no consensus to change. I understand consensus can change over time, but this has not happened over the past four years, and I do not see it happening in the future. I will ask you to step into my shoes now, Gary. If over a period of around 48 months it had been demonstrated that the consensus was for the article to be named "Male circumcison", and every few months, like clockwork, the naming issue was raised to move the article to "Circumcision," and every few months teh same arguments were rehashed, and no consensus was ever shown to approve the move, and yet it continues and continues, how would you feel? -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"...and the same consensus was shown to deny the move" -- Please rephrase or strike that comment, Avi, since there was "no consensus" to deny the move. The result was not "no move" but "no consensus," and here is the proof. Strike your false comment. Blackworm (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Blackworm, you are correct that the wording should be more precise. I have changed it. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Although to call it "false" is a pretty strong comment; 'twould be more civil to say "please rephrase it to more accurately reflect what occurred." WP:CIVIL is just as important aguideline as WP:NPOV -- Avi (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What's false is false. It's more incivil and damaging to play loose with events and discussions of what consensus was reached in a discussion, than to point out [ambiguity -BW] these falsehoods. Blackworm (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your dedication, Blackworm; it is commendable. However, please remember that wikipedia is not a vehicle for disseminating wp:The Truth. That may be an inherent flaw in wikipedia, but that's the truth (pun intended :) ). -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prolly pretty tired of defending it but don't you see Ari that's just the point. Its not the other way around and I do not believe I would have to incessantly defend it because the article is in fact all about male circumcision. Do I believe circumcision in the english language commonly refers to males? Yes. However circumcision is applied to both sexes regardless of the fact that the "Female circumcision" article title is "Female genital cutting". Why is there no mention of this in the article? This article should either talk about both sexes (we can always stub out to separate in depth articles for each sex) or change its name to "Male circumcision". To do less is to pretend female circumcision does not exist. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We do reference Female circumcision, immediately after the title, in the hatnote. The proper term for the procedure, be it FGM, FGC, or FC, belongs in its article, not here. -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right we give females a hatnote, how quaint. I think they deserve a little more than that. We call the article "Circumcision" with hatnote stating it is male and to see FGC for female circumcision. We don't even have the decency to call the article female circumcision. Looks pretty dodgy to me. Consequently "Female genital cutting" seems to have the same name change issues as this article. Now why do you think that is? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this article, Gary, that needs to be discussed in the FGC article. "Decency" is in the eyes of the beholder as well, Gary. What to you seems indecent to others may be a necessity; regardless, that discussion does not belong here, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh contraire. It is all part of a same cascading problem. It starts right here at Circumcision. This is exactly the kind of attitude that contrbutes to it Avi. I'm assuming good faith with you and not pointing fingers. Just trying to illustrate where a problem starts and how to fix it. We were talking about the hatnote on this page that leads to FGC and while I agree name change discussions for that article belongs on Talk:Female genital cutting the overall issue starts right here and encompasses both articles. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek is absolutely right. Avi has shown no compelling rationale for labeling male circumcision "circumcision" and excluding female circumcision from "circumcision." Circumcision means to circumcise, whether you are circumcising males or females.[12] Those who vehemently support male circumcision and have a disregard for encyclopedic, scientific, non-ambiguous language wish to present female circumcision as something that isn't "circumcision," in order to separate the ideas, and thus the norms and standards applied to circumcision. We should not allow that to happen in Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, you mean other than Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name, right? I wouldn't want you to accidentally say something false, you know . Although it is too late, in that your comments above contradict the evidence at Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#Why only male circumcision?. I would be more than willing to believe that you forgot I had discussed this before, but I know you are someone to whom the truth is paramount and falsehood is an anathema, so I figure that you would want to adjust your wording above. In any event, let me remind you that w:The Truth is not something wikipedia strives for, for what that is worth. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the most easily recognized name. But "circumcision" isn't a name owned by those claiming it to only "truly" apply to males. (w:The Truth indeed.) The most easily recognized "name" for circumcision is "circumcision." Circumcision is the cutting off of the prepuce in males or the clitoris or other genital parts of females (including the female prepuce, the clitoral hood).[13][14]] The fundamental difference between our approaches is that you seem to believe that the circumcision of males is so universally and overwhelmingly more important than the subject of circumcision in general, that the general article about male circumcision should be called "circumcision" -- rather than being unambiguous while still using the common, easily recognizable term "circumcision" (a privilege denied about a year or two ago to female circumcision). It seems as if it's more important to you to implicitly claim the word circumcision as really only meaning male circumcision than it is for you to allow the universal English language reader to instantly understand what forms of circumcision this article discusses. That's not acceptable, and violates WP:NPOV and WP:UCN. Compare, for example terminology used in the UN: [15] [16][17][18] A political organization which is praised for its neutrality and sensitivity to differing culture, their consistent use of disambiguating terminology is a matter of record. Presumably, they would not do this were there no ambiguity in the term, circumcision -- or do you have an alternate explanation as to why they consistently say "male circumcision?"

Let me put it to you this way, Avi, if a native of Africa told you "In my village, they circumcised this child, and the child died," would you be inclined to ask the gender of the infant, or assume it was male, or not "truly" care which gender infant it was? (I would not care which it was, yes.)

And Garycompugeek's questions are right on point. Hey, here's an idea, let's try calling the article "Male circumcision" (with a redirect from "circumcision") for a while and see if we get more, or fewer complaints about the name of the article. If there's wide clamoring for a return to the old name, without any canvassing, and from editors who have read this discussion, we change it back. How's that for a compromise? Blackworm (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd be happen to clarify or discuss any apparent contradictions, but I need you to be precise about what, specifically, I said that contradicts what, specifically, in that thread, please. Blackworm (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi I asked twice for an answer to my question (If the article's name was "Male circumcision" do you think people would continually come to the page and say hey this should be changed to just "Circumcision"?) and also (Consequently "Female genital cutting" seems to have the same name change issues as this article. Now why do you think that is?) which you have ignored is an answer in itself. You know why. You just don't want to say it. The archives say it all. This problem will not go away until corrected. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question directly, yes. I think more people would clamor for a move from MC to C than are currently active in trying to move C to MC. In all seriousness, Gary, that was not clear to you from my answers above? Regardless, I reiterate, that the article's current name and the numerous discussions that may be found in the archive continue to show that there is no consensus for a move to MC, and that C is the more appropriate name for the article per WP:MOS, colloquial usage, and connotation. -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note also my reply above. Well, three editors against you isn't quite a consensus, no. I still believe discussion is how WP:NPOV wins over an old, "temporal default" consensus that is now shown to be genuinely in jeopardy -- whether that discussion results in new consensus for or against the change. That's why I'm not impressed by the authoritative tone you take here, claiming both implicitly (as in your first response above) and explicitly (in a later post that I forced you to redact) that the current consensus is opposed to the change. You are either talking about the old consensus which did not get replaced, in which case that's irrelevant (see e.g., WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV dispute), or you are asserting that a new consensus exists against the change, which is demonstrably false as the evidence shows. It would be nice if you made that clear. Blackworm (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi, All this nonsense about colloquial language looks like a bit of a diversion to me. If we were really addressing colloquial language, then I am pretty sure that 'cut' would be by far and away the overwhelmingly used term for male circumcision in casual conversation throughout the anglophone world. In a similar vein, the most common colloquial use of 'circumcision' is as part of the term 'female circumcision' - and when it is obvious that it is a female procedure that is being talked about, even the female' bit will be dispensed with. I will eat my yarmulke if I ever hear an absurd terms like 'female genital cutting' used in colloquial language. So, if you really want to push the colloquial thing, then I am quite happy to argue for the article to be renamed accordingly ;) Finn (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is nonsense and blatant violation of WP:NPOV. In my opinion this is done on purpose to distance male circumcision from female circumcision. "Circumcision" makes no mention of female circumcision (hatnote excluded) and female circumcision is called "Female genital cutting". Very convenient. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Previously, "female circumcision" was the term I was most familiar with, but it is a misnomer that inadequately describes many, if not most, of the cases. "Circumcision" does adequately describe the procedure as it applies to almost all men. That being said, I'm relatively neutral with respect to the title of this article. I use both terms (circumcision and male circumcision) interchangeably. If someone wants to propose a name change, they'll need to provide a factual basis for their argument, not personal opinions. Blackworm points to cases where the UN has used the term "male circumcision". There's no dispute that it is sometimes used by governmental organizations and appears in the literature, but is it the most recognizable term? That should be the basis for deciding this article's title. AlphaEta 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's more recognizable doesn't means it's not ambiguous. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Whether or not the current title is too ambiguous must be adequately supported, not simply declared. AlphaEta 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alpha the simple fact is the term "Circumcision" is not gender specific. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

