Wikipedia

Talk:Circumcision/Archive 57

< Talk:Circumcision
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Garycompugeek in topic Requested moves
Archive 50 ← Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60

Requested moves

Latest comment: 14 years ago75 comments17 people in discussion

Requested move 13 August 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Procedural close — No clear decision. Relisting to allow more time for discussion
— V = I * R (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision → Male circumcision — Male and female circumcision has been around for thousands of years. This article only discusses male circumcision. Female genital cutting → Female circumcision — Female genital cutting is not WP:NPOV.

  • Support move. Pro circumcision editors have setup this long standing NPOV problem by trying to distance female circumcision from male circumcision. It is extreme hypocracy to say male genital cutting is extreme POV but female genital cutting is neutral. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving "circumcision" to "male circumcision" per WP:TITLE and WP:UCN (as in the last requested move, the following being lightly adapted from my comments in that poll). Per WP:TITLE, "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." One can get a reasonable idea of the term people would recognise, would use for searches, and would intuitively use for linking by examining the frequency of use. Google returns 4,130,000 hits for "circumcision", compared with 1,170,000 for "male circumcision". As we can verify by examining the hits on the first page of results for "circumcision", most results are primarily or entirely about the removal of the penile foreskin. From this, we may conclude that a) the term "circumcision" is used approximately 4x as often as "male circumcision", and b) that when it is used there is very little ambiguity: with a few exceptions, "circumcision" usually means removal of the penile foreskin. (The term "female circumcision" is used to refer to female genital cutting, but that term already redirects to that article, so isn't an issue; without qualifier, "circumcision" generally applies to the penis.) Per WP:TITLE and WP:UCN, then, the obvious title is "circumcision". While I acknowledge that there is a small amount of ambiguity, per WP:MOSDAB, the "recommended practice is to use a hatnote on the article for the primary meaning to link directly to the secondary meaning", which is done.
    Also oppose moving "female genital cutting" to "female circumcision", per WP:NPOV. The term "female circumcision" is controversial; many authors have criticised it (some of this criticism is discussed at Female genital cutting#Varying terminology). Because of its controversial nature, using it as the title of an article is undesirable from the perspective of WP:NPOV.
    Strongly oppose merging, per Coppertwig. Jakew (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (edited 18:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
  • Support the merging of both articles under circumcision, with subarticles going into detail presenting sources specifically discussing the circumcision of males or females. I am Neutral on the change of title to "female circumcision," although it is not nearly as controversial as suggested, and appears (by a Google test) to be about seven times more common than the current title, "female genital cutting." There are problems with those two terms not quite being synonymous. In any case, circumcision, despite the fact that it is done to one gender in much greater prevalence, commonly refers to procedures on both males and females, and is often discussed as one concept, often appears as one topic as presented by lexicographical and encyclopedic sources, sometimes even appearing in a single sense of the word in a common, mainstream dictionary.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] This artificial separation, based on prevalence rather than the meaning of the term, is flawed; it's similar to one identifying most usages of the word "penis" as referring to the human penis, creating and maintaining an article on the topic of the human penis, excluding all non-human content, titling the article penis, and referring in a hatnote to an article called "male reproductive organ of non-humans." Surely one doing that would be subject to accusations of holding a fringe POV, and as it happens at least one editor vehemently resisting this change back to male circumcision is named in the article as a maintainer of an external site which by longstanding consensus engages in "circumcision promotion." We have serious WP:NPOV issues here. Further, Jakew's conclusion does not follow from his analysis; for his Google hit counts to apply in the context of naming an article strictly discussing male circumcision "circumcision," one would need to assume that all pages discussing "circumcision" are referring to male circumcision -- which is prima facie wrong, since a Google search on "female circumcision" returns 617,000 hits, hits included in Jakew's numbers for "circumcision" since they contain the word "circumcision." The "male circumcision" numbers are likewise a subset of the "circumcision" numbers as well, yet Jake mistakenly includes these in his comparison as well. There are a good number of pages 9,080 containing both the phrases "male circumcision" and "female circumcision." If we subtract the two qualified occurrences (1,170,000 and 617,000) from all qualified and non-qualified occurrences (4,130,000), and re-add one set of occurrences previously included in both singly-gender qualified sets and which were subtracted twice (9,080), one obtains the correct 2,352,080 non-qualified occurrences, and (4,130,000 - 2,352,080 = ) 1,777,920 gender-qualified occurences. Where does Jakew get a "4x" factor out of that? The qualified and non-qualified numbers are almost the same! The issue is the article title, and ambiguity, not relative notability, or how many pages discuss what. Even conceding that most of the non-qualified occurrences are discussing only male circumcision, this seems attributable to the relative prevalence, especially in the West, and cannot reasonably be interpreted as a rejection of the major, mainstream sources defining and using the term as a concept applicable to both genders. Lastly, I believe there is a huge danger when a self-described "expert on the subject"User:Jakew of circumcision begins throwing bogus figures around as arguments to influence content in their favour, as Jakew often does (in good faith, I'm sure, but of no less serious concern). Blackworm (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed. If splits are needed due to page length, then of course that issue can be addressed after merging.
    — V = I * R (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    I would agree to this compromise. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per JakeW and the many discussions we have had that can be found in the archives. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. User:Jakew gave ample reasons above. — AjaxSmack 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - this article is about male circumcision, as 'circumcision' can be used in both male and female contexts, the title needs to clarify that it is about male circumcision only - either as 'Male circumcision' or 'Circumcision (male)'. Mish (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move of "female genital cutting" to "female circumcision". I argue that "female genital cutting" is a term used reasonably frequently in the literature and which is at the median of a spectrum of POV terminology. That is: at one end of the spectrum we have FGM and at the other end FC, while FGC is intermediate between the two as to POV. Numbers in Google Scholar support that FGC is at the median:
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM------CCCCCCCCCCCCC
Here, "M" represents FGM ("female genital mutilation"), "-" represents FGC, and "C" represents FC. (Based on Google Scholar hits for years 2007-2009. FM 1660; FGC 564; FC 1310.) The midpoint of this POV spectrum falls within the FGC terminology. I therefore consider FGC to be the most NPOV term. If it were extremely rare we could nevertheless exclude it on that basis; it is not. Perhaps a better argument: The centrepoint of a segment can be interpreted as representing the POV that would be implied by use of the term. The centrepoint of the FGC segment of the line is closer to the middle of the line than the centrepoint of any of the other segments. Both methods give the answer FGC. Neutral re moving the Circumcision page provided "Circumcision" remains a redirect to it; Oppose moving the Circumcision page otherwise; see the issues I raised in the earlier "Requested move" discussion. Oppose merging both articles under "circumcision", since the topic of "circumcision" in general (both male and female discussed together) is far less notable (possibly not notable enough to have an article at all) than either individual topic (for one gender or the other) so most readers would be landing on a scarcely-notable article that is not what they're looking for. The literature generally treat the two topics as two different things, discussed separately and with different things being said about them; and they are physically different processes with different social and health implications. Another reason to oppose such a merge is that discussion of FGC on a page with either "circumcision" or "mutilation" in the title would give undue weight to one end or the other of the POV spectrum.☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Qualified support I would support the move to male circumcision, but not for female genital cutting to female circumcision. I do not see how female genital cutting is not NPOV, and it includes infibulation and clitorodectomy, which is not the same as circumcision. I see no reason why the symmetry needs to be established by having them as male circumcision and female circumcision - although I still prefer male circumcision if they are to be separate articles. The symmetry would be retained by using male genital cutting to go alongside female genital cutting with possibly a top-level article that linked to the two. Redirects for male and female circumcision (etc.) could be set up to direct people to the appropriate articles. I can see how female genital mutilation, or male genital mutilation might be thought of as not NPOV, but not male genital cutting - cutting bits off of babies' dicks would not be NPOV - but MGC sounds pretty innocuous TBH. However, MGC would presumably expand the content, and possibly in a way that ended up having to have a specific article for male circumcision beneath it anyway - because some people split their own dicks in two, and hypospadias repair is a form of MGC, and I guess you could even include orchidopexy, then there is penis-lengthening, penis-reduction, etc. Infibulation is an interesting article in this respect - it has a top-level link to Female genital cutting, and yet while it has sections for both male infibulation and female infibulation, there is no top-level link to Male genital cutting. The way around this would be to have a top level article: Genital cutting, with summaries and links to Female genital cutting and Male genital cutting, which would then branch into the sex-specific forms of genital cutting, and so Female genital cutting would incorporate sections and links to the different types of genital cutting where necessary, applying the common specific terms (such as Female infibulation), and so the Male genital cutting would have a short section on Male infibulation, which also linked to the article; Male genital cutting would include other forms of genital cutting, such as Male circumcision, with circumcision retained as the common term used for that type of cutting. At the moment, it looks a bit piecemeal. Mish (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've only skimmed through the wall of text that several of you have posted here, since most of it seems to be polite WP:SOAPboxing, and I'm not tremendously interested in the subject matter. The general idea behind MishMich's post here is, it seems to me, the bet way to move foreword from here. If the subject matter is extensive enough (which seems to obviously be the case here), then there should be a "tree" of content available, from the most general (both male and female Circumcision, it seems) to several sections or articles (as needed) on the specific topics. This sort of topic segmentation is encouraged by WP:NOTPAPER and WP:EP as being the normal mode of development for Wikipedia, and the added benefit is that it makes these sorts of conflicts irrelevant. I think everyone here should put their obvious passion for the subject into developing the article rather then arguing about relatively inconsequential process issues.
— V = I * R (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the development of the circumcision article is shunted to one side by its very organization, i.e. the composition of its general title and its exclusive subject matter. If editors can't agree on that, they clearly won't agree on a neutral presentation of the topic, and therefore can't ignore the issue and just develop the article, as you suggest editors should do instead of even discussing a move. Why would one develop something that they believe is fundamentally flawed? No one has addressed the point[10] that the organization of the articles leaves a hole where certain information about circumcision in general (or the topic of cultural non-therapeutic genital surgeries, if you prefer) i.e. sources discussing the circumcision of males and females in the same context, has no outlet, no article, no place to be cited. The entire idea is shut out of Wikipedia, by one instance of its design and one interpretation of its policy. That's equivalent to Wikipedia taking a stand that no such comparison is valid, or deserving to be made. That doesn't seem to uphold WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the reply above here from my talk page in order to prevent fracturing the conversation. I understand the point that you're trying to make Blackworm, it's just that these are really content issues, which goes beyond my interest in being here is (the movereq). I'm only here trying to provide a Third opinion. Additionally though, I think that the solution offered in these last couple of replies (re-factoring the structure of these articles) addresses the concerns that you're bringing up here about the lack of coverage on Wikipedia of some aspects of circumcision.