Talk:Circumcision/Archive 5

message: It seems that this debate will continue.
I think that the current article is pretty good. It covers much of the topic, I think fairly and therefore is NPOV.
For anyone wanting to see why I believe this, look at the external links. It seems that the anti-circumcision sites are out there for the medical good. It seems that the circumcision sites peddle old and inaccurate information for the benefit of people in the USA who are essentially having the operation done on their children for cultural rather than medical reasons. --Dumbo1 13:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair comment. Participants might like to read or reread wikilove and rhetoric as well. Some need to read them more than others of course. Andrewa 21:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Non-medical circumcisions for religious or cultural reasons constitute the majority of circumcisions carried out world wide. The article must take cognisance of this fact and the necessary information must be inserted. - Robert Brookes 15:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a really difficult statistic to ascertain accurately, no? A good deal of these circumcisions will go unreported. How are we to posit our data as reliable when so many cultures consider circumcision unnecessary for record? A more beneficial statistic would be an age-based survey that could track generational trends much more effectively. - Methylsoy 17:56, 21 Aug 2004 (EST)
*The statistic is not difficult to estimate really. The problem is that there are attempts to exaggerate or understate the prevalence from the pro or anti POV. In the article the "low" estimate has been placed there by "you know whom". Something like "estimates vary from 16-30%" will probably have to suffice as a compromise. With respect, who is going to carry out an "age-based survey" of all the peoples of the earth? This point is, however, much less of importance than to be sure to include information on the non-medical circumcisions (religious and cultural/rite of passage) which make up the majority of circumcisions performed world wide. - Robert Brookes 05:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-medical circumcisions

message: This section needs a lot of work. There are glaring inaccuracies (probably deliberate lies) that have been posted there. Before the editing starts, should we play spot the lies? - Robert Brookes 15:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While I was under the impression that circumcision was much more popular as well, I'm certainly going to refrain from calling my fellow Wikipedians liars. If you've used the word "probably" because you have no evidence to support your accusations, then please refrain from promoting a situation that could lead to hate or anger. The word "liar" is as useless to Wikipedia as misinformation, especially if it's unfounded. - Methylsoy 17:56, 21 Aug 2004 (EST)
*You need to know who you are dealling with here. Then you need to realise that you cannot take anything on face value from the monomaniac anti-circumcision extremists. So armed you will find it a lot easier to deal with debates around articles on what should or shouldn't be included. The fact that this article, to achieve NPOV, has been radically edited indicates, or should indicate, that left unchallenged and to their own devices they just can't controll themselves and will post the most outrageous propaganda. I hear and understand your point about lies and liars. But are these people wikipedians or are they single issue monmaniac anti-circumcision fanatics hell bent on using wikipedia as a vehicle for advancing their dubious cause? As to what is an isn't a lie, as we progress all will be revealed. - Robert Brookes 05:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I know this is an old post there, RB, but I just love your attitude.  “Extremists”, “monomaniacs”, “liars”, and all kinds of ad hominem, or group attacks, that’s what come from you.  Very nice, makes you all the more believable.  And you seem like as if you were on the brink of exploding, too!  Cool, my dear, lest you end up with heart problems! -- Ralesk 21:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevalence of Male Circumcision

message: Someone should remove the picture of the penis and make a link. I would but I dont know how to do that. -Anon
:No we have had numerous discussions about pictures like this in Wikipedia, and the general consensus is that if the picture is appropriate to the topic it goes on the page. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 23:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually disagree with that.  Those same pictures are in the "penis" article, and this is an article specifically about circumcision, not penises.  If we are to show a picture or diagram, it should be of the act itself.  We don't show before and after photos breasts in breast reduction, right?  That's because it wouldn't be appropriate to the topic of breast reduction itself.  Though a sketch of where incisions and made and tissue is excised would be relevant.  DanP 14:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with before and after pictures of breast reduction. I would, however, have an object of showing the act of breast reduction. It is a type of surgery, and would therefore be off-putting. Showing the two types of penises is entirely appropriate, showing the act of circumsicion would be a blantant POV insertion, as no surgery is pleasant to look at. func(talk) 15:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These things are a metter of personal taste. I too would not object to before and after breast enlargement pics, in fact i would expect them in a breast enlargement article. Personally I would go even further and not object to pictures of surgery on surgery related articles although I suspect far fewer people would agree with me there. The fact is, we have had this same debate many times on wikipedia. The results of those earlier debates is that body parts, in appropriate articles are condidered ok by most people. This is IMO a perfectly appropriate article to show a circumcised and uncicumcised penis. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 18:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: A minor edit to a Wikipedia page is one which most other contributors would agree is minor. When to use this is somewhat a matter of personal preference. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit.
In my opinion several recent changes marked as minor edits are significant changes to the article. DanBlackham 19:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: I believe this practice exists, so why delete it?  Is it suddenly not circumcision because it's an adult victim?  This is historically key to how male genital mutilation got started in the first place, forced on slaves instead of babies.  There is also a tremendous amount of weasel words and various POV pushing the "benefits" of mutilation.  Please refer to the NPOV article, and it says nothing about stifling all views, but rather explaining both sides. DanP 22:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If the justification for having it is historical, then it belongs in part of the history section.  Who, what, when, where, why? It is a phenomenon that happens, but tacked on to the end as it is, it just seems like an out-of-place afterthought. Shimmin 11:33, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
The reason I deleted it is because IMO it has little to do with circumcision as such and everything to do with war and violence. The first reference decribes a slave situation, where children are being shot, and women repeatedly raped. The forced circumcision is one tiny quote from an unnamed slave with no corroborating evidence. The second reference is again a quote from a single person, again without a name, again in a war situation. It on  christian solidarity website, and again with no other evidence. You believe the practice exists? I at the moment don't. The whole thing looks like propaganda at the moment. Of course if decent evidence comes to light ( new reporters seeing it done for example) my view will change but for now I feel that it's only purpose is to elicit an emotional response from the reader, not to inform them i a NPOV way. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 14:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Circumcision has always been tied directly to war and violence.  The Bible and even recent history  describe these events.  Forced circumcision of adults are sometimes isolated incidents .  But it can be organized group mutilation as well, and you can try to find hundreds of similar articles, both ancient and recent.  Not all of these articles are tied to Christianity and/or Islam.  I don't see your objection to including this, unless you believe so many people in Africa and Indonesia are fabricating these events. DanP 16:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: By "always", I was referring to circumcision on a worldwide scale.  If a person says "weapons have always been tied to war and violence", that is not implicating all weapons or all persons who have weapons (as a blanket statement), is it?   Nonetheless, I should hope it's a fair NPOV assessment of historical context, and the invariant way it applies to worldwide history, I would expect.  If there is a better way I could have phrased this notion, I cannot think of it at present.  DanP 22:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced cultural and religious circumcision of adults

message: It was stated in the article: "Urinary tract infections, while much less common in boys, can also be treated with antibiotics without resorting to surgical intervention." 
This is only true if the boys are circumcised. The facts are: "The incidence of UTI in the first year of life was 1:47 (2.15%) in uncircumcised males, 1:455 (.22%) in circumcised males, and 1:49 (2. 05%) in females."Uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of a UTI than girls while circumcised boys have a much lower risk than both girls and uncircumcised boys.
Further by the time the boy has reached the point where he requires surgery circumcision as an "afterthought" intervention seems to serve no purpose. - Friends of Robert 06:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, the level is less than that of girls.  Data on antireflux surgery in Korea is not very compelling evidence, but add it to the article if you think it's relevant.  Both male and female babies often respond well to antibiotics, so I can't see why you'd oppose this "dubious" stuff. DanP 23:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: *In general is not good enough. This is an old anti-circumcision misrepresentation. The only way the higher incidence of UTI's among uncircumcised boys can be hidden is when all boys are pooled together. Nice try, but the game is up on this one. - Friends of Robert 16:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't accuse me of trying to deceive. Many populations do not circumcise boys, and the UTI rate remains substantially less than girls. Picking and choosing the intact boys living in a culture with a circumcising medical profession, then looking at some analysis by this medical culture hostile to them during one specialized procedure, that's not slanted to you? Even the US numbers don't say intact boys get more UTI than girls, and our medical profession is hostile enough. I notice you never once suggested using numbers from Europe or anywhere else. So are you saying your specific numbers are better than any general ones?  DanP 22:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: *Please produce the studies which support your position, if you are able. - Friends of Robert 04:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Treatments - more dubious stuff 

message: Nobody is claiming any status is right for all people.  These terms are POV and loaded words do express a meaning beyond what either side is really saying.  Opponents of circumcision do not go against voluntary circumcision, and proponents do not favor circumcision of cats and dogs.  The terms are loaded by wikipedia's own definition.  Remember, these are descriptions of tendencies, not the absolutes they attempt to misguide the reader with.  Further, these ridiculous claims that boys get more UTI than girls overall is completely without evidence.  If the claim is not substantiated, then present both sides.  But do not push and push slanted POV.  Present both sides, or present neither.  DanP 22:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Procircumcision and Anticircumcision

message: The sentence "Doctors have made many claims about circumcision over the years, including the prevention of masturbation"  seems a bit weasely, and unclear to me.  I don't think anyone has seriously advocated circumcision because it prevents masturbation for many years now, but "over the years" is vague in this sense.  Which years?
"Mohammed was born circumcised"  Are you kidding me?  I mean, I wouldn't put it past Muslims to believe such a thing (it's about as plausible as a virgin birth, if not more), but the meaning should be clarified; I think one could parse "born circumcised" as "circumcised at birth."  I know they mean different things, but I think elaboration here is necessary.  Kind of like when you talk about the Christian concept of the Resurrection, you don't just say "They believe Jesus came back from the dead," because Christians don't believe Jesus came back as a ghost or a zombie, they believe his physical body was resurrected.  Am I making sense? ThePedanticPrick 20:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a not-entirely-implausible claim.  A study of penile morphology of German army recruits found that in about 2% or so of uncircumcised men, the foreskin was too small to cover the corona, and so these men appeared to be circumcised under casual inspection.  And while even these men may have had relatively larger foreskins as boys (the penis may have outgrown its foreskin), the Talmud does contain a rabbinical opinion as to what to do in the case of a boy born without a foreskin (a single drop of blood should be drawn from where the foreskin should be—a symbolic circumcision as is done for an already-circumcised adult convert to Judaism.  So I would say that being born without a foreskin, or at least apparently without one, is an unusual circumstance, but not one requiring miraculous intervention. Shimmin 22:45, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
ThePedanticPrick, I agree completely. The paragraph was peculiar and confusing. I've replaced it with a shorter one referencing Medical analysis of circumcision. I should probably add History of circumcision. - Jakew 20:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics 

message: The article refers to a survey that was conducted in the Midwest that shows that women prefer circumsised men. To make the article more balanced, I provided a link to a survey that found that women prefer intact men. Why was this deleted? I was just making the artcile more balanced. It is also a widely acknowledged fact that women prefer what they are used to in their community. I stated this fact, but it was deleted. Why is this? The present article clearly favors circumcision.
: Thanks for pointing that out.  I added a link to that information, although almost certainly Robert will delete it.  Obviously the studies survey different demographics, so I noted that too as a source of bias.  Anyway, if one opinion is deleted, so must the other be.  That is NPOV by definition. DanP 18:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  These were good additions, Dan. Presenting alternative interpretations and pointing out the possible bias of the surveys is a good approach for NPOV. -- Bblackmoor 19:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited surveys 

message: Again, i suggest we make a link to the picture instead of having it directly on the page, as has been done in other cases. Some people dont want to look at that.209.197.155.38
:There has been a vote on the clitoris article. Consensus is pretty clear - photographs of human anatomy should stay on the page. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 11:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps one should view it that the "consensus" is that the use of photographs of human anatomy is desirable. Now part of the issue of that pic on the clitoris article was that it was a porn pic where the nail polish was altered to make it look more bland. The bean itself was not exposed so what actual value does that pic have in displaying the clitoris from an anatomical point of view? So while the principle of using pics of human anatomy is sound the selection of the pic in question represents poor judgement. Perhaps it is worth looking at the quality of the pics in the circumcision article? You seem to be an expert in these matters Theresa ... would you like to take the lead on this? - Robert the Bruce 00:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you find it desirable or not, it's the way we do things around here. The value that the picture has is in showing where the clitoris is located on the body. There is no question of "selection" of the picture. We have no other picture to choose from. Obviously if a better pic comes along then that should replace or be added to the one we already have.But that's off topic here really. What is it about the quality of the current circumcision pictures that you don't like? Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 09:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: *Theresa you seem to be using this talk page to cover issues relating to pictures in a number of articles. My main issue is with the use of a pic in the clitoris article which does not show the clitoris itself but rather a close up of the external female genitals. It seems rather pointless to me and supports my position that the view that any pic will do prevails whether it is of the subject or not. I can see why some people are offended. Now take the following for example  and tell me which (your pic or this drawing) gives the reader a better understandinhg of the anatomy of the clitoris. As to the "desperate need" to depict an erect penis in the Penis article. I can't see any particular value in inserting a picture of an erect penis into the main body of the article when there are already images of flacid penises. What is achieved by this "in your face" style? Why not have a link to off site images of one or two erections? My comment on quality of the pics in the circumcision article relates to the black and white images. Perhaps there are colour images available? I am sorry to say that once again it appears that you have shown poor judgement Theresa. It is just not good enough to place a pic on the clitoris page of a full frontal view of the external female genitals with a line indicating that somewhere under the prepuce/skin (somewhere there)lies the clitoris. It is very unprofessional. I would like your opinion as to how we should deal with the Anus with regard to pics? - Robert the Bruce 03:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  circumsized penis 

message: Robert the Bruce, please cease deleting relevant, factual material. If you can demonstrate that something presented as fact is incorrect, please do so. If you want to assert that the facts presented are not relevant to the article, please do so. -- Bblackmoor 00:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of relevant, factual material 

message: Forgive me for being simplistic here, but topics as controversial as this call for a standard.  My suggestion is to have within this article sections for "The Case For Male Circumcision"  and "The Case Against Male Circumcision", and a clear acknowedgement of the controversial nature of the topic.  Most likely, once the protection is lifted, the two sections will initially grow quite large.  Then proponents of each view can start work on on eliminating some the redundancies in each section, point by point, until we have a manageable and well written piece.
:I don't know who wrote this suggestion, but I agree just on principle.  However, there is no controversy about male circumcision whatsoever.  Only infant circumcision and other involuntary circumcisions are in dispute here.  I can't imagine a paragraph The Case For Marijuana claiming they want to tie down children and force them to smoke it.   The pro-mutilation folks take a different view distinct from "live and let live".  These are all very different points of contention, and this article has done nothing but swap labels as slowly the juvenile behavior and radical anti-foreskin agenda dominates the article. DanP 23:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A standard for controversial articles, then lift the protection. 

message: Page protected. Please settle your disputes! David.Monniaux 17:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war