However, Gary, that is acceptable per the manual of style (emphasis added is my own)

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

— Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name

The minor ambiguity is outweighed by the easily recognizable name. -- Avi (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not suprisingly.... I disagree. It would be a simple thing to rename this "Male circumcision" with a redirect from "Circumcision". This would clear any ambiguity and stop people from trying to rename the page. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would also clear up perceived WP:NPOV issue. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Finn, what brachah would you make on it? . The point about common usage is similar to AlphaEta describes above and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name states clearly. The term "circumcision" for centuries has been used to refer specifically to the male version, with the adjective "female" being added to refer to cliterodectomies only recently, and requiring the addition of the term female specifically because the unvarnished term is so associated with the male procedure. I understand that the genital integrity movement has a vested interest in changing that connection and linking the practice of cliterodectomies with that of foreskin removal, in order to have the natural European and Asian aversion to the former overshadow the latter and, thereby, try and subconsciously affect public opinion. That is their choice, but wikipedia cannot be the vehicle that is used for that purpose (See WP:NOT). While the term "male circumcision" is used, its usage is far, far outnumbered by using the term "circumcision" by itself to refer to a "foreskindectomy" (is that even a word ) and that is the most compelling reason why this article should not be moved. Political and sociological battles, as important as they may be, must be waged in a venue other than wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The term "circumcision" for centuries has been used to refer specifically to the male version [...]" That's because it wasn't known that females were also being circumcised: "An account of what he calls the circumcision of females as well as of males by some of the African tribes is given by Bowman in his 'Description of the Coast of Guinea,' English translation 2nd edit pp. 179, 180, 329, 414."Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge -- published 1837)

[...] with the adjective "female" being added to refer to cliterodectomies only recently, [...]" Not at all, it was never "added," it is only used to specifically refer to the female form. When female circumcision was shown to exist, discussion of the circumcision of females began, without judgement and without advocacy. Circumcision always meant cutting and removal of parts of human genitals, and it was written about 100 years ago in a medical context: S.L. Kistler, Rapid bloodless circumcision of male and female, and its technic, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 54, 28 May 1910, p. 1782-3.

It was discussed in a gender-neutral way a year later, in the definitive encyclopedia of the time: Most probably, however, circumcision (which in many tribes is performed on both sexes) was connected with marriage, and was a preparation for connubium. (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911 [19])

Of course, at that time, no one objected to the matter-of-fact, scientifically accurate discussion of circumcision in the context of mutilation -- which these days, due to widespread circumcision advocacy, is verboten: [20]

You see, Avi, I too know a bit about circumcision. The unvarnished term is only associated with male circumcision, it doesn't denote male circumcision. The UN and the UN's WHO, recognize the lack of universal strict association with male circumcision, and so they say "male circumcision" or "female circumcision" in the first few instances of whatever paper they publish on the topic of circumcision.[21] [22][23][24] This, despite being generally strong advocates against female circumcision and for male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gary, much of what I said to Finn, I would respond to you as well, except to emphasize that it is more that proponents of genital integrity are trying to conflate the terms than it is those not opposed to circumcision trying to intentionally separate the terms. -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Blackworm, I am still waiting for you to correct your remarks above, and as for authoratative tones, I think that deciding that someone was guilty of falsity as opposed to a less-than-optimal choice of words is rather authoritarian. Blackworm, I was impressed by the tone you had taken with Jake on your talk page, and I had thought that you had progressed to intelligent discussions on the issues. You do bring up reasonable points when you talk, but unlike Gary and Finn, in my opinion and experience, you seem to have a need to combine issues discussions with, sometimes subtle and sometimes overt, personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and other incivility that makes it difficult to continue issues discussions with you. You are obviously an intelligent and well-read person, and passionate about your beliefs, which is admirable. However, I believe that whatever benefits you add to these conversations may be outweighed by your style. I would like to continue to discuss issues with you as I have with Gary and Finn, but if you are going to continue to cast unwarranted (and as I pointed out above, hypocritical) aspersions, that makes it difficult. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The genital integrity movement? Give me break! I've never heard such blithering nonsense in all of my life. If this was about the genital integrity movement people would be asking for the article to be changed to what it really should be titled: Male Genital Mutilation – but no-one is asking for that. If you think this has anything to do with bias, then you are certifiably paranoid. The only bias is the blatant pro-circumcision bias of the article and the determination to maintain the current misogynistic article naming.Finn (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The simple fact remains as it has been for years with this article: Namely that certain vested interest parties are using Article Policy Poker to ensure that the article continues to serve as a propaganda toll and prevent it being developed along neutral lines. Finn (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Finn, may I suggest you read the contributions of TipPt, Nokilli, Dabljuh, DanBlackham, among others? I'm a relative newcomer to this article, having been working on it only from June 2006. However, if you would read the archives, paying attention to the contributions and edits of those I have listed, you will see this to be the case. It may not be the case from your perspective, but it exists, and, has been a factor in the discussions in this article from at least 2005. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if I recall correctly, which I may not, MGM has been posted as a title for this article before too, so you see you are correct -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Avi, you addressed genital integrity movement comments directly to me - and in so doing used passive-aggressive means to imply that I was supporting the title change in order to promote a vested interest. As for the archives, I have read them - I have followed this article for years and didn't think it worth getting involved in - and I have seen how you and Jake (to mention but a few) have relentlessly worked to skew this article. Simple fact is that YOU accused me, so now the gloves are off and I am accusing you with what I see. Cite whatever Wiki policies you like, but I can match you policy for policy .. so bring it on. You make it impossible for anyone to debate with you; so, fine, we can bring it down to your level if that is what you really want. Finn (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I am sorry you feel that way, as I did not think I was addressing any bias on your part, but what I have seen is a general issue, but, if you feel that way….

Speaking of bias, Finn, I went to your userpage and found something that I did not know before, which may account for the intensity of your response. Before your last post, I was ignorant of your profile; but now knowing so, I may I ask, based on your responses above, if you are categorically stating that your opinion that “…the ritual (and generally inept) circumcision of infants amounts to barbaric mutilation…” has absolutely no bearing on your position as to the name of this article? -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Point me to anything I have said that reflects an attempt to impose my bias .. go on, just one single thing. And if you bothered to read the rest (you probably did, but it probably wasn't convenient), you will also see that I find both extremes of the debate as detached as I find Jake's supposed neutrality totally laughable. I am a scientist - and like any good scientist I am quite capable neutrality, even where I have a strong opinion. So you didn't think you were addressing a bias on my part, yet you suddenly (and quite out of context) start talking to me about the genital integrity movement? Sorry, Your disingenuity really doesn't do you any credit. Finn (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to hear you say that . I'm not a scientist, only an applied mathematician, so perhaps I am less capable of neutrality. Regardless, I have no reason to believe that you are trying to push a political position, but that does not change the fact that those who are trying to push said position (you know the history of this article and its editors) are attempting to push the name change with more force than anyone else.

