Talk:Circumcision/Archive 12

message: I aggressively archived this page, including the most recent discussions, because it was simply unreadable (and because Berserker Ben asked :-).  The most recent stuff is in Archive 11. Nandesuka 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: "the medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven,"
I'm very curious as it is a direct quote from the source.  This article already gives a great deal of undue weight to American opinions of the procedure.  I'd say what it needs is more non-American material for balance, not less.  Kasreyn 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with including it somewhere, but the risks section is not an appropriate place for discussion of benefits. Jakew 07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so why do you insist on "benefits and risks" from the American Assoc?  Looks like a double standard!TipPt 00:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they make a recommendation that both are discussed. They are inseparable. Quoting one but not the other changes the meaning, like changing "recommend that you extinguish naked flames and turn off electricity if you smell gas" to "recommend that you turn off electricity if you smell gas". In contrast, the BMA quote is not a recommendation but commentary, and the sentence structure is such that no meaning is lost by partially quoting. Jakew 08:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jake, why did you remove this? 

message: Jake wrote, "In the UK and much of Europe, almost all circumcisions are performed for medical reasons."  That is not accurate.  In the Europe almost all circumcisions of children are done because the parents are Muslim or Jewish.  In Europe circumcisions that are done to treat an existing medical condition are rare. -- DanBlackham 05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK, Dan, Jews and Muslims together represent about 3.1% of the population, but surveys indicate that 10-15% of young men are circumcised. Jakew 07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakew, out of curiosity:  what is the margin of error for those surveys?  I'm assuming that the margins of error are included in the published texts, as is customary.  I'd say if it's 5% or greater, the difference between the percentages becomes to slim to support the phrase "almost all".  Kasreyn 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3.1% figure comes from UK census data, which is (in theory) a 100% sample, and is generally believed to be accurate. As for the other figure, it's my own summary of several studies. Unfortunately, I don't have the full text of all of them to hand, only summaries. One gives a 95% confidence interval of 9.0% to 15.2% for 16-19 year olds. Taking the low end of that range, there's roughly a 2:1 (5.9:3.1) ratio of medical to religious circumcisions. At the high end, it's roughly 4:1 (12.1:3.1). I was incorrect when I said 'almost all', but this is a clear majority. Jakew 11:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: European circumcisions

message: I've reverted Alienus' revert which, among other things, reintroduced some POV commentary about the BMA's statement, and inappropriately discussed the BMA's assessment of benefits in the risks section. Jakew 10:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange edit

message: MEDICAL ASPECTS
Neonatal circumcision has been studied using cost-benefit analyses.  Largely these have computed the average net lifetime health and financial results of circumcision.  The complications morbidity is compared to the potential gain in expected longevity, and the medical costs of circumcision are compared to the expected reduction in lifetime health costs.[][][]][]  The results have mostly shown neither cost savings nor improved longevity to the practice of neonatal circumcision, and have formed the basis of public health policies. The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) said the medical benefits of circumcision are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, but that it should be the decision of informed parents.[]  The British Medical Association states "The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.” They also state that "parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."[]
:Gone, why? Al 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not gone, just edited somewhat. Edit summaries give reasons for various changes. Jakew 17:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually developing into a reasonably good partnership; Tippt introduces material that doesn't properly represent its sources, or presents it in a POV way, or is simply unsourced POV, and you pare it down to an NPOV presentation. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check it out, before it's Gone... 

message: With great documentation ... that will attract attention.
The only hope is for others to view the issues and bring new consensus.  Otherwise the Topic will continue (forever) to be unstable and lousy.
One might look at the talk between Jakew and I regarding listing medical beneifits (in great detail) TWICE ... at Jakew's insistance.  Broken promises.  Double representation of US assoc statements.  Improper deletion of BMA statments (relating to the double US).  Now this slash, leaving the reader without access to critical information.TipPt 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find an appropriate place in the body of the article to put such material, without duplicating or repeating material that is already there, I encourage you to do so.  Making the introduction be clumsy and overweight, however, is not an acceptable alternative. Nandesuka 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It would help if TipPt would try to think of the reader, rather than the message he feels impelled to impart. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At least there's a good RfC in the works... 

