Talk:Circumcision/Archive 29

message: At present, in the introduction there is a paragraph about studies suggesting that circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV transmission (a possible health benefit of circumcision).  Then there are many sections which do not discuss harm or benefit, and then later there are sections mentioning infection, death and other harm as well as other benefits.  Therefore, the early part of the article is unbalanced:  it mentions a possible benefit but does not mention any possible harm.  I suggest either moving the paragraph mentioning HIV from the introduction into the later sections of the article, or else putting some information about possible harm of circumcision in the introduction to balance it.  
Note also this statement about the alleged HIV benefit:   Apparently it may be possible to explain the reduced HIV infection in the circumcised men in those studies by the period of abstinence they had to have to allow their circumcision wound to heal;  and also, circumcision may increase the rate of male-to-female HIV transmission in heterosexual intercourse.  It may be premature to recommend circumcision as an anti-HIV public health measure.
On another issue:  Here's a recent article re touch sensitivity:    --Coppertwig 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A page at an activist website is not a reliable source, Coppertwig. Jakew 15:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK with me if the first reference I gave is not used as a reference on the article page:  I wasn't suggesting that it be used as such.  Everything I said still stands, and the second reference appears to me to be a published article appropriate for use as a reference on the article page.  --Coppertwig 18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? The second link is to a press release. The press release may be about a published article, but it is not itself a published article. (We discussed the article in #Sorrells Study.) Jakew 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I'm serious. The press release gives a link to an online copy of the published article which (the published article) I believe is appropriate to use as a reference to balance the existing discussion about sensitivity.  --Coppertwig 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is an appropriate source for Wikipedia. A press release is not. The article, along with other studies to investigate sensitivity, is cited in sexual effects of circumcision. Jakew 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Re harm/health benefit: I'm leaning towards moving the HIV paragraph from the introduction down into the section on HIV, and merging it into that section. --Coppertwig 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to discuss that article at the appropriate place. Jakew 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You introduced the subsection in the above talk...TipPt 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance re harm/health benefit in early part of article 

message: As this feast is now obsolete I believe that it is irrelevant in a general article such as this. It would, of course, be appropriate to an article on religion and circumcision. I propose to delete the references to this feast. If there are any comments or objections, please state them here. Michael Glass 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest that instead of deleing altogether, you move it to the (poorly named) Circumcision in the Bible. Jakew 15:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Feast of the Circumcision

message: I believe the beginning of the article is too long. It goes over material that would be far better dealt with in the article itself. All we need is the following:
:Circumcision is the procedure that cuts some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and caedere (meaning "to cut").
The rest mostly duplicates material already dealt with in the body of the article. Anything not dealt with could be transferred to the body of the article. Instead of a mini-article on circumcision it would be better to go straight from the introductory paragraph to the list of contents.Michael Glass 05:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section is actually intended to summarise the key facts in the article. To that extent, a small amount of duplication is expected. You're correct in stating that it is currently too long, but your proposed replacement is too short. Please see WP:LEAD. Jakew 10:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The beginning of the article 

message: Unfortunately, the source of information about the Holy Prepuce is not reliable. The information  is part of a personal website, whose homepage  reveals that the author has a particular axe to grind about religion. Therefore this particular source of information cannot be used. Secondly, even if the information came from a reliable source it is doubtful that it is relevant to this topic. That is why I have deleted the paragraph that was recently added. Michael Glass 00:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please call it the "Ideal Prepuce."  The Topic requires information stating that many cultures placed high value on the prepuce.TipPt 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for information about the Holy Prepuce 