If so, am I correct in understanding that your main thrust for changing the name of the article is that you believe it is less ambiguous, similar to Gary's argument above? I believe that is addressed by the quotation from the manual of style I brought above. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the change would less ambiguous, a step towards neutrality and a big step away from the misogynistic undertones of the status quo. I am at a total loss as to how the proposed change could be seen as promoting, or a victory for, the genital integrity movement – and if I did see it as that, I would, as a matter of principle, oppose it with the same vigour that I would oppose a change to Male Genital Mutilation.Finn (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As for ambiguity, as I posted above, a reasonable small amount of ambiguity is preferred to none when the former is the more common usage, more recognized, and allows for easier linking, all of which I believe is true with the current article name. Secondly, how does this article promote misogynistic tendencies? There may be fundemental issues with the article currently parked at FGC, and perhaps it needs renaming, but that does not mean that we are allowed to make a WP:POINT about F(G)C/M or whatever it should be called by changing C to MC. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole point though, I don't think that ownership of 'circumcision' does reflect current usage - in fact far from it. I don't think the article promotes a misogyny; but I do think that the article title promotes a shamefully misogynistic view.Finn (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's likely more misogynistic (at the very least, offensive) to equate the removal of the male foreskin to FGM, a much more drastic and devastating procedure. The equivalent of FGM would be more akin to the removal of the penis, and medical experts describe "female circumcision" as a misnomer as it implies equivalent procedures, which they are not. While it is true the term "female circumcision" is often used, there is much current leaning away from the use of the term precisely to clearly establish linguistic distinction from male circumcision, and emphasize the gravity of the act in comparison to the milder practice of male circumcision. For this reason, many health organizations such as the WHO have now officially adopted the term FGM[25] instead of "female circumcision" in its documents. It is generally obvious (via google searches and research that's out there) that circumcision predominantly refers to "male circumcision"; however, I personally don't see a problem renaming the article to male circumcision and either (1) redirecting circumcision to male circumcision as the predominant meaning of the term, with the current disambigs at the top of the male circumcision article, or possibly (2) having a separate disambig page for Circumcision that includes male circumcision, female genital cutting, khitan, brit milah, genital integrity, etc. to provide the reader an index on the broader spectrum of the topic. --MPerel 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is misogynistic to refer to something by its correct term, rather than some loaded manufactured term which doesn't enjoy either widespread use, or understanding and doesn't even appear in most (any?) dictionaries of any standing? LOL! In both lexicographical and common colloquial use, circumcision unambiguously, and quite neutrally, covers both the male and female procedures – and what is more important, does so without judging. Those who deny it can say otherwise till the cows come home, but it still wont make their assertions true. If someone searches for circumcision, they should be presented with a disambiguation page which lets them select the type of circumcision they are interested in exploring. Any other position is desperate, totally irrational and (as this discussion shows) is entirely reliant on original research.Finn (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to tone down your emotion-laden conversation all over this talk page, it belies your claimed preference for non-loaded terms, along with your purported aversion to "desperate, totally irrational" positions. (Remember, you are the one who introduced "shameful misogyny" into the discussion to characterize a position perceived different than yours). It is disingenuous to feign concern for women, to pretend that women are somehow being hated if the two different procedures are not subsumed under one umbrella term, particularly in light of your stated opinion above that "female genital cutting" is an "absurd term" (your opinion in spite of the fact that the term is used in medical literature and government documents). Now your misguided arguments for renaming the article (based on misogyny?!) notwithstanding, if you take a step back, you'll see that I agree with you on a name change and disambig page. --MPerel 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And you might want to control your vivid imagination and your disgusting accusations about "feigning concern". Finn (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take imagination, vivid or otherwise, to see (and point out) the inconsistency in an argument by an editor who reacts against the term "female genital cutting" as "absurd", who then claims it is "misogynous" to not embrace the term "female circumcision". In that light, your accusation of misogyny rings hollow and invites challenge, which is why we've ended up where we have. --MPerel 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else I must congratulate you on your amazing capacity for (woefully unconvincing) misrepresentation - as witnessed by your responses to Blackworm and myself :) And yes, I stand by my comments about FMC – an absurd term which was concocted by a committee and which still has no significant lexicographical recognition Finn (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Finn I would not object to a disambiguation page. Ideally since circumcision covers both sexes (regardless of male being most pervasive in English) this page should cover both sexes and stub out to each gender in detail. For the moment since this page only covers male circumcision, that is what it should be called. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MPerel makes it clear that the term "female genital mutilation" is based in advocacy against the cutting of female genitals. "Female circumcision" is thus a more neutral term, since it is used by both advocates and opponents. The opinion that it is fundamentally different, drastic, and devastating to remove a pinhead-sized amount of tissue from the clitoral hood (one form of "FGM"), as it is to remove what is or what will become 7-15 square inches of erogenous skin ("male circumcision") is just that -- opinion -- and it's irrelevant. Through those Google searches, "Erection" predominately refers to a penile erection, yet the erection article properly and correctly discusses other bodily erections. The reasoning that states that a common, culture-specific observed or talked about case of a topic allows us to define the general topic as that one common case, is considered flawed everywhere else in Wikipedia except circumcision. I am glad MPerel recognizes that the name change or other form of disambiguation is appropriate, however; that's exactly what I suggested long ago. Blackworm (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your pure opinion and original research, which is case in point that editor opinions are irrelevant. Are we here to discuss a name change/disambig or trade personal opinions about the merits of the various positions on the topic? --MPerel 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. You write above: "The equivalent of FGM would be more akin to the removal of the penis [...]." That was a personal opinion about the merits of various positions on the topic. The stuff I write above about pinhead-sized tissue is not OR, it's in the FGM article and that *is* a common form of FGM. I was trying to show you that FGM encompasses a wide ranges of practices, some viewed as more severe and some viewed as less severe than a typical male circumcision. Please read the sourced evidence at female circumcision if in doubt. Blackworm (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah but your opinion that there is no difference between male and female circumcision (your very example demonstrates completely different procedures), is indeed opinion and OR, and why are we even continuing to discuss it? --MPerel 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was no difference in all possible contexts. I was responding to your OR claim that FGM is "a much more drastic and devastating procedure" than male circumcision. I believe I've made my point. Also, please don't engage in WP:OR, then turn around and cry "OR" when people seem to have stronger arguments. It is disingenuous. Blackworm (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My informed opinion is based on reliable sources (therefore not OR--you began the protests about alleged OR), for example the New England Journal of Medicine: "From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis."[26][27][28] It's actually a sound enough opinion to cite in an article. But I didn't come to this page to get in a contest about which gender's "circumcision" is worse. I came here to give my editorial two cents about the proposed name change, and the context of my informed opinion was in response to a misguided argument that we change the name based on the current title of the article being "misogynous". I agree/d the name change may be warranted, but not based on that argument. --MPerel 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that your opinion is informed -- however I have a reliable source claiming this about FGM (from the WP article: In Indonesia, the practice is not uncommon among the country's rural women; almost all are Type I or Type IV, the latter usually involving the pricking of blood release. Sometimes the procedures are merely symbolic, and no actual cutting is done.[29] Is it possible for both these sources' views, i.e., that FGM is more "drastic and devastating" than male circumcision, and that FGM is sometimes "merely symbolic," with "no actual cutting," to be true, in your view? Do you still believe that the first claim (the view you cite) is "actually a sound enough opinion to cite in an article," which I take to mean without proper attribution? Then the article text could read something like:

From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis. The U.S. State Department states in its Report on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC), that in Indonesia, the practice usually involves the pricking of blood release, and is sometimes symbolic, with no actual cutting done. Do you support that edit? Blackworm (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to again ask Avi specifically what remarks he believes needs correcting, and based on what specific evidence. I'd also like to point to Avi's statement, "that does not change the fact that those who are trying to push said position (you know the history of this article and its editors) are attempting to push the name change with more force than anyone else." I ask Avi specifically who he is referring to, i.e., which editors here are now currently pushing, as Avi says, "a political position." Finn nailed it -- Jakew, Avi, Nandesuka, and Jayjg worked as a team for years, unopposed, skewing this article into a POV mess, but eventually WP policy and the involvement of editors who refused to have their heads bitten off, and actually learned what Wikipedia policy rather than blindly taking the interpretations of these four, has resulted in a more neutral, more balanced, more encyclopedic article. It's only going to get better from here. Nandesuka is now leading the charge against the female circumcision article having its title changed back to "female circumcision", while Avi leads the charge here against disambiguating "circumcision," while suggesting the problem is at female genital cutting (but certainly not offering his support for a name change there). Their arguments, when actually about the content and not editors, are weak and based in misinterpretations of policy. I'm confident they will eventually realize this. Blackworm (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You still have not corrected your incorrect statements above, Blackworm. I am glad that you have this all figured out in your mind, and would like to politely remind you to remember that what you state is no more or less than your opinion. Once again your use of innuendo to cast aspersions on myself and others does not become you. I have not commented at F(G)C/M because I am rather ignorant about it, its history, its socio-political ramifications, etc. If I recall correctly, it is forbidden under Jewish law, which may account for my ignorance. Circumcision, on the other hand, is something I know much more about--thus my comments. Regardless, for someone who in the recent past has claimed that it is more incivil to leave "false" statements on talk pages, you have yet to practice what you preach vis-a-vis your representations of me and my actions. May I ask, are you fundamentally better than I am, that you are exempt from treating me the way you would like me to treat you? -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't told me what incorrect statements it was. I have redacted and moderated the "falsehood" talk, especially since I clarified the ambiguity in my comment of 04:08, 5 September 2008, and I hope that eases some tension, but I honesty don't know what else if anything you wish me to strike or rephrase. As far as I see it, in this thread you began the talk of "political position[s]" of editors, not I, so I'm at a loss to understand how I'm treating you any differently than you are me. I appreciate your cool-headedness, and your kind words, however. Blackworm (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of changing the name just to clear any amibiguity. Not everyone is aware that female circumcision is supposed to be called "female genital cutting" or "female genital mutilation". Circumcision is generally regarded as cutting something, and that is done in both cases - female and male. I personally think that this article should be called "male circumcision" and the female circumcision article should remain as "female genital cutting". Tremello22 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not penile circumcision, if its ambiguity you want to avoid? Tomer^talk 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not an argument against "male circumcision." Why would one accept "penile circumcision" but not "male circumcision?" That seems very confusing. The latter phrase also has about 200x times more Google hits than the former, if that means anything to you. Blackworm (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an argument against the allegèd "ambiguity" that "male circumcision" supposèdly clears up. "Female circumcision" is not, and never has been, analogous to circumcision. The term instead was invented as a necessity and later spread by POV-pushers who compared the FGM to penile circumcision. Words have meanings, an issue that seems to be forgotten among the proponents of a name change for this article. The meaning of "circumcision" is "removal of the foreskin", and always has been. That the word's definition has been muddied up, for people who read probably too much about genitalia, and have too little accompanying knowledge or discernment, does not negate the fact that "male circumcision" or "penile circumcision" is a tautology. Tomer^talk 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Err. FGC and FGM are recently coined terms designed to be politically correct. Male and Female circumcision have been around and called "Circumcision" for thousands of years. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the meaning of "circumcision" is "the act of circumcising," and to circumcise means "to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)."[30] Your argument fails, along with your unsupported POV about "analogous" practices or the word circumcision implying male circumcision (see for example my comment of 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC), in which I note several counterexamples disproving your OR claims). Since you are clearly not suggesting "penile circumcision" as a title, nor addressing any arguments either for or against the change, it's unclear what you hope to accomplish by this diversion. What is it? Blackworm (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for POV agendas

It is hard to know how a Wikipedia article about circumcision in general should be written. It can range from the most common to the most esoteric. In Western and Judeo-Christian culture and history, circumcision ONLY applies to the male, however in many African and Third World countries females are also "circumcised" but whereas in Western and Judeo-Christian cultures male circumcison is NOT regared as a social crime and it is not viewed as mutilation, in fact there are proven medical benefits that people in the West know about and seek, the practice of female "circumcision" is regarded as mutilation and hence is viewed as a kind of victimization against women. There is absolutely no known benefit for female circumcision, beyond crippling them in their vaginal areas. Unfortunately there are POV-pushers who have an anti-circumcision agenda in the West and they wish to stop all circumcision and one way they try to do this is to bring in the Westren abhorance of female "circumcision" as a weapon against all circumcision. But this is a crude and illogical act because the Judeo-Christian heritage is built on the Hebrew Bible and even on the New Testament all of which encourage circumcision for many categories of males and nowhere does it say anywhere in the Bible that females must be treated like males. Thus it is the Judeo-Christian heritage itself that is solidly against mutilation of female genitals which is thus NOT "circumcision" but barbarity according to the Judeo-Christian world view. To play with words and try to play some African tribal rites against the Judeo-Christian heritage is foolish and counterproductive and is blatant POV-pushing. See WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NOR, and WP:NEO. IZAK (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And beware of sweeping generalisations too. Circumcision, in every Christian country I have lived in, is very much regarded as both a social crime and mutilation. In fact, there aren't many countries in Europe where being cut doesn't mark you out as a freak and where finding a circumcised penis attractive isn't regarded as a fetish. There are countries where is is also criminal if it isn't a medical necessity and performed by a medical professional. I would even suggest that "Judeo-Christian view" thing is a bit of a POV pushing, because there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian view on circumcision and the bible as accepted by most churches specifically says that there is no need for circumcision Finn (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article, Finn? This page is not a forum for general discussion of the topic of the article, but about the article itself. Please take this elsewhere, as it serves no constructive purpose here whatsoever. Thanks, Tomer^talk 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this section even relevant to the article, while we're on the subject? IZAK made unsubstantiated claims in a very POV-pushing manner, and Finn debunked them. If you have a problem, then delete the section. Don't get mad at Finn for debunking the POV that you obviously share with IZAK. It says on your userpage that you are Jewish, which means you're circumcised. Therefore, there's obviously a conflict of interest in you upholding IZAK's post and attacking me for "personal attacks". Whatever, I'll strike it out just to appease you. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is bad etiquette to delete someone else's remarks on a talk page, which is why I, in accordance with wikipedia guidelines and polices, asked you to remove your blatant personal attack, which you have yet to remove. Instead, you have turned around and attacked me, claiming I "attacked" you by asking you to remove your attack, and going on to imply that, because I'm Jewish, I shouldn't take part in the discussion here. That, sir, reeks of antisemitism. Tomer^talk 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? When did I say you can't participate in the discussion? Now you're putting words in my mouth and blatantly attacking me. We were talking about conflict of interest. I only said that you share IZAK's view and that you're backing him up because of it, however unsubstantiated his claims are. Lemme guess.. Finn must also be an anti-semite because he doesn't share your view either. Is that how it works? --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have neither backed IZAK nor countered Finn. What I have done is repeat what it says on the top of this talkpage in all those pretty colored boxes. Perhaps you would be well-served to actually read them. Thanks, Tomer^talk 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't call someone out for responding to someone else's post by saying "it's not a forum". If the discussion is forum-like, then perhaps the first post should've never been made. Your actions demonstrate that you have a double standard - comments that are opposed to your view are countered with policy, while comments that you agree with are not. This means you are siding with IZAK's post. I guess implying that other people are racist means sticking to the talk page guidelines. Does that mean we're "even" now? --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomer, you say "On the contrary, I have neither backed IZAK nor countered Finn. What I have done is repeat what it says on the top of this talkpage in all those pretty colored boxes. Perhaps you would be well-served to actually read them." Exactly! I was responding to something posted here. If you don't like it being discussed, then complain to the person raising it and posting patent nonsense. You on the other hand have done precisly what you (in my view quite mistakenly) accuse me of doing (and I am Jewish, so pity anyone who wants to accuse me of racism). Finn (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One person's indiscretion isn't worthy of response. A response to it, that goes even further afield and cites personal experience as evidence, requires response. At least that tack is no longer under discussion, so I regard my remark as a success. (And I don't care whether you're Jewish or not, for the record.) Tomer^talk 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In which case you have certainly done EXACTLY what you accuse me of (and that too requires a response then) and you would be well advised to follow your own advice before you tell others to. As for the citations to support what I said, they are already in the article Finn (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. In any case, this clearly has nothing to do with the article, so I will not be responding to this thread here further. Cheers, Tomer^talk 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as IZAK says, "In Western and Judeo-Christian culture and history, circumcision ONLY applies to the male," then how is it that Western dictionaries show that it applies to both sexes?" Some people believe that circumcision should only be done to males, yes. But since our sources are in conflict over the very definition of circumcision, i.e., what the term circumcision denotes (WP:UCN), a disambiguation page for circumcision serves as a more neutral starting point for the interested reader. It's also more neutral, since it does not implicitly direct the reader toward one narrower definition of circumcision. It raises the importance and prominence of the associated rituals, which seems like it has value. It also has the benefit of allowing both different cultures and different views of human rights to claim a stake in the term, circumcision.