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's the problem - Genital cutting is a disambiguation page which gives links to FGC, MGC, and intersex sex assignment. FGC links to and article on FGC, intersex links to an article on intersex, but MGC leads to an article on Circumcision, which is actually an article on Male circumcision. On the disambig page for genital cutting, the MGC link needs to link to Male genital cutting, and within that would be a section on male circumcision - which if too large to be incorporated would link to this article. However, there are already several articles on this already, so perhaps the best approach would be to reduce substantially the medical text, migrating what is necessary to the article on medical circumcision, and use this as the basis of what is incorporated into MGC under a section which links out to Religion and Culture, Medicine, Legal issues, national medical positions and practices, and so on. Mish (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The "problem" that you describe isn't really a problem. Since Wikipedia is a source-based encyclopaedia, we're just following the sources. Many reliable sources discuss "female genital cutting". Very few reliable sources discuss "male genital cutting" — in fact Google Scholar finds only 62 sources using that phrase (and of the ten on the first page, six are actually using the words "fe- male genital cutting"). That suggests that the term "male genital cutting" is so obscure that it would fail Wikipedia's inclusion criteria; that is, as a concept it is not sufficiently notable for us to have an article on it. To suggest that Wikipedia should restructure our content away from a mainstream term ("circumcision", for which Google Scholar returns 173,000 hits) in favour of a term so obscure that only a handful of sources actually use it, is illogical to say the least. Jakew (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Many reliable sources discuss "female circumcision" yet we ignore them. That is is illogical to say the least. FGC is a recent term popularly coined in the last 20 years. I have no problem compromising with a new NPOV structure. Say a tree starting with genital cutting with male and female stubs that stub out to male and female circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't ignore sources discussing "female circumcision". They're used as sources for the FGC article, just as sources discussing "female genital mutilation" are also used as sources; we just use a more neutral terminology when presenting the material, except when it appears within quotes etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I know Coppertwig, but that in itself is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. These are all terms for female circumcision you say but female circumcision is by far the oldest term or we should have separate articles for each one if they are not the same. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a problem when you use this article in a way that prevents material you don't like being inserted - and noting that replacing the Male genital cutting link on Genital cutting disambig with Genital modification and mutilation doesn't get round the lack of a top-level article in male genital cutting, as there is no more source for Male genital modification than for cutting. A phrase used in a title does not have to appear in Google scholar so many times for it to be a valid title, what is important is its ability to describe the content - Male genital cutting seems to convey the content in a reasonable way. The WP guidelines warn against relying on Scholar for validating numeric references, especially where terms may be referenced more recently. Mish (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – When you think circumcision, you think male circumcision. Therefore, to the two main points brought in support here: The point that the articles should be merged because they deal with a similar topic—they don't, and the topics are very different; and the point of NPOV—the overwhelming majority of uses for the word "circumcision" anywhere deal with male circumcision. Therefore, no good reason to move or merge. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    I do not understand what you mean in point one? What should not be merged because they deal with similar topic? Your second point doesn't make sense either... the NPOV concerns are that female genital cutting is not NPOV not this articles title. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose Circumcision means male circumcision to the vast majority of people. No opinion on the matter of whether the other article "female circumcision" or "female genital cutting". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree however many sources need disambiguation because they talk about male and/or female circumcision. Since this article only mentions male circumcision would it not make more sense to rename it for what it is and have a redirect from circucmcision? Garycompugeek (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to "male circumcision". Like it or not there is also female circumcision. So it would clear up the ambiguity. When I think circumcision I don't automatically think male circumcision. The change would also bring the article in line with the subarticles - religious male circumcision and history of male circumcision. With the article renamed to Male circumcision, "circumcision" could be redirected to "male circumcision". The hatnote as it currently stands would remain: for female circumcision see female genital cutting Tremello22 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per our practice of using most common names in English. For better or for worse, the word "circumcision" with no qualifier nearly always means male circumcision; a qualifier is needed for it to mean female circumcision (or whatever it should be called). I also disagree with the notion that using different terminologies for the two procedures is biased; the two procedures are simply very different, regardless of what one thinks of either procedure, and they could be reasonably expected to have different names. No opinion on the proposed move of Female genital cutting due to not being certain of the most neutral/common term. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move of this article, per Jakew et al.; also oppose move of 'female genital cutting' (what sorta title is that?); however, support merge of 'female genital cutting' into this one, resulting in one article on 'circumcision'. The term is justifiably used for both sexes, like it or not, even though it is more commonly used in reference of the male procedure: the Gale Surgery Encyclopedia briefly describes circumcision as the: "The surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis, or prepuce of the clitoris." Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm quite mistaken, the article on FGC is about more procedures than simply removal of the clitoral prepuce, meaning that article wouldn't be properly covered under "circumcision" per that definition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The entry continues on: "Female circumcision (also known as female genital mutilation) is usually performed for cultural and social reasons by family members and others who are not members of the medical profession, with no anesthesia." So, I believe this article could incorporate all of that, as it does for men: it is simply now heavily weighted to the male phenomenon. Given content volume, however, though not preferred, I could support (per Blackworm) a parent 'circumcision' article (containing common themes), with subarticles for male and female specific information entitled 'x circumcision'. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It would have been better if the proposed move for FGC had been posted on that page, as a notice of the proposal here pointing to this talk page seems insufficient notice for a proposed move of a different article. The tag for both articles should have been placed on that article also. Mish (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I was trying something different Mish. Since I see both article names as part of an NPOV coverup I though maybe doing the combined requested moves would explain things better but most have no comment on FGC or do not understand the double requested move meaning. I am seeing more support for a main circumcision article that covers both male and female circumcision with stubs out to each. I see no valid reason not to do this but many would like to distance male from female circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig has already explained the problems with that suggestion, Gary, but let me try to summarise. First, the concept of "male and female circumcision as a combined entity" ("mandfc" for short) is rather obscure. Consequently, very few readers who search for "circumcision" will be looking for that article, most will be inconvenienced by having to click again to find what they're looking for. Second, other than dictionary definitions very few (if any) sources actually discuss mandfc, so any such article would have to be synthesis of information about separate procedures. Alternatively, if little was said other than a definition, this would in effect be a de facto move of this article to "male circumcision", which is ill-advised for reasons explained at length above. Third, it is a common argument of anti-circumcision activists that circumcision and FGC are comparable or even equivalence. To structure our content around this notion of equivalence would heavily promote one side of the circumcision debate, thus violating NPOV. Jakew (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jake but I disagree with your summarization. Nothing obscure about circumcision however there are those that try to hide or even change the name of female circumcision. Yes male circumcision is more prevalent but that doesn't mean female circumcision does not exist. Time and place play huge factors in prevalence of both. Maybe when they come to Circumcision they will be surprised to learn of female circumcision, find it note worthy and interesting, and read up on it more, but wait, they can't can they because we have cleverly culled any information about female circumcision in the article and even changed the name to female genital cutting to distance it even further from circumcision. Lastly this is a common ploy by pro circumcision activist to distance male circumcision from the deplorable female circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Maybe when they come to Circumcision they will be surprised to learn of female circumcision, find it note worthy and interesting, and read up on it more, but wait, they can't can they because we have cleverly culled any information about female circumcision in the article and even changed the name to female genital cutting to distance it even further from circumcision." Not so much, really, since the hatnote at the top of this article clearly links to the article on female... whatever the correct term might be. That gives readers of this article plenty of chance to learn about the practice. This is clearly the primary topic referred to by the word circumcision, and it's only appropriate for the article be here. You seem convinced this title is a whitewash attempt by pro-circumcision advocates, but I just don't buy that. I'm no pro-circumcision advocate, in fact, I'm marginally anti-circumcision, but the current naming of this article is perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia policies and practices I've already named, as well as just common sense (put it where the readers are most likely to find it unless there's a really good reason not to). No POV-pushing here; just standard naming procedures being followed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe the hatnote does it justice. Just because male circumcision is more common doesn't mean we shouldn't clear up any ambiguity and be true to our sources (ie first source in article has male and female circumcision). Common sense says since there is male and female circumcision, they should both be mentioned in the circumcision article, not just one side because its more prevalent. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, what some of us believe is common sense feel is improper and vice versa. The prevailing usage of the term in media is how it appears now; when talking about procedures done to women, either other terms are used or it is always prefaced by "female". As before the article even begins, the very first text (not counting the POVbox) is a director to Female genital cutting for those interested in procedures on women. So 'common sense' would indicate that it would take a person of significant levels of either obtuseness or distraction NOT to find the proper article in which they are interested. -- Avi (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ironically common sense does not appear to be common, but like all things, a matter of perspective. While I agree a dedicated researcher will find female circumcision because of the hatnote, my gut tells me most people ignore what we put at the top of these pages and I dislike the name change segregation. While I seem to be the vocal minority here and I do appreciate everyone's thoughtful discourse. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with your first sentence, Gary  . Truth be told, I think "common sense" cannot be the decider here as it may depend on whom we consider to be the "commons" whose senses we are trying to emulate. Personally, I have greater faith in perceptiveness of readers who will usually read from the title on downward, and who will notice that italics stand out from roman text, and so will be immediately drawn to the hatnote. -- Avi (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Male circumcision, per per WP:TITLE and WP:UCN. Oppose move to Female circumcision, per NPOV and Jake's reasoning. Oppose merge, per Coppertwig. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current titles are the most common names. Jafeluv (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (I've also commented above.) Having separate male and female articles tends to lend weight to the anti-FGC and pro-MC POVs, while on the other hand combining the articles would lend weight to the pro-FGC and anti-MC POVs. Which to do should be based on the sources; and I'm under the impression that there is very little source material giving information about "circumcision" meaning both male and female circumcision treated as one thing, so separate articles seems warranted. However, I take the point that readers might not notice the hatnote. I would like to suggest a compromise. I suggest that this article mention, and wikilink to, FGC, without including FGC as part of the topic covered by the article, just as the article mentions various things (clamps, Judaism, the United States, etc.) without making them part of the scope of the article. If verifiable, a statement like this might be included, for example: "Like female circumcision, male circumcision has been practised for thousands of years." Alternatively, FGC could be listed in the "see also" section in addition to being in the hatnote. More than one wikilink to the same page can be appropriate: See Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links: the first two of three listed exceptions apply here, IMO. Mentioning FGC can be justified in terms of notability within the topic, I think: I remember seeing at least one book (in Google Books) about "Circumcision", mainly about male circumcision, I think, but which included a section on female circumcision. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If there's reason to believe that hatnotes might not be noticed, then surely this problem affects every hatnote equally. Consequently, wouldn't it make sense to redesign the {{otheruses}} template (and related templates) so that they are more noticeable? I don't think it's necessary to violate WP:SEEALSO by including FGC there as well as elsewhere in the article, nor do I think it is appropriate (or compatible with NPOV) to discuss FGC in an article that isn't about FGC (which would inevitably be a slippery slope that wouldn't stop with a single mention). So I can't really see why these suggestions are justified: if there is a real problem with hatnote visibility, then why not fix that problem, rather than introducing new ones? Jakew (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move either article. Jafeluv (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision → Male circumcision —