message: I think the previous discussion of the HIV aspect in the title was skewed. It was of the form "Smith and Jones state that .... Whilst some (disagree with this), the ABC reccomends that."
This is clearly giving more prominence to Smith and Jones. Their names are included in an academic style where as the other peer reviewed article mentioned was just "some".
I also added a quote from the AMA about the importance of sexual behaviour, I think it is responsible to highlight the fact that circumcised men are still at risk. Thehalfone 11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The HIV text should be one short sentence in the intro only, not propaganda.TipPt 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. There is, however, always going to be more problems getting a concensus over a one sentence introduction than a more detailed account. I see from this talk page that the discussion over this subject is already rather heated. How about something along the lines of "there is some evidence that circumcision may reduce the risk of HIV-infection." and then a sentence highlighting that the need for care amongst circumsised men is still present.  Thehalfone 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is far too weak. If our sources are describing the evidence as "firm" and "proven beyond reasonable doubt", then it misrepresents them if we say there is "some evidence that it may...". Jakew 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Studies find circumcision reduced the incidence of HIV among permiscuous sub-Saharan Africa hetersexuals by 50-60%, but should never replace other known effective prevention methods.TipPt 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the qualifiers are yours, not those of the sources. Jakew 11:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the introduction contains a single sentence suggesting that HIV prevention is (or may be) a benefit of circumcision, then as I pointed out above, the introduction should also contain some information about harm or possible harm from circumcision. The research about HIV prevention is recent and may soon be put into perspective by other research. Note that even if, as some studies suggest, circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV transmission, it may also increase male-to-female transmission (due to increased rubbing and minor damage to the inside of the vagina) and therefore may not decrease, and may increase, the overall infection rate in a population in the long run.  I'm not suggesting that this idea be mentioned in the introduction;  I'm mentioning it here to show why it may not be a good idea to mention HIV prevention in the introduction, but only later in the article where there's more room to explain exactly what the studies establish.  --Coppertwig 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit 

message: We have several editors/administrators who recently find bias or needed change in the Topic.  Some say it's too anti, others pro, others cite specific problems ... the “consensus” is only found among the cabal.
The Topic needs the POV tag so readers know to read the discussion.TipPt 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Previously Michael and Jakew suggested:
I believe the beginning of the article is too long. It goes over material that would be far better dealt with in the article itself. All we need is the following:
:Circumcision is the procedure that cuts some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and caedere (meaning "to cut").
The rest mostly duplicates material already dealt with in the body of the article. Anything not dealt with could be transferred to the body of the article. Instead of a mini-article on circumcision it would be better to go straight from the introductory paragraph to the list of contents.Michael Glass 05:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section is actually intended to summarise the key facts in the article. To that extent, a small amount of duplication is expected. You're correct in stating that it is currently too long, but your proposed replacement is too short. Please see WP:LEAD. Jakew 10:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the intro does a lousy job of summarizing, and we can't agree on changes.  I agree with Michael that a single paragraph should replace the current version.  Frenectomy should be included because in 20 - 30% of circs a frenectomy is also preformed.
*Circumcision is the procedure that removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The frenulum  may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and caedere (meaning "to cut").  (The first sentence for at least two years)TipPt 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The beginning of the article, part 2

message: Here. I accidentally hit "vandal" instead of plain "rollback" (having issues with my trackpad, the pointer jumps right), but it's still misleading to remove quoted text lower in the article and have it in the same header.  Joie de Vivre° 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. Regarding "misleading", not sure what you mean. Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not giving me a chance to reinstate the newever, shortened version of the phrase.  I only get as far as reverting so I have something to work with, then you revert again.  Please stop. Joie de Vivre° 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. -- Avi 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, you could stop reverting, and propose changes here. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading edit summary

message: The current version, and the cabal blocks discussion of pain relief.  The following paragraph has been deleted ...again:
:Lander et al., found that babies circumcised without pain relief "exhibited homogeneous responses that consisted of sustained elevation of heart rate and high pitched cry throughout the circumcision and following. Two newborns ... became ill following circumcision (choking and apnea)." A 2004 Cochrane review, which compared the dorsal penile nerve block and EMLA (topical anaesthesia) found both anaesthetics appear safe, but neither of them completely eliminated pain.  Razmus et al reported that newborns circumcised with the dorsal block and the ring block in combination with the concentrated oral sucrose had the lowest pain scores. Ng et al found that EMLA cream, in addition to local anaesthetic, effectively reduces the sharp pain induced by needle puncture.TipPt 22:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain and pain relief during circumcision  