The rest of IZAK's post is pure WP:OR, his own opinion, and irrelevant. Let him bring sources stating that as fact, and then let's qualify it by saying those sources say that. "Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it." (Neutral Point of View Tutorial.) Bring the evidence. Blackworm (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary

Sure, if one just reads words as cold symbols not connected to reality or devoid of a cultural, religious and historical context, then "Circumcision" alone can encompass the weirdest rites and vaguest usage. But a Wikipedia article cannot function in a historical and cultural vacuum and the fact remains that circumcision as it it known in the West and in the world of Islam is derived from the Hebrew Bible and the commands God gave Abraham and later to the Israelites, continued by the Jewish people, into the age of Jesus (only later Christians dropped the need for this commandment like many others, see Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, but even in Christianity, there was never application of the term or the practice applying to females, ever!), see Circumcision in cultures and religions (no OR here!):

"Male circumcision, when practiced as a rite, has its foundations in the Bible, in the Abrahamic covenant, such as Genesis 17, and is therefore practiced by Jews and Muslims and some Christians, those who constitute the Abrahamic religions."

There are articles on Wikipedia that back this up further, so the request for sources at this stage to back up the obvious is a pure rhetorical hoax. See for example, Circumcision in cultures and religions: Circumcision in cultures and religions#In Judaism; Circumcision in cultures and religions#Islam; Circumcision in cultures and religions#In Christianity. The Judaic view on circumcision is explicated in greater depth in the main Brit milah article. There is no "OR" here and why should there be for a 3,000 year rite practiced upon males only. To repeat, the usage of the "female circumcision" argument being deployed here by some editors is purely a POV push in the context of the modern day Naturalist movement, a kind of secular Pantheism that sees any human tampering with nature as a violation of some "sacred trust" of mother nature with open hostility to classical Biblical, Judaic, Christian, Islamic and Western culture. It wishes to stop any form of circumcision in the name of a vague cause of a "higher human wholenes" when ironically the same rabid ultra-modern cultural forces tolerate and encourage and display the weirdest body piercings and tattooing that mar and deface the human form in ways far worse than they imagine male circumcison does. And to repeat again, while the word circumcison has always been regarded as the normative and definitive word for male circumcison only with female circumcison rightly regared as an act that maims females since it is not based on any Biblical, Islamic or Western cultural heritage. An article about Female genital mutilation/circumcision, at Female genital cutting already exists, post all such material on that topic there to avoid confusion and controversy. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing more than original research, POV pushing and rhetorical jiggerpokery, IZAK. In case you hadn't noticed, this is English language Wikipedia. The English language is little more than a thousand years old and didn't exist when the myths at the foundations of the Abrahamic religions were put to scrolls. In the English language circumcision grew to cover female circumcision several centuries before there was any judgement involved, before any activist started to call it female genital mutilation, or a committee decided to call it female cutting. Finn (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the rest of the factless and quite bizarre "it wishes to stop any form of circumcision" rant, it isn't even worthy further comment; other than to say that relatively few people would object to anyone who is old enough to give their consent having their body modified (which is why most countries have laws about how old you have to be in order for a tattooist to tattoo you) .. except that is for the Jewish religion, which considers any body modification (other than ritual male circumcision) an abomination. It really is tragic when paranoia boils it down to a farcical Judaism v the rest of the world, when it is anything but that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finncalder (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

IZAK's example extinguishes whatever point he may have had. It says, "Male circumcision..." Yes. Male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: "...when practiced as a rite." This article is about circumcision (or should be, since it's called "circumcision"). It is not only about the practice of requiring males to be have certain parts cut off their penises in specific cultures. Blackworm (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision in the 1880s (back in the days when people were honest and circumcision served no other purpose than to impede masturbation and reduce the pleasure to be had from carnal acts):

Dr J.H. Kellogg, writing in 1888 in Plain facts for young and old: Embracing the natural history of hygiene and organic life:

In some countries females are also circumcised by removal of the nymphae. The object is the same as that of circumcision in the male.

Sir Richard Burton in the notes to the 2nd edition (1885) The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Nights:

Female circumcision is the proper complement of male circumcision, evening the sensitiveness of the genitories by reducing it equally in both sexes: an uncircumcised woman has the venereal orgasm much sooner and oftener than a circumcised man, and frequent coitus would be injurious to her health.

Finn (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• To Finncalder: The English language goes back at least over two thousand years to the times of the Romans (they conquered Britain) and the Germanic tribes (that partly inhabitted and kept on invading the British Isles), see History of the English language and Old English. English is part Latin and part Germanic in its origin. You must be thinking of modern English. And to Blackworm: Kindly avoid crass and disgusting terminology such as "the practice of requiring males to be have certain parts cut off their penises in specific cultures" that reveal your own POV bias against circumcision as it is historically understood referring to males only with Female genital cutting being an interesting subject for Anthropology but little to do with Western, Judeo-Christian and Judeo-Islamic cultures. Even by your own words, females could not be circumcised since they have not been endowed with penises and foreskins by God, and no sane person thinks that snipping the female clitoris and destroying her labia is remotely connected to the insititution and notion of circumcision. It would be like equating Nazi medical experimentation with conventional medical research. One cannot lose one's head in the blinding light (fog, actually) of moral relativism by equating inhumane immoral barbarity with Western and Biblical moral norms and practices. IZAK (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL If you keep this up, IZAK, you will original research yourself right out of existence; because, if you care to check the citations which you so kindly provided, you will see that they contradict you quite comprehensively :)

Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon, Englisc by its speakers) is an early form of the English language that was spoken and written in parts of what are now England and southern Scotland between the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century.