message: What purpose does the 3rd picture serve? We already have one of a clipped, unclipped, erect, not erect penis! What new information does the 3rd picture provide? Honestly I wonder if some people out of drooling perverted exhibitionism post nude pictures of them selves here, great way to chat with people on the internet: “Ya my dicks on wikipedia!” --BerserkerBen 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  While I don't really care one way or the other, I don't necessarily think it's safe to assume the picture was added for the reasons you suspect.  The article on toplessness, for instance, has multiple pictures of both men and women with bare chests.  As a matter of fact, I'm very surprised that we haven't had someone in here yet accusing us of racism for only having pictures of white penises.  Eventually we will, and they won't be happy until we have seven pairs of pics representing every possible color they come in...  sigh.  Can't please everyone.  :P  Kasreyn 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The race problem can be fixed with black and white images. I would like to move the pictures to a section that describes the physical aesthetic aspects of circumcision.--BerserkerBen 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The counter-argument is, why black and white?  Why not Hispanic and white?  We don't want Wikipedia to get into the situation where we judge something's inclusion based on the percentage of that ethnicity in the populace.  And then even if we do pander to the race issue, we're never going to make everyone happy, and we'll upset people who will claim "my god, look at that!  the article has ten different pictures of penises!  you guys are NUTS!"  :P  Kasreyn 09:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe I misread, but I thought he meant "black and white" as in "black and white film, the opposite of color film," the idea being that that would make it not-obvious what the background of the penis-owner is.  But I dunno. Nandesuka 12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, black and white as in grayscale, lets try it. --BerserkerBen 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't it be better to cross that bridge when you come to it? If someone makes a reasonable objection to there only being a caucasian penis used as an example, then it would make sense to worry about that. --Alex uk 86 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you envision crossing that bridge when we come to it?  Someone complains that there are only images of caucasian penises, so the solution is. . . change them to greyscale!  The original objector might rightly object that we then just have images of greyscale caucasian penises.  If we convert them into greyscale now, and that really does help obscure skin color, then we might avoid complaints that couldn't be dealt with by just converting to greyscale. LWizard @ 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  It's a waste of time to try to prepare for future complaints.  We have no way of knowing what sort of person will come here, or in what way they might be offended, until they say so.  Kasreyn 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ohh.  Wow, I'm an idiot.  -_-;;  Kasreyn 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What makes you think that the photos are "caucasian"? The one that was recently replaced by the current photo number 2 (and which I for my part considered demonstrated more clearly the structure of an uncircumcised penis) was that of a Chinese man. Curiously, it appears to have been replaced on the grounds that it was somehow less attractive than the photo of the rather inflamed and orange-coloured circumcised penis. Masalai 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol. i don't like the look of the circ'd penis either (no offence to the own of that penis), but its a fair example of a circ'd penis. Likewise the uncirced is a fair example of an uncirced. Anyway, to the point, i don't think its racist or unreasonable to leave both pictures as they are and save ourselves the effort, i agree that maybe changing them might stop someone objecting about racism, but i'm sure they were not put there with racist intent and they sure as hell will find something to object about if they really want to! (perhaps even this discussion?!?)--Alex uk 86 16:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the cut one does looks smaller I would say that’s a subtle put down. What bothers me though is how someone managed to censor it! It like someone purposely mocking my tag!  --BerserkerBen 18:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just reverted it, i'll put a comment on that images discussion in a sec. (oo, look at me all wikified - assuming its the right thing to do)Alex uk 86 22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how was it done and who did it? Oh I see never mind my bad.--BerserkerBen 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Masalai, I don't think that's inflammation you're seeing.  That reddish ring around the penis, well below the glans, is simply a circumcision scar.  Some circumcision scars are broader than others, depending on how neat a job was done.  The orange aspect is simply poor color balance in the image, which may be due to poor original lighting.  If it really bothers you, some photoshopping could provide it a more natural appearance.  Kasreyn 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd picture 

message: In a word, preposterous.  This article is already huge.  It's longer than is considered preferable by article size.  Merging it with Circumcision advocacy is unneccessary.  I'd say both issues are notable enough to deserve seperate articles.  I don't see how making this article any larger will help.  Kasreyn 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. If anything, maybe we should be looking at splitting a few things off?!? Circumcision advocacy is an article in its own right, and there is already a link to it in the "see also" section--Alex uk 86 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circ Advocacy merge per tag 

message: The first picture claims (in its Licensing section) to be a Wikipedia screenshot, which it clearly is not.  I'm not sure of the procedure for further investigation, but I thought I'd let someone over here know about it at least. /blahedo (t) 01:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the licensing problem (It was a copy of a GFDL license and so retains that license)--Clawed 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First picture's licence 

message: The following unsourced claims were recently inserted:
However, courts have ruled that the right of a parent to give valid, legal consent for a minor is limited to medical treatment. Other courts have also ruled that the removal of normal, healthy tissue does not constitute treatment.
Both claims are vague and dubious, and the wording POV.  Could someone please provide actual citations for these claims? Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court rulings 

message: I have removed the POV template again because no one has identified any specific problems with the text in the page (claiming that other editors are biased is not the same as identifying what text in the article fails to conform to WP:NPOV.  Please remember that placing templates like this on an article without identifying why you are doing so is vandalism.  Feel free to use the space below to discuss the specific objections you have to the text of the article. Nandesuka 11:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your repeated edit-warring to remove the POV tag is a sign of bad faith.  You know that all of the circumcision articles are controversial, with some content considered POV by some people.  Al 18:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I daresay there is not a single article on Wikipedia whose content is not "considered POV by some people."  That's not what the  template is for.  If there are specific passages and terms that you care to identify, then it is appropriate to add the tag and identify them.  The template is categorically not meant to simply indicate "this article disagrees with my point of view," and using it in such a way is abuse.  Nandesuka 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It is supposed to be a temporary tag, for the purpose of getting specific problems fixed. That's impossible if the problems aren't specified. Jakew 19:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV template