Talk:Circumcision/Archive 9

message: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/101/6/e5
Memorable quote:
::In summary, reasons given for not using anesthesia have been answered by research and experience. Thus, there is no reason for these myths to be perpetuated to the detriment of these infant boys. As stated in 1988,5 if regulations require all animals involved in research surgery to be anesthetized, are we not morally obligated to provide the same care for infant humans?
Thanks to Kasreyn
Unhappy. Dabljuh 11:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and me both.  -Kasreyn 05:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That makes me sick 

message: Hello alls. 
Following this post, I will begin replacing the old article with the new one.  I will do so section for section, as has been suggested by User:Benami. While I do not think that this is going to be particularly useful, it may allow a better overview about the changes in detail. I certainly hope, you will agree that every single section  is replaced with a superior one.
In the following, I will explain my rationale to rewrite the article in the first place.
The old article carries an unbearable amount of WP:NPOV violations. It does not fairly represent the scientific consensus which makes it clear that the benefits of the procedure of routine infant circumcision do not outweight the risks, and is not recommended. It unfairly stresses pro circumcision arguments without setting them in a fair context with the risks and the various diseases that circumcision prevents. And lastly, it almost completely omits the view of the genital integrity movement.
Additionally, the article is mutilated and scarred from age old POV/edit wars. Relevant information has gone completely missing, because it potentially offended either side. The structure is lacking. The flow and an unifying vision of the article have gone totally overboard. But most noticeable is of course the WP:NPOVUW violation.
It is very hard to maintain an NPOV with a topic as sensitive as this. The major problem is, that while there is definitely a good argument for circumcision both being beneficial and a human rights violation, the medical consensus, the mainstream view, is that while the procedure does have benefits, they do not outweight the risks, circumcision is therefore not recommended and must be regarded as a purely social and cultural practice. Also, the mainstream has begun to accept and acknowledge the ethical issues surrounding neonatal circumcision. The genital integrity movement doesn't want to hear about the miniscule advantages of circumcision and instead recognizes it variously as a male genital mutilation, sex crime, or child sexual abuse. Circumcised guys, and circumcision advocates in general on the other hand, do not want hear about any adverse effects, and certainly not about it being anything bad whatsoever, and cling on to the positive aspects of circumcision. 
One of my biggest complaints about the original article was its lack of relevant information, gross negligence towards the risks of circumcision and indifference to the medical consensus. We have three aspects here that need to be balanced, and even NPOV itself is barely enough to treat the subject in a fair and sensitive way. But I think I have managed to rewrite the article, so that all sides can be reasonably happy. 
First and foremost, routine circumcision is not a medically indicated practice. This needs to be stressed, anything else would be misleading, counterfactual, and violating WP:NPOV. The benefits of circumcision simply do not outweight the risks of the procedure, period.
Secondly, we have the competing interests of the intactivists and the circumcision advocates. Intactivists want to see the practice outlawed as soon as possible, as they recognize the mainstream view of circumcision not being medically recommended, and full of ethical issues, and as that circumcision does indeed have adverse effects on the adult sexuality.
Thirdly, we have the circumcision advocates, that I mainly identify as guys circumcised themselves. Circumcised guys do not want to read about how bad a procedure, that they did most likely not have a say in, is for their sexual performance, instead, they want to read about how great circumcision is. This is in direct opposition to the medical consensus. Even worse, when they did have a say in it, and now cannot admit any adverse effects.
I have decided to balance the three major points of view the following way:
#The mainstream argument receives the highest prominence. Circumcision as a non-therapeutic medical procedure is not medically recommended, and the indications for a therapeutic treatment is indeed rare, and unfortunately, often overdiagnosed.
#Intactivists merely get a critical view of their argument of adverse effects in the adult. Instead, the ethical issues and the procedural risk factors - that the mainstream acknowledges, are too great to continue routine infant circumcision - are emphasized.
#Advocates will get a reasonable rundown on the positive aspects of circumcision, even though these are miniscule when viewed as a lifetime risk. Provided, of course, the article does properly convey, that medically, the risks of the procedure do not outweight the benefits, and while they might have gotten lucky with their circumcision, the ethical aspects and most importantly, the risks, do not warrant continuation of the procedure as anything but a cultural / social rite.
In short:
- Adverse long term sexual, emotional and health effects are subdued (so advocates have no reason to complain because it offends them)
- Risks are emphasized (necessary to comply with WP:NPOV that demands that the medical consensus is represented as such, as well as making the intactivists happy)
- Ethical issues are emphasized (Fair representation of the intactivist POV)
- Medical benefits are over-emphasized (Sensitive representation of the advocacy POV)
I think it is not possible to achieve an NPOV version that everyone can be happy with, as long as intactivists try to stress the long term sexual, emotional and health effects, or advocates subdue the procedural risks or convey the image there would be medical reason to continue routine neonatal circumcision. What I have created is a compromise, but I think it's the only sensible, and sensitive way. The picture that has to be conveyed is, that while circumcision does have "significant" health benefits, the risks are too great to recommend the practice as a medical operation. This is *exactly* the mainstream POV, and thus in my opinion, the only way this article can comply with WP:NPOV in the long run. Any variation from this formula will result in edit wars and arguments.
Intactivists: You can't tell every circumcised male who will read this article that he's mutilated and less of a man or shit like that. People don't want to hear that, they will simply convince themselves that "Wikipedia spreads nothing but lies" or some shit, even though your argument is perfectly valid! Yes, circumcision is wrong. Every major medical organization will tell you so. But the way to convince people is to stress the risks, and not the long term adverse effects. The risks of the procedure of circumcision itself. Tell them, "Wow, you still got a penis, lucky you!" that will make them think twice about passing this stupid rite on to their children.
Advocates: You cannot possibly convey the image that this procedure would be medically legitimate. It is a social rite, where the risks of the PROCEDURE are greater than the medical benefits. The article will tell you, fairly, about the various medical benefits that you get, but you will have to accept that this must not stop the article from explaining, very clearly, that the RISKS of the PROCEDURE do not warrant a medical recommendation for routine infant circumcision. I understand the desire to tell everyone how great this is, to make yourself feel better, but to distort how the medical consensus is represented in Wikipedia, I cannot tolerate. And according to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia cannot tolerate this, either.
My first and most important rule of thumb for articles on Wikipedia is: Write useful articles, articles that are useful to readers. When you offend half the male population that possibly is reading Wikipedia, the article isn't useful to them - not even to your soapbox arguments - they will simply dismiss the entire article. But if you write a misleading, biased article, that just reinforces common and outdated misconceptions, then the article is ultimately not useful to anyone. Except for people who want to feel better about themselves. If that's what you need, I recommend heroin. Not Wikipedia.
For sensitive topics like these, a balance needs to be maintained.
Dabljuh 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. You can review the old version here, or the very old version (before I started moaning) here! (Old version). What I updated the page with can be reviewed here (Dabljuh's version). Enjoy! Dabljuh 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A word about your lumping circumcised men together as "circumcision advocates." I think you are simply wrong. I doubt most circumcised men have an opinion one way or the other about the medical benefits of circumcision - it's simply a non-issue. As I understand it, those circumcised men who have a non-religious opinion about the subject generally base it on aesthetics, not medicine. The vast majority of circumcised men do not sit around pining for our lost foreskins, and find the (IMNSHO) hysterical claims of anti-circumcision zealots to be pure bunk. It's not that our fragile egos can't bear to hear that we've been "mutilated", but rather that our experience tells us otherwise. Circumcision has made my penis less sensitive to sexual pleasure? Thank God, then - because  personally, if sex felt any better my head would explode! You are also incorrectly interpreting the medical information at hand. Every major medical organization does not, as it happens, say that "circumcision is wrong." As Jakew has pointed out repeatedly, not making a recommendation is just that - not recommending. It is not the same as condemning. As a matter of fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement says, "In the pluralistic society of the United States in which parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice."Benami 20:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, let me translate that to polemic, plain english: "Circumcision isn't a good idea, medically. But: In the US, there's forms of sexual child abuse that are protected by the law *cough freedom of religion cough* so since you can do whatever the hell you like to your kids, you better bring them to us before you kill them yourself." Dabljuh 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (A) This is your own spin on the statement, not the statment itself. (B) You're putting too much emphasis on the religious aspect of it. Most parents who opt for circumcision do not do so because of religion, but for other cultural reasons, like aesthetics. (C) Am I right in reading the history tht you have now completely replaced the article with the one of your own writing? If so, that's not what I meant by replacing it "a section at a time." Benami 20:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you carefully read the statement, you will find that the amount of "spin" I gave it, sadly is minimal. I didn't replace history, I barely changed anything there, I just shortened it significantly to dumb it down to the relevant parts. My rationale: If you want to read it in such excruciating detail, you better go read the real History of circumcision article. I don't know why it shows up so cropped in the diff, you might want to give the sandbox a try - or just read it...  Dabljuh 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning to replace the old article with the new one 

message: I really think that the proclamations of the Council of Florence are out of place in this section, since they have no bearing whatsoever on either Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox practice. The Council was part of a reunion plan between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics, was finally rejected by the Orthodox, and did not have, AFAIK, the Copts or the Ethiopians in mind. I don't know enough about Coptic/Ethiopian circumcision to add anything to the section, though. Benami 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The stuff you removed was fairly unrelated trivia, at best. But someone with more expertise on Coptic/Orthodox rites may want to look into it. Dabljuh 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coptic, Ethiopian practice 

message: Ok, here's my take on the issue: Uncircumcised when used out of the blue is a POV word. I've tried to replace it with "not circumcised" and "intact" in various places. But on the other hand, "not circumcised" is heavy-handed and thus should be used sparingly, and "intact" is also a POV term.
I've figured the following mode of operation useful: 
*When you have a sentence like "Circumcised guys like apples, uncircumcised guys prefer pears" then "uncircumcised" is not a POV term, because it stands in direct contrast to "circumcised". As such, it becomes a technical term, and isn't POV anymore.
*When, in order to point out differences, you instead compare "circumcised" guys with "intact" or "not mutilated in ways that make one useless to a woman" or similiar bullshit then "intact" is a POV term, that implies there was something wrong with circumcised guys.
*In some cases, the attribute of not being uncircumcised is fairly alone, there is no circumcised guys "nearby" to directly contrast. When used in this fashion, "not circumcised" and "intact" are preferrable, as they do not directly have a "circumcised" nearby that they can make look bad
*When on the other hand the term "uncircumcised" is used in places where it is not a comparison with circumcised guys, the term circumcised would become POV, implying there was something wrong with the uncut guys. 
So in short:
*When circ'd and uncirc'd guys are directly compared, use 'uncircumcised'
*When uncirc'd guys are talked about without a direct reference to circd guys, use 'intact'
*If you're not sure, or its some sort of grey area, try to use 'not circumcised'.
I hope this helps to avoid future, idiotic, "intact" vs "uncirc" wars that are totally missing the point. 
Ultimately you are not supposed to use the same term for the same thing over and over. That makes the whole thing boring to read, regardless of POV issues. Dabljuh 11:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Uncircd vs intact"  

message: Some people might want to check out the accusations at this RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh.
While presented as a dispute of multiple users with Dabljuh it is actually an ongoing editing conflict between two groups with a POV difference. I'd say the accusations are one sided, taken out of context, and totally ignore the uncooperative behavior of the accusing editors and their unwillingness to reach consensus. --ZimZum 15:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh 

message: I'm bothered by the mention of David Reimer in the risks of circumcision section. The issue in the Reimer case doesn't seem to be circumcision so much as medical malpractice - he didn't lose his penis as the result of a routine circumcision, but because his doctor grossly misused a piece of surgical equipment not designed for circumcisions. I've tried to come up with a succinct sentence noting that, but I'm having writer's block. Suggestions?Benami 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just say it was a "badly performed" circumcision? I mean, the chance of losing the penis due to circumcision is about 1:1000000 according to some aussies, the real tragedy of the case is that he was used as some sort of sex theory experiment by a fame-crazy psychologist...Dabljuh 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reimer case