Middle English is the name given by linguistics to the diverse forms of the English language spoken between the Norman invasion of 1066 and the mid-to-late 15th century.

Early Modern English is the stage of the English language used from about the end of the Middle English period (the latter half of the 15th century) to 1650.

The very word 'English' derives from the name of one of the Germanic tribes (the Angles – you know, as in Anglo-Saxons) that didn't even arrive in Britain until after the end of the Roman occupation in 410 AD; so that by definition limits the age of any possible form of the English language to more than five centuries less than the “at least over two thousand years” that you so vacuously claim.

Being that this is my specialist (degree) subject and I am one of the few people who are actually able to read and speak Englisc (along with the old Frisian and Norse dialects which contributed to it), you are more than welcome to take me on about the reliability of those sources; but I don't fancy your chances :) Finn (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: IZAK, if you hadn't noticed, there is actually an Englisc Wicipǣdian too (because there isn't a single credible source that doesn't recognise it as a separate and distinct language from English) so, from that point of view, English as the language of this Wikipedia is at best 942 years old ;) Finn (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Finn: Please do not belittle what I say in a demeaning and insulting manner in the way that you say it. See User talk:IZAK#Don't lecture me. That is a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF as you also veer into violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. As for the English language, not the main topic here but I am glad to digress as I love the English language and I am quite proficient and knowledgeable about it, you seem to overlook History of the English language and the use of Latin words in English as in Western Law and Science and many other fields, what is known as "fancy English" or academic English or "hard" words are almost all Latin words. Latin, in case you did not know, is the language of the Romans and it is still around. The Romans had occupied Britain and Ireland 2,000 years ago. After the Roman Empire dissolved and the Roman Catholic Church rose to power and influence in England and Ireland and all over Europe, the churches and monastaries were the repositories of all formal literacy and knowledge in society and they used Latin as the language of choice in all their books (also studying and using classical Greek and Biblical Hebrew) that is how it was all over the United Kingdom and Europe until the rise of the Renaissance and the Reformation when the vernacular, in England meaning the Germanic-tinged English was brought into official usage. Shakespeare is the father of modern English and he lived in the Renaissance. But it was still a tough Romanized English language he used. Latin is still studied in universities, some Western universities require it as prerequisites for courses in Law and Medicine, and it's used by the Roman Catholic Church everywhere! What is called "simple English" as often used in tabloids and in conversational English is derived from the Germanic languages, what is called "Anglo-Saxon." The Anglo-Saxons had in turn been conquered by the Normans in 1066 who brought back the Roman based influence of their French linguistic culture on English as they did in real life with imposing a new British nobility and royalty who negan to speak "High class upper English" in contrast to the ordinary citizens who are Cockneys, Yorkshiremen, etc with all their colorful accents and regional vocabularies, many connected to the Gaelic and Irish roots of English as well (the way the Irish and Scots speak it.) Why you think this is "OR" is beyond me. And for someone who cites English dictionaries take a look at any English dictionary and you can see for yourself that all the English "fancy words and terminology" used in Law, Science, Religion, Theology, Philosophy and Medicine is straight Latin (of course their is lots of classical Greek there with many smatterings of BIBLICAL HEBREW !!!) whereas "simple words" in English are derived from the Germanic side of the language. English is a fused language with a number of ancient and ongoing historical sources, it is part of its dynamism and life that it has this power to absorb new languages into itself and make it its own without losing its unique English identity. But the main core ones remain Latin and Germanic. This is fact and reality. Oh, and in that scenario of fact and reality, circumcision has classically only meant the circummcision of males, with female genital mutilation in the guise of "circumcision" being something totally outrageous, cruel, alien, unfathomable, abominable and totally disgusting in every way because it is not part of the Western and Judeo-Christian heritage, followed by the Judeo-Islamic heritage that then actually adopted male circumcision based on Judaism's lead, unlike the later Christians who let go of male circumcision as part of simplifying proselytization but not meant as a disrespect to the orginal rite of male circumcision. They claimed that being baptised was the substitute for formal circumcision because to Christianity, baptism was/is a "covenant" that displaced the "covenant" of the Jewish brit milah, a stance rejected by both Judaism and Islam. IZAK (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said: Vacuous drivel and patent nonsense!. There is a skill to talking out of your arse and you have certainly mastered it, IZAK Finn (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IZAK seems to contribute nothing to this but original research and incoherent, unsourced arguments, combined with misrepresenting the views of those opposing him. Not at all impressive. Blackworm (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IZAK writes: Kindly avoid crass and disgusting terminology such as "the practice of requiring males to be have certain parts cut off their penises in specific cultures"... My response: it's not crass nor disgusting, and I will not avoid it. Males are required to have certain parts cut off their penises in certain cultures. That is a fact. If you require euphemistic language to discuss this subject, you will not find many willing to help you here.

IZAK writes: Even by your own words, females could not be circumcised since they have not been endowed with penises and foreskins by God... My response: sheer nonsense, unsupported by any statement of mine.

I suggest the same measures taken against TipPt's battleground-like spamming of OR be taken against IZAK's similar behaviour. Blackworm (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm: Since when is it "spam" when making a few lengthy comments, see WP:NOTPAPER, on a talk page yet, in response to what has been going on here, including from you? So every time you disagree with comments on a talk page, when other editors disagree with your personal POV, it should ergo be called "spam" and lead to a call for sanctions? Wow! May I suggest to you that it would be far better and more productive and would lead to WP:CONSENSUS to politely and respectfully talk, discuss and debate on what is after all a TALK page, and not revert to wild knee jerk false accusations against other editors who obviously have the knowledge because what I have stated is not newly discovered academic rocket science (altho it seems to puzzle you) and since judging by your over-reaction it seems to puzzle and perplex you, it is important to note that to tar and feather, issue insults, and throw into the figurative garbage the historical facts you don't like and that do not conform to your obviously personal POV is itself not a way to deal with disagreements. You are violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and being a Wikipedia:POV warrior as you seek to crush simple debate and discussion as I have not edited even a word yet in the main article yet you attack me personally on such a scale. Hope to see an improvement soon. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the editor. Also note that accusations of POV pushing are incivil. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking the original research you present as fact, and your apparent insistence that the views of the sources you present must be taken as fact by Wikipedia in order to correctly organize and frame this topic, while excluding or ignoring contrasting sources that suggest a different organization is appropriate. Blackworm (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Video demonstrations

I think links to video demonstrations enhance the article, but should be in External Links, not linked from the body of the article. (And perhaps we only need one?) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course they don't belong in the body of the text. I've left them in the external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjg (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 September 2008

fair enough - I personally think it would be easier if the appropriate video link was next to the relevant section for the reader's conveniance- but if you think not then fine. Tremello22 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed tag

{{totallydisputed}}

I have placed the disputed content tag on the Topic while we work out several specific factual problems. Coppertwig ... the article is grossly factually flawed; thus the reader needs to be warned. Your logic in Meatal Stenosis (see above) was disappointing. Please see the below list of specific problems in Circumcision. Most were created when relevant referenced facts were deleted from the Topic:

• Removed from the introduction:

The frenulum may be cut at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy[31]

[32]

• Removed from Procedures:

The frenulum is cut frenectomy if frenular chordee is evident.[33]

[34]

• Fact removed from Complications:

Chordee of the glans may be the result of circumcision.[35]

• Facts (specifics) removed from Complications:

“Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. This disorder is characterized by an upward deflected, difficult-to-aim urinary stream and, occasionally, dysuria and urgent, frequent, and prolonged urination. Surgical meatotomy is curative.” [36]

“Meatal stenosis is generally a direct consequence of circumcision that is seldom encountered in uncircumcised men; meatal calibre is know to be greater in uncircumcised individuals. The incidence of meatal ulceration following circumcision is from 8 to 20 per cent14,46,64. The aetiology is thought to be irritation of the external urethral meatus by ammoniacal substances present in wet sodden nappies. Such irritation is unlikely in the presence of a normal prepuce, which serves to protect the glans from these irritant substances46. In a prospective study of 140 consecutive neonatal circumcisions, Mackenzie64 found a 20 per cent incidence of meatal ulceration within the first 2-3 weeks after circumcision. It is thought that meatal ulceration after circumcision is the initiating event in a vicious cycle of stenosis and ulceration, followed by more stenosis64. Meatal stenosis following circumcision has been advanced as a cause of recurrent pyelonephitis and obstructive uropathy, for which meatotomy is curative64,65.”[37]

“Meatal stenosis is an under recognised complication of circumcision done in neonatal and nappy aged boys. Symptomatic presentation from meatal stenosis can be very late (two years).” [38]

“Traumatic meatitis of the unprotected post-circumcision urethral meatus and/or meatal ischaemia following damage to the frenular artery at circumcision are suggested as possible causes of meatal stenosis. CONCLUSION: Preservation of the frenular artery at circumcision, or the use of an alternative procedure (preputial plasty), may be advisable when foreskin surgery is required, to avoid meatal stenosis after circumcision.”[39]

• Removed from complications, and UTI:

"An epidemiological study of UTI during the first year of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% (27/56) of the male infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision.51 The incidence of UTI among male infants was significantly higher just after circumcision (from 9 to 20 days of life) than during the rest of the first month of life and significantly higher in the first month of life than during the rest of the year. After the immediate postcircumcision period, the incidence rate of UTI dropped to a level comparable to that reported among circumcised male infants in the United States."[40]

• Gross propaganda:

The Circumcision topic in Wiki leads the reader to believe that the covenant made with Abraham (note the “commandment from God” sentence in the second paragraph) was the current radical practice (in that it removed the covering of the glans). In fact, we find "the circumcision which Abraham performed on himself and other male members of his household was the removal of the tip of the prepuce.” This tip of the prepuce removal circumcision was practiced by Jews and Muslims for thousands of years. [41][42] This simple (Milah) procedure caused much less pain and erogenous nerve loss than the current Bris and Sunnet practices.

Avi required a “Jewish Encyclopedia source” for inclusion of the above information about the covenant procedure, and the change from simple to radical. Please see jewishencyclopedia.com:

“—In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:

During the Babylonian exile the Sabbath and circumcision became the characteristic symbols of Judaism. This seems to be the underlying idea of Isa. lvi. 4: "The eunuchs that keep my Sabbath" still "hold fast by my covenant," though not having "the sign of the covenant" (Gen. xvii. 11, Hebr.) upon their flesh. Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena, made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; , Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.”

“In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant" on the flesh, as circumcision was henceforth called, the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xlvi.), instituted the "peri'ah" (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6).”[43]

“In a second source we find … "Long before this, many of the Persians were circumcised and "became Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them" (Esther 8:17, Heb. text; Josephus, Ant., XI, 6:13). The Book of Jubilees insists upon he strict observance of the law, and protests against those that "make the members of their body appear like those of the gentiles" (xv, 26, 27). During the period of Greek rule in Palestine, when those that kept the laws of Moses were put to death by the gentile tyrants (1 Maccabees 1:63; 2 Maccabees 6:10), some Jews, under Greek influence, "made themselves prepuces" and turned away from the ways and traditions of their fathers (1 Maccabees 1:15, 16; Joshua Ant., XII, 5:1). To this epispastic operation performed on the athletes to conceal the marks of circumcision St. Paul alludes, me epispastho (1 Corinthians 7:18). Therefore Jewish circumcision, in later times, tears the membrane that remains after circumcision given in the ordinary way, among the Arabs for instance, and thus defeats even the surgeon's skill."[44]

A personal website, which provides scripture quotes and good descriptions of the loss to periah.[45]

And Circumcision Choices, Midwifery Today, p. 22-23, no. 17, 199, provides a good overview of the change to radical procedure.[46]

• Removed from Pain:

Without exception, newborns in this study who did not receive an anesthetic suffered great distress during and following the circumcision, and they were exposed to unnecessary risk. Two of 11 newborns in the study who received no local anesthetic had potentially dangerous episodes within minutes of the procedure. One newborn lost muscle tone, stopped breathing several times and vomited. The other choked and stopped breathing briefly, the researchers said.[47]

• We are led to believe circumcision is best done during infancy (see Advocates above, and the Topic), but:

“Circumcision at 5 months results in significantly fewer serious complications than circumcision in the neonatal period, irrespective of the method used. Therefore, neonatal circumcision should not be recommended.” [48]

• In the third paragraph we read … “Arguments for circumcision are that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, that it has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a complication rate of less than 0.5% when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[12]. Problem is, the medical community disagrees (finds factual fault) with the statements made by Schoen. Schoen states personal opinion, then cites a study on adult circumcision (thus not relevant to infant or toddler circ results) to claim no sexual effects, then references himself to claim a complication rate! Wiki should not call such subjective information “arguments for circumcision," and should not use disreputable stats.

I haven’t included relevant facts omitted from Sexual Effects.TipPt (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the meatal stenosis paragraph in the complications section is fine now, what do you think? Although maybe alpha can explain why he removed the sentence about williams and kapila finding that it occurred in 8 - 20 % . he says it doesn't say that but I have read it and it does say that... Tremello22 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the sentence very carefully.... It is in the urethral stricture section, but the percentages don't pertain to this condition, per se. I think the paragraph looks good in its current form. AlphaEta 19:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Link: williams and Kapila It states: "The incidence of meatal ulceration following circumcision is from 8 to 20 per cent"

I see what you mean now - it says ulceration and not stenosis. Got you. Should we include ulceration as well then? Or just leave the paragraph as it is. I'm not bothered either way. As for some of the other points:

• I think the frectomy should definately be mentioned in the procedures section. Whether it should be mentioned in the intro is up for debate.
• Chordee is listed among the complications.

Made insignificant by the sentence "virtually all of these complications are preventable with only a modicum of care" (not true for chordee).TipPt (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The pain paragraph that was removed looks good to me. i've got no objections to it being added. The same with the later circumcision/lower complications paragraph.
• It used to say: "Opponents of circumcision claim .../advocates of circumcision claim..." now it has changed to "arguments". What was the rationale for this change - I must have missed that. The circumcision argument statement is kind of WP:WEASEL. Schoen is an advocate though and that is his opinion. Nobody is saying he is right. Personally, I would use the sentence Edgar Schoen, an advocate of circumcision states that... This is because if you ask different people their reasons for opposing or advocating circumcision you would get a 100 different answers. So it best to name the individual that is saying these things in my opinion.Tremello22 (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored lead. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not be equal opportunity with these bias concerns? Why propose that we should begin the "advocates" sentence with "Edgar Schoen, an advocate of circumcision states that..." and not also suggest that the "opponents" sentence begin with "Milos and Macris, opponents of circumcision state that..."? In actuality, we should do neither, because labelling experts sets a rediculous precedent. Sure, a few cases are clear cut, but who are we to judge and label other experts and researchers who express or present more ambiguous positions. It would be a POV nightmare for everyone! AlphaEta 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the religious requirements that Tip is obsessed with, the procedure has been static for centuries, and the process is described in Yoreh Deah 264:3–6. Using Tip's sources is sort-of like having an Muslim-turned-atheist describe the Eucharist. For example, whatever source Tip is quoting about Isaiah 56:4 has nothing to do with the sign of the covenant. Firstly, it is an allegory for the children of Israel, who felt that they had no future as a nation after the destruction of the temple, and were as parents incapable of having children. So the L-rd comforted the childred of Israel through Isaiah's prophecy, with the promise that should the children of Israel hold fast to the L-rd's commandments, He would guarantee their future Isaiah 56:5. Furthermore, eunuchs usually do NOT have the glans removed, only the testicles, and as such, any relationship to having or not having a Bris Mila is rendered impossible. This is an example of how ignorance and misunderstanding Jewish Scripture, Law, and history can lead to gross errors. Once again, the description of the authentic Jewish procedure should only be brought from authentic, verifiable, and reliable Jewish sources. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TipPt: thank you for providing a list of what you see as problems. I oppose restoring the tag, but if you do, please have the tag link to this section of the talk page. I prefer that replies to my messages be placed below my messages, not interspersed within them.

You've listed material that's been deleted, but you haven't explained why deleting this material is problematic. This article is a very concise summary; more detailed information goes in the subarticles. Good, encyclopedic information can be deleted from this article in order to keep this article concise and balanced.

Some of the material you listed that was deleted has problems.

• See this discussion about frenectomy, particularly my comment at the end of the thread.
• "The frenulum is cut frenectomy if frenular chordee is evident." This doesn't appear to me to be a grammatical sentence.
• We can't just state that the rate of meatal stenosis is a certain rate, based on one study. At most we can state that that study reported that rate among its subjects. We have no way of knowing whether the rate might be different in a different country. Different studies find different rates; for example, Griffiths found a rate of 4 out of 140 boys. [49]
• If there is to be a change in the wording on meatal stenosis, it has to be discussed on the talk page first and carefully examined to make sure it doesn't seem to imply that non-circumcised don't also get meatal stenosis. The original wording did this.
• In general, per WP:MEDRS, single studies usually don't deserve mention in this article. See if you can find review studies (meta-analyses).
• You state: "The Circumcision topic in Wiki leads the reader to believe that the covenant made with Abraham (note the “commandment from God” sentence in the second paragraph) was the current radical practice (in that it removed the covering of the glans)." You haven't specified what in the article gives you this impression, i.e. what you think needs to be changed (specific wording). I disagree: the article defines circumcision in the first sentence as "the removal of some or all...".

In short, simply stating that something has been removed from the article is not an argument for keeping a disputed tag; you would have to explain why you think those removals of material violate Wikipedia policy. Much or all of the material you say was removed was only recently added and reverted, I think, anyway. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses by Tip

First of all, thanks to whoever improved complications, and the meatal stenosis (MS) paragraph in complications. Great writing, and MS isn't burried in a small sentence at the bottom. I think we should still give incidence numbers ... we have two studies ... 7.3% and 9-10%(meta) ... simply because they are propably so large. Otherwise, how about "MS may be the most common complication to circumcision, with late presentation (av 4 years old)." We should also state meatodomy is curative.

Fact about cutting the frenulum should be in the intro paragraph ... it's is a very critical point (erogenous and structural) for most readers. That's easy to check with a few google searches! Frenectomy is required to finish some (27% in one study ... yes, I have read the whole article and it applies ... and 33% in a survey) circumcisions, mostly based on specific anatomy. Frenectomy should also be a new paragraph in procedures.

Avi, your argument is silly. You demand a Jewish ency source, and I provide exactly that. I give you three great (reputable and not biased) sources. There is no debate among religious scholars ... it's up to you to refute my sources with other or better sources. All you have provided was a link to Wiki ... which did not cover the issue. The reader is mislead to think the current procedure is authentic (original covenent), the "commandment" procedure, and is denied basic facts about what the original procedure entailed.

Once again, I'll try for the last time. The source is a text, not wikipedia. If you are so ignorant as to the basics of Jewish Law and history that three separate explanations still do not help you understand, then I cannot help you further. Regardless, your sources are not authentic Jewish sources. Let me demonstrate why, as clearly as I can.

1. The Jewish encyclopedia to which you link brings a bibliography, none of which are Rabbinic sources, they are 19th century articles.:

   Bibliography: J. Bergson, Die Beschneidung, Berlin, 1844; L. Terquens, La Circoncision, Paris, 1844 (German translation by Heymann, Magdeburg, 1845); A. Asher, Jewish Rite of Circumcision, London, 1873; M. Baum, Der Theoretisch Praktische Mohel, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1884; A. Glassberg, Die Beschneidung in Ihrer Geschichtlichen, Ethnographischen. Religiösen, und Medicinischen Bedeutung, Berlin, 1896; Travers, Observations on the Local Discases Termed Malignant, in Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, xvii. 336, London, 1832.J. A. Fr.

   — http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=514&letter=C&search=circumcision#0

2. The Catholic Encyclopedia is ipso facto not an Rabbinic Jewish source.
3. Covenantcircumcision is an anti-circumcision personal website (with any number of errors including the fact that you cannot bring a proof from a sculpture; firstly the model used was likely a gentile and secondly, in that case, shouldn't all Jews have horns ala Michelangelo's Moses? The site, besides for being unreliable is actually logically inconsistent and humorously absurd) Regardless, it is not a Rabbinic source.
4. Circumcision Choices, which is at the following address http://www.noharmm.org/choices.htm is the personal opinion of a modern, non-Orthodox midwife, not a Rabbinic source.

So, nothing you brought has any bearing, basis, or connection with authentic Rabbinic Judaism. If anyone is trying to make a "silly" argument, as you suggest Tip, it is not I -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopidea, the Court, and the Catholic Encyclopedia thought their sources were good. You have not provided any facts.TipPt (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But you cannot claim that they are Rabbinic sources. the best you can say is according to the Catholic encyclopedia...... Wheras the source I informed you of (Yoreh Deah 264:3-6) would be more authoritative. As I said above, one should not look to Muslims or atheists when trying to explain the significance of the Eucharist to Christians. -- Avi (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yoreh Deah was written thousands of years after the fact. Your the editor primarily making the current claim.

• Please provide us with evidence to back up Circumcision's current claim that the authentic (covenant/commandment) procedure is the same as today's. Otherwise, we go with Wiki approved sources I have provided (3).TipPt (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Yoreh Deah has always been considered a verifiable and reliable source, perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the Jewish and Catholic encyclopedia's were written hundreds of years after Yoreh Deah; by your logic those are much worse and should certainly not be used. Once again, your own arguments betray that you seem to be approaching this NOT from the perspective of bettering the encyclopedia, but from the perspective of furthing your personal anti-circumcision crusade, which is strictly forbidden on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Copper ... I list facts that are not included in the main article. They are either highly relevant facts, or current misleading text needs to be fixed. We should discuss adding them one at a time. Please add () to the frenectomy sentence. Your prior comments didn't make sense (article length?, not related operations?). I don't know how to link a tag to a specific discussion, but feel the tag is necessary; I'll clearly label my discussion topic. Progress has been made in complications, thanks.TipPt (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)