message: PS read this indented CNN article (the underlying study could be cited directly).  The bold is mine:
:A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia.  
:Rabbi Ariel Asa has performed hundreds of circumcisions. When families request it, he says he puts an anesthetic on the skin, in an effort to reduce some of the pain. But he admits it's not very effective. 
:"Due to the fact that moyels (the people who do the procedure) do it very quickly and the pain that the baby experiences is minimal, I don't think that the overall benefits are gained," he says. 
:"But the researchers found that while topical anesthetics may help initially, they are woefully inadequate during foreskin separation and incision. 
:They concluded that if circumcision must be performed, it should be preceded by an injected anesthetic. 
:In fact, they found the results so compelling that they took the unusual step of stopping the study before it was scheduled to end rather than subjecting any more babies to circumcision without anesthesia.
But the cabal blocks readers from seeing the facts and solutions.TipPt 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give us the URL for this quotation, TipPt? Michael Glass 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Woops. Don't bother. It's  Michael Glass 11:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, here's the URL TipPt 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain and pain relief during circumcision 2 

message: Circumcision may be a surgical operation if it is performed by a doctor. However, if it is done by a drunken thug with a broken beer bottle  or it's done by religious fanatics with a dirty knife  it's hardly a surgical procedure.  Those who define circumcision as a  the surgical procedure' are committing a logical fallacy. It's the same logical fallacy as those who used to define swans as white birds; then Europeans discovered the black swans of Western Australia. So, just as most swans are white, so most circumcisions can be classed as surgical procedures. But not all. Therefore, the most accurate definition of circumcision is the one expressed in plain English. Michael Glass 00:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, circumcision is still a surgical procedure if performed under those conditions. Regardless it wouldn't be a logical fallacy, just a factual one. I fail to see how your version is any simpler than the other, and 'circumcision means cutting ...' sounds unencyclopedic, as well. The way, the truth, and the light 07:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hypothetically, Michael, a drunken lout could perform triple heart bypass surgery with a beer bottle... Jakew 10:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "circumcision is a procedure that removes" line is a nice compromise, especially since circumcision is also "a fundamental rite of Judaism" (which is actually a bit misleading, since the brit milah is the fundamental rite and circumcision is simply one aspect of it; a circumcision alone is not sufficient to enter a child into the covenant).  It is not always only a surgery (it can also be part of a ritual) but it is always a procedure and it does always remove preputial tissue. Zandrous 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wish people wouldn't keep re-hashing old arguments. Circumcision is a surgical procedure because that's what reliable sources say it is. See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 27#Circumcision is not Surgery. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because "reliable" sources say something doesn't mean it's true.  We could say something like "circumcision is defined by many sources to be a surgical procedure..."  We don't have to say "circumcision is a surgical procedure", and I oppose saying it on the grounds that clearly as pointed out by Michael Glass it isn't necessarily always.  I'm sure a lout with a beer bottle is far more likely to succeed in removing a part of the body than in performing a triple heart bipass.  I support saying "circumcision is a procedure which removes...";  this does not contradict that many sources call it a surgical procedure, which can be pointed out later in the article but may be too wordy for the first sentence.  --Coppertwig 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you haven't read WP:V recently; The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There's a reason it's the first sentence in the policy. In this case, it's not only verifiable, but also true, your incredibly Western-centric view of what constitutes surgery notwithstanding. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have acceptable sources backing that? -- Avi 19:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Harvard epidemiologist Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer's (1999) article in Medical Anthropology Quarterly 13(1):79-106 titled "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, The Unknown, and the Unknowable."  She includes a reasonable discussion of different terminology for the procedures variously termed "female circumcision" "female genital mutilation" and so on before settling on the usage "traditional female genital surgeries".  We might take a lesson from her measured and scientific approach.  Sorry I don't have a fancy wikilink to the article.  For the record, I'm comfortable with the word "surgery" in our article but thought "procedure" might be more conciliatory since there's apparently not concensus. Zandrous 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It sounds like the disagreement is about the definition of surgery, rather than about the nature of circumcision.  Perhaps female genital mutilation is surgery - certainly it involves the use of a blade to incise and remove tissue. --Badger151 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that rather than being the Wikipedia Committee for Identification of Surgery we are trying to agree on the text in this article. The important issue is whether there is any serious disagreement in reliable sources over whether circumcision is surgery. Let's not get side-tracked. Jakew 09:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Circumcision is surgery, as all reliable sources attest. Oddly enough, it is usually the anti-circumcisionists that insist that circumcision is surgery, and pro-circumcision groups that insist it is not. According to the anti-circumcision activist Paul M. Fleiss, "Some, like rigidly Orthodox Jews, may deny that circumcision is surgery at all." Paul M. Fleiss, Frederick Mansfield Hodges, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About(TM) Circumcision, p. 117. It seems that the anti-circumcision activists here have misunderstood the position of their movement. Anti-circumcisionists insist circumcision is a surgical procedure, and a dangerous one at that, so that they can then outlaw it. If it is not even a surgical procedure then there is less chance of getting it legislated out of existence. I think you need to consult your movement heads for proper strategy before pursuing this further. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, you are committing a logical fallacy regarding the meaning of the word surgery; you keep mistakenly thinking that the specific tools used are critical to whether or not the word applies. When one performs a tracheotomy with a penkife and a ballpoint pen (as has been done), it's still "surgery". When prehistoric peoples performed trepanation with stone flakes and awls, that was also surgery. Finally, I have no idea what "someone who is pro-circumcision would want", but I prefer plain, meaningful English backed up by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, regarding female genital cutting, Britannica's article on the subject describes it as a "ritual surgical procedure that has traditionally been performed etc." Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop personalizing this; your issue is with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and other reliable sources, not me. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm trying to understand why Michael thinks that "appeal to authority" is a bad argument to be using in a tertiary sourced encyclopedia, and failing.  Nandesuka 02:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is that whether or not you think it's surgery is utterly unimportant.  What's important is what reliable sources call it.  Jayjg has cited a number of respected and persuasive sources.  The opinion of Michael Glass that those sources must be mistaken is not terribly relevant. Nandesuka 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no personal opinions on the matter, Michael. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the definition of "surgery."  "operation or procedure, especially one involving the removal or replacement"  "Middle English surgerie, from Old French, short for cirurgerie, from cirurgie, from Latin chīrūrgia, from Greek kheirourgiā, from kheirourgos, working by hand : kheir, hand; see ghes- in Indo-European roots + ergon, work; see werg- in Indo-European roots"...circumcision meets these definitions ... even if it's performed with a bottle cap.TipPt 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From The New Oxford English Dictionary:  Circumcision: "The act or rite of circumcising a person...".  Circumcise:  "Cut off the foreskin ..." --Coppertwig 22:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plain English 

message: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TipPt/Circumcision
Note especially Sexual Effects, Procedures, and Policies.TipPt 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it's better than current version, but I doubt that it will be used. Nice work though. :-) --antiXt 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honest non-Cabal Version 

message: The merits of circumcision are currently under debate, and opinions about the need for circumcision in healthy boys vary among physicians. Some place great value on the benefits of an intact foreskin, including a more natural sexual response during adulthood. Rather than routinely recommending circumcision for healthy boys, many physicians allow the parents to make the decision after presenting them with the pros and cons.
Look again at the statement ... merits of circ under debated ... ie is there cost/benefit reason?  
The statement goes on to say "some place great value on the benefits of an intact foreskin" (not opinion, just relative valuation).  You have above unrefuted medical opinion.  
The AAP statement represents a heated compromise among conflicting views.  The reader should have access to all.TipPt 16:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could look for statements regarding facts or evidence, rather than what other parties might believe? Jakew 11:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Other parties" with greater credibility than the CPS and NIH?  The fact that they include those statements makes it credible and valuable to the reader.TipPt 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Effects from Nat'l Library of Medicine (NIH) 

message: I've added the  tag to Circumcision because it misrepresents and/or omits (by reversion by the Cabal) facts (frenectomy, Jewish history, Procedures, Sexual Effects, Policies, Pain and pain relief.  I hope to avoid arbitration.TipPt 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think this tag is totally over the top. I do have some issues with some of the wording, but it is not as bad as these labels suggest.Michael Glass 01:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy tag