Female genital cutting → Female circumcision — Re-listed in order to prevent the movereq from entering the backlog and to provide additional time for discussion. Feel free to restate your opinion, or refer to your above opinion. 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose — Primarily, I think that much of the controversy behind this movereq is a content dispute gloaming onto the movereq procedure in order to make a WP:POINT. Aside from that though, I'd think that the fact that "circumcision" is not limited to males only would be self-evident, regardless of whether the female procedure uses a different term or not. In my opinion it would be best to have a more generic article at Circumcision, and more narrow articles at Male circumcision and Female circumcision (and whether that page is actually located at, or redirects from, Female genital cutting is a separate issue that should be handled on that page).
    — V = I * R (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (I already commented in the earlier thread; here I'm replying to Jakew's comment of 18:07, 22 August 2009.) Jakew said "If there's reason to believe that hatnotes might not be noticed, then surely this problem affects every hatnote equally." No, that doesn't follow. Often a reader knows what topic they're searching for, and will look for things like hatnotes to help them find the right article. Here, the concern raised by some editors is different: that some readers might not even know that female circumcision exists. Furthermore, some topics are more closely related than others, so the importance of having a link visible to a high proportion of readers will vary. I don't think any redesign of the hatnote template is warranted. Jakew said "violate WP:SEEALSO": I think "violate" is far too strong a word here, given that the cited guideline says "generally ... However ...". Why do you think it's not appropriate or compatible with NPOV to discuss (or mention?) FGC in an article that's not about FGC? Does the same apply to clamps, Judaism and the United States, according to you? If so, why aren't you trying to remove mention of them from the article? If not, what's different about FGC? "Slippery slope" arguments aren't very impressive; I see no real reason not to mention FGC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    It's possible that I'm just seeing what I want to see because it's my own position, but aren't you ending up using the same argument that I just posted above? What would be the problem with three articles?
    — V = I * R (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    I have no objection to there being three articles, provided the page titled "Circumcision" is either an article about male circumcision, or a redirect to such. An article about both male and female circumcision can be titled something else, perhaps "Circumcision (male and female)". For my reasons, see the last part of my comment in the thread further up this page, [11], and in the June 2008 discussion, my long comment beginning "Thanks for your reply, Fyslee" near the bottom of this diff. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ohms law, I've explained some of the problems with having an article about male and female circumcision as a combined entity in my post dated 16:54, 17 August 2009. Jakew (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    An article about both male and female circumcision treated as one concept would be of very low notability, I think. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. That's what I tried to express in my remark about it being an "obscure" concept. Jakew (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Coppertwig, if readers do not know that "female circumcision" exists, then it should be obvious that the reader has found what they're looking for, and therefore no disambiguation is needed. To put it another way, the "concern" being expressed is not to do with precision or ambiguity, but is instead that Wikipedia should force-feed the reader with information about "female circumcision", and preferably multiple times, just in case the reader overlooked the first instance. I'm not sure that this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia; it feels uncomfortably soapy to me. Consequently I don't view this as a legitimate concern. An encyclopaedia should give the reader information about the topic (s)he is interested in, it shouldn't take advantage of his/her interest in one topic to try to give him/her information about another, especially when doing so promotes the agenda of one side of a controversial topic. This is why I think it is inappropriate and incompatible with NPOV to discuss FGC in an article about circumcision. To my knowledge, the relevance of circumcision clamps to circumcision is undisputed and non-controversial (that is, that they're used in the procedure is a fact). Similarly, that circumcision is widely practiced in and generally judged important to Judaism is also undisputed and non-controversial. And finally, that circumcision is commonly practiced in the United States is again undisputed and non-controversial. In all of these cases, there is established and easily-documented relevance, and in none of these cases is there an NPOV issue involved in establishing relevance (for example, it would not be surprising to find the statement "circumcision is sometimes performed using a Gomco clamp" at either an anti- or pro-circumcision source). In contrast, the relevance of FGC to circumcision is asserted by anti-circumcision activists when making an analogy between the two in support of their argument that circumcision is awful because it shares characteristic X with FGC. Beyond that analogy, with the exception of similar terms that are sometimes used to describe them, the two are distinct. So, from an NPOV perspective, the harm of not mentioning FGC is minimal: failing to assert a similarity is not the same as asserting a difference. But the harm of mentioning FGC is considerable, since it supports and reinforces the analogy constructed by anti-circumcision activists to advance their position. And in the absence of that analogy, there is no obvious relevance — it is like proposing the sentence: "Like carpentry, male circumcision has been practised for thousands of years" — well, it's technically correct, but it seems inappropriate to be mentioning and linking to a subject that's unrelated. But this is actually worse, because to imply relevance implicitly endorses a POV. Jakew (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    You make some good points, Jake. However, NPOV does not call on us to avoid mentioning things that might support a POV; rather, it calls on us to mention things that support each significant POV. I suggest modifying the following sentence to mention FGC somehow; clearly this sentence is a place in the article where the anti-MC POV is properly supposed to be expressed: "Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that it interferes with normal sexual function, is performed due to excuses and myths believed or conjured by parents and health providers, is extremely painful, and when performed on infants and children violates the individual's human rights." I suggest changing it to " Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that it interferes with normal sexual function, is performed based on myths, is extremely painful, and that when male circumcision is performed on infants and children it violates the individual's human rights no less than does female circumcision."
    I wouldn't call it "force-feeding". I don't go to an encyclopedia article looking for information I already know about; I look for information related to a topic, and the most interesting is when I learn new things I didn't know about before. The harm of mentioning something is very small: a reader not interested can simply go on to the next sentence, but the benefit is great because the reader who hadn't known about it but is interested can click on the link and read a whole other article and more. See this comment by the arbitrator Carcharoth in the Fringe Science arbitration case: "At the moment, though, getting from the current Age of the Earth article to any of the other articles is not easy. All links and mention of religion seem to have been carefully removed. When navigation between articles is being affected, I would personally say things have gone too far." [12] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As explained the last time by Jake and as explained several times by myself in the archives the previous times this was discussed. -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Another procedural point. I am uncertain as to why this was relisted. Relisting usually occurs when there are too few responses to indicate anything. Here there were multiple responses, and there was clearly no consensus to move either article. -- Avi (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I defer to prior comments. However, I am also uncertain why this was relisted, and question the assessment of whomever closed it. By my count (and only a superficial one at that), 10 editors opposed the proposal and 4 supported it -- that seems a preliminary consensus to me which obviates a relisting. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Likewise, I also refer to my comments in the above section. I would also question whether relisting was appropriate (and would also question whether it was best for someone involved in the discussion to decide to close and relist), but it seems rather too late to change now. Jakew (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support name change since this article only talks about male circumcision and neglects all mention of female circumcision.
    I would be willing to compromise by merging aspects of female circumcision into this article to briefly cover both genders with more details going into the stubs or creating a new genderless circumcision article that stubs out to this page for male circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the reasons given in the identical move request last week (above), and for which there was a clear and strong consensus against moving. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose and procedural close, no proper reason to relist. For actual arguments see previous discussion. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Coppertwig. --JN466 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Procedure

I don't really understand what you guys are complaining about. First, consensus was anything but clear simply due to the fact that the "old" movereq turned into a massive wall of text (and this one seems to be quickly headed in the same direction). More importantly though, any one of you has as much right to close this discussion as I had to "close" that discussion. Further, the "closure" was the neutral line to take anyway, since it kept the request out of the backlog without pushing my own or anyone else's opinion against any perceived consensus. Aside from all of that, I'm only here at all because the movereq was made in the first place. You guys asked, so I provided my WP:3O. If as a group you all feel that consensus has been reached then summarize what it is, close the discussion, and page an admin to implement a move if required. Please be at least have the curtesy of getting off of my back though... this public bashing of my action in trying to help out here is starting to piss my off, to be honest.
— V = I * R (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's what happens here, because the page is run by a cabal of people who want to maintain the presentation of the topic in a certain way. Anybody who comes along and differs from the cabal gets this sort of treatment. I came in response to an RfC, tried to make some changes, and got short-shrift. I gave up, as I suspect do most people who come along, because the cabal wikilawyer policies like weapons, referring to ANI at the drop of a hat. This is the sort of page that gets the encyclopedia a bad name, and stops most academics allowing students to use it - although I heard recently that doctors in the USA actually use it as a reference - ha ha ha. How screwed is that? Don't take it personally. Mish (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Now you've got me considering pushing this whole mess up the food chain to one of the dispute resolution mechanisms...
— V = I * R (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts regardless of our opposing votes. To be honest I don't see the relisting as an issue but I think there seems to be more support for a new structure merge of both sexes with more detailed stubs out to the sexes (we can fight about the names later). Garycompugeek (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't an existing article (genital modification and mutilation) already serve that function? AlphaEta 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The primary issue here is that there's no actual consensus building occurring. Everyone needs to stop re-stating their entrenched positions and decide what they can compromise on. Being unaware of the history (and, somewhat intentionally, remaining unaware of the details) I thought that my reworking into a tree of articles suggestion was a compromise position, but that seems to be (one of?) the point of contention. I'm very willing to attempt brokering a compromise here if everyone is willing to spell out what they can compromise on (without restating their 1000 word position, please!).
    — V = I * R (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A tree sounds good. Genital cutting (general) branching into FGC and MGC, with MC as a branch off of MGC (and FC as a branch off of FGC), with other branches off of FGC and MGC (such as excision of the clitoris or penis bifurcation). Not keen on 'Genital modification and mutilation', because one man's mutilation is another man's modification - would prefer mutilation kept out of the title, and controversies around what is & isn't mutilation reserved for article (some would say a consented 'Prince Albert' was mutilation, while others would say an infant circumcision that was not for a specific medical problem was mutilation). Mish (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't understand, we just had a discussion about this. There wasn't any consensus to move. Why are we restarting this again? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly. No consensus. Thats what we are trying to develope. Some say yes and some say no. The same editor closed and relisted to continue discussion. Seems there is more support for a structual change than name changes. What are your thoughts? Garycompugeek (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe I didn't phrase that clearly. There was a clear majority favoring not moving. By my count 10 opposed and 5 favored. So why are we continuing this? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Good thing we don't count votes then eh? Arguments are weighed accordingly regardless of numbers. Anyone may relist a request for more discussion. You are not required to participate. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • reconstruction, yes. Mish (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This move request and the discussion is somewhat confused and nonsensical since some of those "opposing" the moves actually do agree, per any dictionary and any educated common sense, that circumcision refers to something done to both males and females; this despite the fact in the West it is only permissible and common to do to males. Thus some "opposing" agree that the current organization is inappropriate -- but this will no doubt be intentionally misinterpreted as a consensus for resistance to any change by the religious special interests and male circumcision advocates who currently dictate the article's content and organization. Unfortunately it seems that these interests will continue to win out over all the mainstream dictionaries and most of the mainstream sources, all the real Google numbers (and not the bogus, invented ones), and all common sense, and perpetuate their widely distributed non-neutral POV brochure for male circumcision. Maybe the solution is to start reading Citizendium, and tell your friends about it. Wikipedia seems lost to these special interests and fanatics. Blackworm (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that some peoples' positions seem self-contradictory and nonsensical to you, Blackworm, but they don't seem so to me. If certain distinctions are made, any apparent contradictions disappear. Agreeing that the word "circumcision" sometimes refers to both male and female circumcision is not the same thing as agreeing that the word always or most often refers to both. Agreeing that the word refers to both (whether sometimes or always) is not the same thing as agreeing that the current organization is inappropriate.
Gary: would you please explain what you mean when you use the word "stub"? Sorry. I'm just trying to understand. On Wikipedia, usually "stub" refers to a short, incomplete article that needs to be expanded, not to any part of an organization of articles that's in a relatively finished state, so I just don't get what you mean. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure Coppertwig. I just mean a link to another article of more detail like we have all over the current article. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Long series of changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago54 comments7 people in discussion

This diff showing multiple revisions includes multiple changes that, in my view, require discussion.

I fixed the image and added it below the old lead: Image:Diagram_of_circumcised_penis.png; the text is quite readable, especially at full resolution. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Movement of Image:Activist.jpg. I don't have strong views about this, personally (I view including the image anywhere in this article as undue weight, but that's another matter), but what's the rationale?
  • Addition of Image:Circumcionscar.png and Image:Penisschafthaut_mit_Eichelkranz_vernäht.jpg to the complications section. I think this is a little excessive, and both photographs are technically poorer (lighting, etc) than the one discussed in the next bullet point.
  • Removal of Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg from the complications section. Why?
  • Addition of fairly lengthy paragraph re David Reimer. Tragic as it was, that was a single case. Per WP:MEDASSESS: "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources."
  • Replacement of sexasnatureintendedit.com with norm-uk.org. I agree with replacement of the link, but not with the description ("public education on circumcision and other forms of surgical alteration of the genitals"). This text is not the title of the site itself, and indeed I couldn't find that exact phrase on the Internet. I am particularly concerned as this doesn't conform to WP:NPOV — the word "education" suggests the passing of accurate information from the better-informed to the less-informed. We're using the titles used by the sites themselves. The page title for norm-uk's homepage is "Foreskin - Are you missing something?".
  • Marking of aish.com link with {{off-topic?}}. There's no justification for this. It's as on-topic as any other link relating to circumcision.

It would be good if editors would follow the advice at the top of this page: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them..." Jakew (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did give explanations with each change, both in the summary of the change and on the talk page.
  • First, the article is already overburdened by traditional/cultural images, which is undue when there is already an article on this - I used an image already on the page that showed the difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis, which is the main purpose of the image - the issue of the complication seems to be incidental to the main purpose of the image. It is entirely appropriate to show an image of what an article is about - the former image did not.
  • I can't comment why the image no longer works, it did when I moved it, showing the differences, now it doesnt,.
  • In discussion it was suggested that this was a summary of another article, and it was excessive to have three images, one of which was only peripherally related to the subject of circumcision - especially when there is another article linked to for the section on the religious significance of the practice. Circumcision is not central to Christianity, and as Jesus was a Jew, an image relating to Judaism already features in the section - what is the rationale of including an archaic image like this?
  • I cannot change the naming of an image on Wikimedia Commons, but did not notice the error when I copied and pasted the description.
  • It looked untidy, bunched up the edit tab, so I moved into the first large section, which was more appropriate (consent is one of the key issues, I believe) and this creates a tidier appearance.
  • These were available on the Commons, and illustrate two issues.
  • This is an image to show the differences, and any complication is incidental (and not substantial).
  • This is a highly significant case, well documented, and far from anecdote - it is a case that lies at the heart of debates about non-consensual genital surgery. It is probably the most notable circumcision since that of Jesus. Google scholar returns over 500 scholarly articles on the "John/Joan" case, over 150 for "David Reimer" and circumcision; Google Books gives over 100 books that refer to "David Reimer" and circumcision, with over 400 referring to the "John/Joan" case. This means it is a case referred to in up to 1,000 reliable sources. That is before doing basic Google web searches (over 7,000 hits of "John/Joan" case, and over 4,000 for "David Reimer" circumcision - making up at least 10,000 online references).
  • I have restated the link to women's sexual pleasure and circumcision by adding a link to a pro-circumcision link, increasing the links to six for and six against (one UK for and against). I'm not sure why the one on women's experiences is here, as it seems tangential to the article - but it seems some people like it.
  • The description of the site is "To advance the education of the public in all matters relating to circumcision and other forms of surgical alteration of the genitals, including alternative treatments and offering information and advice on such matters." which is reproduced directly below the name 'Norm-UK' - I don't see what you are referring to on the home page.
  • It is the only religious group on a page that deals with issues about circumcision - there is an article about religious circumcision and the EL should be there. Religious issues tend to confuse these issues, as they are only important to people concerned with their religion. That is why there is a page for religious and cultural circumcision.
  • That was hidden, and it seems clear that discussion on this page tends to meet with stonewalling and deadlock - which is why I edited what I saw as problematic in the way I did, as per WP:BOLD.
I hope this answers all your questions, for the second time. Mish (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) To address these issues in turn:

  • Illustrating the article with an image of a complication would, as I stated, have NPOV implications. However, I think that the current lead image is satisfactory.
  • Regarding religious imagery, I think you're making the mistake of assuming that since an a detailed article exists about religious circumcision, this article shouldn't cover that subject. As I've stated previously, this article acts as a summary for many detailed articles, and if we applied the same reasoning, we'd find that no images were suitable for inclusion.
  • Regarding the diagram image, if you notice the image itself includes the words "Circumsized Human Penis". That is the problem.
I fixed the image and added it below the old lead: Image:Diagram_of_circumcised_penis.png; the text is quite readable, especially at full resolution. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding the activist image, your rationale seems reasonable.
  • Regarding the complications images, I think 3 is excessive. Let's keep 2. I suggest removing File:Circumcisionscar.png, on grounds that it is poorly lit and the scarring isn't even particularly obvious.
  • Regarding Reimer, it's hard to see how the case could be anything other than anecdote ("a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical."[13]). Case reports involving a single individual couldn't be otherwise. The number of sources that support the anecdote is a separate issue from whether the matter should be discussed.
  • I think 12 ELs is a bit ridiculous, and we're going to have to cut the number back down again shortly...
  • Re NORM-UK, the words "Foreskin - Are You Missing Something?" appear as part of the page title, which should appear in the title bar of your browser window. The trouble with the description you've added is that it's not a literal quote (so it can't be attributed) and it doesn't conform to NPOV (so it needs to be).
  • Re the religious link, please see my second bullet point. This article is about all aspects of circumcision, not all except religion. Jakew (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Seeing you don't like the entry on David Reimer in the medical section, I have created a new section on circumcision in the media and academic discourse, and put it there. It needs to go in, as it is the most widely written about case of botched circumcision you will find. I am unclear why this should be omitted from the medical section, as it has been written about in medical journals in many countries, and while John Money was a professor of clinical psychology, he worked with the medical team at John Hopkins; similarly, Milton Diamond is a professor of human anatomy. There are many papers in peer-reviewed journals and books which discuss Reimer across a range of disciplines, including medicine, as well as two documentaries in the UK and more (I believe) in the USA. Mish (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have researched this and find it quite notable. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That doesn't solve the problem, Mish. It still fails WP:MEDASSESS, and it's still undue weight to focus on a single circumcision out of millions (and, less importantly, I suspect that the claim that "The most well-known, recent, case of a circumcision was that of David Reimer" is original research). I'm not saying that Wikipedia should exclude mention of Reimer altogether. There is a perfectly good article about him, and that's fine, because there are plenty of biographical sources available. But in the context of circumcision, it's just sensationalism. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The David Reimer case may be quite notable in itself, and still not be very notable within the topic of circumcision. The David Reimer case may be more notable in relation to other aspects, e.g. surgery in general; sex reassignment; the role of psychologists etc., with circumcision being perhaps a relatively small (though of course essential) aspect. One way to test this is: in a typical book about circumcision, how much space is given to the David Reimer case? That's one way to determine due weight, and to test that, I did Google Books searches as follows: "Reimer subject:Circumcision" 6 hits '"David Reimer" subject:Circumcision': 1 hit (1 paragraph) "Jesus subject:Circumcision" 53 hits "Judaism subject:Circumcision": 519 hits. When searching for "Reimer", most of the hits seemed irrelevant (e.g. "G. Reimer"), with perhaps only the one being relevant. So, within the topic of circumcision, Jesus and Judaism are (apparently, based on this rough Google Books search) much more notable than David Reimer. There may be better ways to determine due weight; if you have the time you can try other ways. Based on this search, I agree with Jake that it would not be appropriate to mention David Reimer in this article.
MishMich, I'm glad you're participating here. We've had pretty much the same small number of editors here for quite a while and it's nice to have someone new. This is a summary article as described at WP:SUMMARY: it's not a summary of one other article, but of a collection of other articles. This article in itself should still be a well-balanced presentation of the topic. There's no reason to exclude religion nor to exclude a link just because it's religious.
Previously there was consensus on the relative lengths of the various sections here.
I disagree with increasing the number of ELs. Wikipedia is not a directory; we don't need to list a lot of ELs in this article.
MishMich: I consider that you're doing too many reverts. You've reverted 3 other editors in adding more ELs, while I don't think anybody but yourself has supported increasing the number. You've re-added the David Reimer material, without consensus, after Jake expressed objection to it here on the talk page. You're not even supposed to edit material into the article without discussing it first, except non-controversial changes (see the "controversial" template above). Please at least follow WP:BRD.
The only reason I'm not reverting at the moment (the ELs and the David Reimer addition; I haven't had time to evaluate other changes) is that I voluntarily follow 1RR. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I concur. With an article as contentious as this one, I agree that any significant changes need to be discussed one at a time. -- Avi (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that these argumanets hold any weight, as Reimer's is the most well-known case of what can go wrong with this procedure both in contemporary literature and the media, and on that basis it deserves to be mentioned in this article. The other changes have been discussed and worked-through, in a way that circumvents stonewalling to prevent detail that does not accord with certain POVs. This need not be a contentious article - it is not rocket science, some people approve of non-consensual genital surgery, others do not, and both have reasons for their positions. As long as both views are allowed sufficient space for expression, there will be no controversy. Mish (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mish is following WP:BRD, I'm sure your all acqauinted with it. Apparently you've stirred up the pro circ camp a bit. You will find that these three do not like any mention circumcision critisicm. You doing a good job and have my thanks and support for improving the article. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary, why do you believe Mish's lead picture is better than the one we had. We know we are not censored, but the lead image does not have to be "in-your-face" genitalia. -- Avi (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am neutral about the picture. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, Gary, don't forget being too bold can get you blocked for edit warring if you ignore those with whom you disagree. -- Avi (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

section break

I have responded to these accusations in the appropriate place. I will not discuss that here - and it is inappropriate for the person who himself has reverted material he does not like four times in 27 hours and then accuses others of edit-warring to discuss it here either.
I have given a reason why the photo illustrating circumcision is more appropriate than an archaic image that would be better placed in the history or religion/culture section. Mish (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:Diagram of circumcized penis.png why MishMich put in the lead has some good qualities, but I agree with objections raised by Jake and Avi. "Circumcized" seems to be a misspelling, based on Google hits. I also find the text in the image too small to read. Also, images usually have captions; I'm not sure whether this one would be exempt. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the image and added it below the old lead: Image:Diagram_of_circumcised_penis.png; the text is quite readable, especially at full resolution. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Re flaccid and erect image: A fairly recent previous version of the article had this image: Image:Erection Homme.jpg. If the other one isn't working, I suggest we use it instead. The other one is Image:Penis when flaccid and erect.jpg (nonexistent?). The advantage of using one of these two images, as I see it, is that it shows a penis both flaccid and erect, and matches the circumcised image Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg which also shows both flaccid and erect. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The image can be expanded by clicking on it - or else it can be made larger, although I don't know that is appropriate in the lead. I am not sure why the text is not displaying, as there is text entered, but I'm reluctant to do anything with it until the accusation of edit warring is dealt with. Mish (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would much prefer that image a section or so down. Again, wikipedia is not censored, but we do not have to have open genitalia images at the very top. That image would be sensibly placed at the Circumcision#Modern circumcision procedures. -- Avi (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on it and made it bigger, and it was still illegible. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry: it's not bad if I also put on reading glasses. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot more books about Jesus than about David Reimer. According to the Google Scholar search I did, Jesus is much more notable within books about circumcision than David Reimer is. I weakly support having the image re Jesus. I'm not convinced Reimer is worth a mention but might be convinced if someone persuades me based on sources, as I described above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Since MishMich mentioned "media" among other things in the edit summary while self-reverting, I did a Google News search. I found an article primarily about circumcision (in terms of ethics etc) which mentions David Reimer: [14]. So that's a start (now we have two). There may also be articles to be found in Google Scholar. And elsewhere of course. The question is: of all books and articles about circumcision, how many mention Reimer and how much space to they devote to him? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it works fine for me when I click it, and I'm only using an old laptop running linux.
Reimer is important, because his experience gives a human face to what we are discussing - granted what he experienced was appalling, but it was his circumcision that led to his life being so wretched. The problem was the use he was put to following the loss of his penis, by a psychologist who used him to try and prove his theories about gender. But, it was his circumcision that set him up for that. I don't think you appreciate how significant the discussion about Reimer and his circumcision is in the wider context of infant genital surgery (in which male circumcision is only one aspect of such surgery). There are hundreds of references to Reimer's circumcision in peer-reviewed journals and books, because his circumcision is pivotal to his experience, and John Money's theory of gender - which was discredited when the truth about Reimer's inability to adapt to the gender role he was assigned following his loss of penis was revealed. The circumcision is not peripheral to this story, but central, which is why you would find it hard to find a reliable source about David Reimer that does not detail his circumcision. Most of these references are in connection with childhood genital surgery.
Of course there are a lot more references to Jesus than Reimer, as he is the best known historical figure who has feast days commemorating his circumcision - but Reimer is a contemporary story independent of any religious connotations. My objection to Jesus' circumcision is because there are already two appropriate religious images, where circumcision is central to the beliefs of those religions - Jesus' circumcision is relevant to his being a Jew, not that significant to circumcision generally; the religion that built up around him after he died rejected circumcision.
I'm happy for the image to feature lower down, if it upsets people's sensitivity (I have none when it comes to this sort of thing - I only object to images of infant genitalia) - possibly under the medical section. I cannot see the point of the existing image though, as there are already two religion/culture-specific images in the article, and it would be better to have a contemporary religion-neutral image in the lead.
My main concern is that it is seen as relevant to have medical information, religious information, international and national medical bodies positions, international agency links - yet there is no detail about circumcision within popular culture, the media, academia, and no content relating to national perspectives on these issues. This may be what gives the article the look of being unbalanced - too limited a perspective. It would be better to broaden this - either that or establish articles illustrating national perspectives on circumcision (which seems undue - although by relocating the national medical sections that would help to reduce the material in this article) and to deal with media/society/academic/popular-culture/etc if there is no place for this here. Mish (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Circumcision is doubtless important within the context of David Reimer, but that isn't the subject of this article. There is another article about David Reimer, and in the context of that article statements such as "[Reimer's] circumcision is pivotal to his experience" are important. The subject of this article is circumcision, and hence — as Coppertwig notes — the question is "of all books and articles about circumcision, how many mention Reimer and how much space to they devote to him?"
Another question is: "what is the point of mentioning Reimer, and can that point be made in a better way?" As WP:MEDASSESS states, "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." That doesn't mean that issues can't be discussed; it just means that case reports are a poor way to do it. If the point is that loss of the penis can occur, note that the complications section already states: "The penis is thought to be lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[142]" This presents the information in a more concise, more encyclopaedic manner, citing a reliable source (the Royal Australasian College of Physicians), and indicating the frequency with which it occurs. Jakew (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The point is this is the most infamously documented botched circumcision which makes it notable and interesting to readers who come to the circumcision page. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. There are no specific examples of botched procedures on Surgery, no matter how famous. Why should circumcision be any different? If the event is so notable, create a wikipedia article for it on its own. -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes and I've disagreed with you before. Feel free insert an infamous botched surgery ref into Surgery (you can use the circumcision one if you want). So you and Jake do not feel that readers coming to the circumcision page would find this notable? Nothing to do with your POVs? Please try to open your mind a bit. I know I find it interesting and notable. Shall we just do an RFC since we rarely agree on anything and I'm tired of this circular logic? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Note my proposal in the section below for a very brief mention. If necessary, an RfC may be a good idea (after we've given it a good try trying to solve it among ourselves). If so, I suggest people work together on the wording of the RfC. (I may or may not have time to be involved.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving towards consensus

Mish, would you be kind enough to briefly summarise the changes for which you believe we already have consensus? It occurs to me that, assuming nobody objects, we might as well apply those changes while discussing what remains. Jakew (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Moving the activist image
  • Inserting the illustrative diagram of a circumcised penis, but not in the lead
I fixed the image and added it below the old lead: Image:Diagram_of_circumcised_penis.png; the text is quite readable, especially at full resolution. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Including a second image of surgical complication, but not the one with scarring

Still undecided:

  • Image of a child being circumcised by a group of men from the 19th Century in the lead to be replaced
  • Religious image of Jesus' circumcision to be removed
  • Inclusion of section about contemporary circumcision in society, the media, popular culture and academic discourse
  • Inclusion of sentence about David Reimer in that section

Mish (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the lead image, that of the Turkish circumcision, it should be noted that circumcision is a process and an image of the process is appropriate. Compare with the lead image in Surgery, where the image is of a surgery, not a removed appendix or appendectomy scar. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • MishMich, thanks for listing the changes in a concise, well-organized way; it makes it much easier.
  • I agree on moving the activist image to the "consent" subsection where it's more relevant, and have implemented this change.
  • I agree with Avi that a lead image showing the process is fine.
  • I'm not opposed to increasing the relative amount of information in the article about social aspects. I consider that the ethics section, and arguably the cultures and religion and history sections, are already in this category. However, added material should fit into clearly defined topic headings. I find "circumcision in society, the media, popular culture and academic discourse" to be too vague. Where it's in academic discourse, I suggest figuring out what aspects of it they're discussing and proposing a new heading or subheading focussing on one of those aspects.
  • Re Jesus: you had said, "It is probably the most notable circumcision since that of Jesus." This implicitly assumes that the circumcision of Jesus was notable. See also my web search results above. Jesus is more notable than the man in the activist image. I think an image of the circumcision of Jesus adds a dimension to this article and I would like to keep it.
  • Re David Reimer: I think it may be a good idea to have a very brief mention, with a wikilink to the David Reimer article. I suggest adding it to the sentence Jake quoted, making it: "The penis is thought to be lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions,[1] for example in the David Reimer case." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most of this
  • I am not averse to mention of Jesus, but an image seems undue - as this ought to feature in the linked article on religious aspects - especially when there are already three religious/cultural images (one in the lead, and two in the section).
  • Sure, it is a process, and religious/cultural circumcision as shown in this image is only one process, and so should be balanced with an image of medical circumcision; as I am opposed to images of infant genitalia on Wikipedia (or anywhere) without the subject's own informed consent, I would not be seeking to insert such an image here, although a consented photo of adult medical circumcision would be preferable. In the absence of such a photo, an explanatory photo of a circumcised penis would be the next-best thing. I am still unsure about the existing archaic photo - but, I guess there will still be people practicing what is being portrayed in some parts of the world.
  • The social/academic aspects needs working on in a sandbox, and will take time - but I'm happy to be involved in that (I am more interested in that than either the medical or religious aspects).
  • I think that linking to Reimer in the way you describe would be good.
Mish (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

David Reimer

(continued from above) - Tremello22 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't link to Reimer in the manner described. It would violate both WP:SYN (unless the RACP specifically refer to Reimer, we can't cite another source as an example of what the first source discusses) and WP:MEDASSESS (as quoted above, clearly stating that case reports are unsuitable). Jakew (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because it says we shouldn't doesn't mean we can't. It's notability nominates it for inclusion. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It is true that just because it says this about medical articles we wouldn't have to, but this is not a medical article - the medical article is linked to, although much information from that article also seems to be reproduced here as well, quite extensively. I can see why Jake is confused - I am not looking to cite Reimer in relation to medicine, but sexology, which is not subject to this requirement, where what is important are WP:RS - papers and books about Reimer all detail his circumcision, and the accuracy of his being castrated following ablation of his penis during circumcision is not open to question. The article is not WP:OWN owned by medicine, and this is illustrated by the inclusion of non-medical circumcision - it also comes under the sexology project. This highlights the deficiency of constraining the focus of this article on only medicine, religion (and ethics); there is little attention paid to sexology and sexuality, despite RfCs being made to the sexology project. An expansion of the article to cover social and academic (including sexology) perspectives will address this, and it would be wrong for one editor to enforce a particular (medical) bias on a more general article to exclude relevant information. Mish (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Parts of this article certainly cover medical or health-related subjects, and indeed this can be said of the entire article to some extent, given that it is about a surgical procedure. Thus it is within the scope of WP:MEDRS (including WP:MEDASSESS) "These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources with specific attention to sources appropriate for medical and health-related articles." Indeed, it is quite absurd to suggest that the "Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)" guideline (to give it its full title) does not apply when discussing a complication of a surgical procedure that (in Reimer's case) was performed to treat phimosis — a medical condition! I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to include a case report such as this, but nevertheless I will await your proposed addition with interest. Jakew (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You avoided responding to my comment. But I understand, you think this is a medical article, even though it incorporates non-medical religious practices involving genital medification, and do not like acknowledging social issues that do not conform to a medical POV. It is a problem many medical professionals have, particularly in the USA. Mish (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have discussed changes to the structure of the article before (Talk:Circumcision/Archive_55#Structure_of_article) as I too agree with Mish that the article focuses too much on medical studies (as if that is what most people are interested in). It lacks any insight into the cultural/historical aspects of routine infant circumcision (non-therapeutic infant circumcision) and doesn't fully explain to the reader the different attitudes to it. Nor do we get the impression as fully as we should that that RIC is as Wallerstein and Darby have put it, a uniquely American enigma. To me, medical studies should be secondary to a cultural/historical perspective. The change I proposed was stonewalled as so often happens but I think that within the new structure I proposed, mention of Reimer could have happened more easily under the section Routine infant circumcision and the circumcision debate. Reimer most probably didn't have a pathological phimosis, it was probably misdiagnosed by uneducated American doctors. He probably had normal developmental non-retractability. Unfortunately, he is not the last person to have his penis lasered off either.
File:Circumcision_central_Asia2.jpg should replace the Jesus pic as there are enough religious pics and Christians don't circumcise so it probably creates an undue weight problem. Tremello22 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Jake, when I first read your objection to my Reimer half-sentence my first reaction was "Come on, Jake, this time you're really taking SYN too far." But actually, you're right! It's not verifiable that Reimer "lost" his penis. Some sources say "burned off" or "severed", but others say "damaged" or "burned", and one says "what was left of his penis". So the sentence as I proposed it wouldn't fly. Furthermore, I looked at the refs given at the David Reimer article and I don't get the impression from those that the case is very notable in reliable sources. It seems to be mostly a smallish number of media sources. So I withdraw for now my suggestion to insert a mention of Reimer. MishMich, you don't get it: it's not enough that lots of articles about Reimer mention circumcision. That means that circumcision is notable within the topic of Reimer, but doesn't establish that Reimer is notable within the topic of circumcision. Preferably I would want to see books about circumcision (meeting RS standards) that give significant weight to discussing Reimer. Articles may do too. I think we have so far the two I found (one book and one article). We would need more I think. Maybe you can find some.
Tremello, I suggest you read my comment on MishMich's talk page about how I got a proposed change accepted: [15] and [16]. It takes work, and reliable sources, and convincing arguments. If you've previously presented your proposed changes on the talk page in a focussed and organized way closely connected with arguments you consider convincing, I suggest you give us a diff to that part of the talk page history. If you think your views weren't given a fair hearing, you can always go for RfC (but I suggest first discussing again here, then working together on the wording of the RfC). It's really about convincing us that the literature gives a certain amount of weight to something, and coming up with good-quality sourced text to insert. I'm sure there's lots of info out there in the published sources that we haven't tapped. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes and read what I wrote beneath it on Mish's talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that makes sense, Tremello - it would be more appropriate in place of the Jesus image, and a simple 'Jesus was a well-known example of ritual circumcision' should suffice.
Reimer's penis was burned off, for example, in Pediatrics (journal) (US peer reviewed medical journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics):
  • A Newborn Infant With a Disorder of Sexual Differentiation, Martin T. Stein, David E. Sandberg, Tom Mazur, Erica Eugster and Jorge Daaboul, Pediatrics 2004;114;1473-1477 [[17]]

1st case: John/Joan (Reimer)

  • "The individual in this case has a 46,XY karyotype and was born with normally formed male genitalia. After a circumcision accident at the age of 7 months left him without a penis, the child’s gender was reassigned but not until 17 months, and the child was subsequently reared as a girl."

2nd case (anonymous)

  • "The impact of the John/Joan case for clinical practice is also tempered by the report of another child with a traumatic amputation of the penis with considerably different outcome."

and

  • Experiment of Nurture: Ablatio Penis at 2 Months, Sex Reassignment at 7 Months, and a Psychosexual Follow-up in Young Adulthood Susan J. Bradley, Gillian D. Oliver, Avinoam B. Chernick and Kenneth J. Zucker

Pediatrics. 1998;102;e9 [18]

1st case: John/Joan (Reimer)

  • "Money applied the guidelines of psychosexual management for intersex children to a case of a biologically normal male infant (one of a pair of monozygotic twins) whose penis was accidentally ablated (flush with the abdominal wall) during a circumcision by electrocautery at 7 months of age. It then necrosed and sloughed off. The decision to reassign the infant boy to the female sex and to rear him as a girl was made when he was 17 months of age, with surgical castration and initial genital reconstruction performed at 21 months of age, which fall at the upper bound of the age range recommended for sex assignment (or reassignment) of infants born with physical intersex conditions."

2nd case (anonymous)

  • "CASE REPORT"
  • "The patient is a chromosomal 46 XY male. During an electrocautery circumcision at 2 months of age, the patient sustained a burn of the skin of the entire penile shaft, and the penis eventually sloughed off. Consequently, the patient was unable to void through the urethra, resulting in a suprapubic cystostoma. The patient was hospitalized subsequently for care of the surgical complications, and at 7 months of age was referred to Johns Hopkins Hospital (by ABC, the mother’s obstetrician and the physician who had delivered the patient), where the remainder of the penis and the testes were removed. The suprapubic cystostoma was eventually closed, and the patient was then able to void through the urethra. Sometime between the circumcision accident and the hospital admission, the decision was made to reassign the patient as a female and to raise the baby as a girl. This was recognized formally at the time the patient was admitted to Johns Hopkins, because the infant was identified in hospital records as female."

These show how in two such cases, the clinical practice for circumcisions that resulted in infant penile ablation were castration and gender reassignment as female, in accordance with John Money's recommendations for management of such cases. Either these were used as experiments, or this was standard practice for such cases - either way, this ought to be notable in an article on circumcision. Is there any other information about the treatments offered to parents whose child lost their penis this way? I still fail to see why this is not relevant to an article on circumcision, nor why this is synthetic when the circumcisions are discussed in Pediatrics in relation to the treatment received because of the loss of the penis in this way. Mish (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Mish has made a good enough case for inclusion. Now we must agree on: i)how much to write, ii) the wording, and iii)what section it should be in. I suggest the most appropriate place is Non-religious circumcision in the English-speaking world ,since, as has been mentioned, its impact was more cultural rather than medical. Tremello22 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Such questions seem rather premature, Tremello, given that we haven't reached a consensus to include Reimer. Jakew (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what is the problem now then? Mish (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The same problems that have been explained previously, in this section and #Long series of changes, above. Jakew (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And the material you are ignoring from Pediatrics? Mish (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That material appears to consist entirely of case reports. I do not understand the point of quoting case reports when it has already been established that these are unsuitable for use as sources through reference to appropriate WP guidelines. Jakew (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And I pointed out that within sexology and other social sciences, such reports are quite valid. Your point would apply to a medical article, but this isn't - it is also a sexology article - there is a separate medical article for medical policy application; this article also covers religious, legal and social issues, so is clearly not a medical article, and you have no authority to police this article using medical criteria to exclude social aspects. The reports featured in 'Pediatrics' - which contains discussions about issues that are highly relevant to procedures on children and infants. Similarly, you suggested reports of single-case studies, but here we have two case studies, cited because of the same result - two case where circumcision resulted in ablation of the penis, the procedure was followed by castration and gender re-assignment as female. Why are you so keen to exclude information about what happens to people when their circumcision goes wrong? Mish (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Good question Mish. Jake also hasn't responded to your point about the fact that this isn't just a medical article therefore we mustn't solely use medical article guidelines to define inclusion criteria. I am in agreement that Reimer achieved sufficient cultural impact to worthy a mention. The problem is, Jake has structured the article in a medical way so we may it difficult to find a suitable place for mention of Reimer/ put him in context. Expanding the Non-religious circumcision section maybe one way of putting him in a suitable context. I did do this before a few months back - this was the version I proposed: [19] (Note: article section was also renamed to Medicalisation of circumcision and the advent of 'routine infant circumcision'). I saw it as an improvement because it devoted more weight to the cultural/historical aspects rather than the article being mainly a medical appraisal of the operation. Jake's excuse (when we discussed it: Talk:Circumcision/Archive_55#Structure_of_article) for reverting was that it was too much material. I don't quite understand that because it brought it up to about the same weight as the medical aspects section. Anyway, I think among the longer section it wouldn't look out of place to give a brief mention of Reimer, what do you think? Tremello22 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Complications Of Circumcision". Paediatric Policy – Circumcision. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. 2004. Retrieved 2006-07-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision/Archive_57&oldid=1142373788"