Talk:Circumcision/Archive 14

message: Debate often focuses on what limits, if any, should be placed on a caregiver's ability to have a child circumcised. The procedure is irreversible, the immediate medical value is disputed and the result may not be in accordance with the child's wishes when he is an adult. Some question the apparent inconsistency of allowing male circumcision but prohibiting female genital cutting . Some assert that circumcision causes sexual harm and emotional scarring later in life, or urge that the procedure should be left until a man is mature enough to make the choice for himself. Others assert that circumcision is less traumatic when performed in infancy and point out that it may disturb some religious communities and interfere with the traditional right of parents to make this decision on behalf of their child.
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."
Two studies in the United States found that strong parental cultural expectations clash with deliberate informed consent, and “a significant number of parents expressed animosity toward the care provider.”  Discord arises from the implication that parental desire to circumcise involves “undue risks” and provides “limited medical benefit” to their child. 
#Brown M, Brown C: Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics 1987; 80:215-219
#Rand C, Emmons C, Johnson J: The effect of an educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:64-67
:Rather than copy in a bunch of text, could you explain what changes you are actually proposing to make? This would help everyone to evaluate them. Jakew 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text is the proposed.  I've added another sentence.
TipPt 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please propose changes, and explain where you want to make them. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consent changes 

message: The last sentence ... The American Academy of Family Physicians states "no valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[87]
...Is not accurate, since we find several studies where circumcision alters sexual sensation and satisfaction.  Specifically, Mastood, Fink, Shen, Senkul, Laumann all find changes.
You will find the sexuality textbooks/author statements attributed.TipPt 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this in the section above. It is accurate, because that is precisely what they stated. If you want to cite criticism of their statement, that's fine, but you can't just delete it because you disagree. Jakew 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Even if TipPt's claim were true, WP:V explicitly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.", and the American Academy of Familiy Physicians is certainly a notable and reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What they (the AAFP) says is refuted by better sources.  The AAFP is simply surveying some research at one point in time ... which is evidently dated and/or limited in scope.TipPt 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AAFP has been refuted? You have a source saying "The AAFP is wrong"? Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual effects 

message: Nokilli has recently complained about the 'unsupported' reference to use of glass tubes. How about this? http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std-bris.shtml Jakew 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already added http://www.nyp-rpc.org/pdf/2005_health_alert46.pdf , see page 3. -- Avi 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The glass tube is specifically stated by the source you provided to have nothing to do with the described procedure.  I also do not appreciate having my entry described as child porn, it isn't my idea to perform this procedure.  The original entry describes the procedure accurately and is NPOV.  Thank you. Nokilli 00:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nokilli, please check the new source. Thank you. ANd yes, highlighting phrases like "sucking on the baby's…" where a less sensational phrase would convey the same information is engaging in salaciousness and prurience for purposes known only to yourself. One could even think that you have a POV that somehow requires that you do your best to paint circumcision in a poor light; but I refuse to believe that an honest, zealous, and forthright wikipedia editor as yourself would be editing as such. WP:AGF and all. Thank you. -- Avi 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only a person with a POV would choose to find a "less sensational phrase" to convey essential information as this.  I agree that it is a monstrous act that is being performed here, however, we should relate monstrous acts with appropriate fidelity.  The mohel sucks on the baby's penis.  That's a fact.  And it's a fact that you are seeking to prevent others from learning, solely to satisfy your own POV (which I should mention is on display throughout both this talk page as well as the article itself.) Nokilli 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Britannica <> The National Enquirer. -- Avi 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better reference?

message: Right now the article is a hodgepodge mix of html links and cite.php footnotes. I will work on converting them all to the cite.php footnoe, with proper  templates, but it will be a slow process. Especially becuase it is difficult to edit at work, what with the graphic images at the top of the article. -- Avi 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you use  instead? It's much easier to work with... Jakew 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: TipPt, your zeal in editing this article is complementary. However, there is a bit of an issue when original research becomes mixed in with the facts we are trying to document. You added the following information: Standards of informed consent are not met when "nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision."
Unfortunately, the article you quoted did not make the qualititative remark that I bolded above. The actual paragraph in question reads:
::A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns. Studies from the 1980s suggested that the presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions. This finding was recently confirmed. In another contemporary study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision. Major factors in parental decision-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygiene.
Note that the portion in italics must be your source, and NO qualitative statement exists. This means that your initial sentence is your own conclusion based on your research, opinions, and point of view regarding circumcision. While NOT a WP:POV violation, as that POV should be represented, it should be one documented in a secondary source, not your own conclusion.
As an aside, please look at the bolded portion of the quote; it appears that the medical issues are a minor point in decision making, even according to the AMA. Interestin, non? -- Avi 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your last remark, Avi, it is more precise to say that they were a minor point, in the 1980s. More recent studies have indicated a trend away from this - see the 5th (I think) paragraph of 'circumcision since 1950'. Jakew 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dangerous precedent of mixing [[WP:OR]] with [[WP:RS]] 

message: I personally think that the articles should not be merged; at most there should be a  somewhere, but even that is dicey. This article refers to a medical/ritual procedure. The other refers to perceived socio-political agendas. Is there any opposition to removing the merge tags? -- Avi 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons for the suggestion have been discussed at great length in Talk:Circumcision advocacy. Basically, my feeling is that if there is anything in that article that is salvageable and can find a home here, it should be incorporated. Otherwise, delete. Jakew 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was told to wait until mediation was over to try to progress this merge. Is it now time to follow through?  Sophia 20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: this page already reads like a propaganda piece in favor of the routine mutilation of male genitalia, purporting dubious claims as fact, merging it with that page would make it even more an article biased tword cutting off healthy tissue of infant males. 12.226.237.65 05:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy of post I left onTalk: Circumcision advocasy The time seems to be right to now merge this article so I shall start reading through and moving stuff to where I think best. I will admit to not being an expert in this area and have only suggested this merge due to the lack of supporting evidence from the on-line searches I have done. So if I mess up please be nice to me and I will have no problem if others disagree and put the info in what they consider more suitable places.  Sophia 12:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for clarity of my potential bias/motives - I do not support any medical procedures on minors unless they can be shown to have benefits for the individuals concerned. As for adults it is their decision and none of my business. The bottom line however is the research - we must report that faithfully and accurately to minimise any danger of our own POV's showing through.  Sophia 13:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision advocacy merge 

message: It's FASCINATING what happens when you follow the citation trail. For example, the "48%" circumcison rate in Canada quoted by the AAP. They are quoting Lietch (1970) who is himself quoting Patel (1966) whose data, from 1961-1963 is over 45 years old!!! I have NO idea why this is still considered relevant. I will not remove it for now, but we NEED to seriously think about this -- Avi 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and facts: A fascinating journey 

message: One major issue with this article, I am finding through my citation journey, is that certain things are said over and over and over again. FOr example, that the AAP recommends that parents be informed of the risks and benefits occured around 7 times. I will be making a new section at the end of medical with the up-to-date policies of the various mediacl associations. The Medical section should deal with risks and benefits, and at the end we should have the policies, IMO. -- Avi 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermediate restructure 

message: I notice that several people are using HTML code (< ! -- and -- >) to comment out sections of the article that are in question. I suggest that it would be better practice to use a visible question or  placeholder rather than the invisible comment. It is very difficult to find the HTML code once the page has been saved. I notice that the code doesn't even show up when I "view source" in Internet Explorer. After a couple of edits, the question is essentially lost.--gargoyle888 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes things are so unlikely to be sourced, or are very inflammable topics, so commenting makes more sense. Also, at one point every sentence in the Islam paragraph had a  tag, which was somewhat rediculous. Lastly, There is always this to consider as well: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html -- Avi 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using HTML code to comment content out 

message: I've reverted an addition from an anonymous user, who basically copied and pasted POV content from www.cirp.org. I've added some quotes from the AAP and AMA, since quotes from the ACS' web site that hasn't been peer-reviewed are inadequate. In my opinion, this section is too quote-heavy and light on facts. My preference would be to reduce the quotes and cite primary sources instead (I have four or five in mind). Any comments? Jakew 10:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, and I have been doing my best to track down primary sources whenever possible (see my lament above). -- Avi 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Penile cancer

message: In the fourth paragraph there is the following line: "but in the US and UK, circumcision is often chosen largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns"
I am not sure if I understand this statement correctly.  I thought the UK did not practice circumcision "often" (as the article states later on).71.213.159.151 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is cobbled together with different sections being written by different authors. I am trying to make it into one cohesive unit, but it is going miserably; especially the citation work. Please feel free to be bold and make sutiably referenced and explaind corrections -- Avi 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And UK?

message: Jake has made his point in the edit summary, which I copy for you here: “rv. please review WP:RS. CIRP is not an encyclopaedic source.” The source you bring, cirp, is one with a disticnt bias and may well be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you were to research and post the actual papers, if possible, it may help. Nevertheless, CIRP's opinions are well known, and should not be stated in the guise of independant research, per se. 
Further, a number of those studies that you have brought have been rendered obsolete. The "misleading" link you bring is dated 1998. There is a study in 2002, listed on the ACS site, that seems to repudiate that: New Study Shows Benefit of Male Circumcision and the MOST recent of documents of the ACS (revised 5/31/2006) says “In the United States, men who are circumcised in childhood have a lower rate of penile cancer. It’s not known whether this is due to the absence of the foreskin or other lifestyle factors. Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer.” What Are the Risk Factors for Penile Cancer?. There are other examples. So your data that you add, besides being the POLICY statements of CIRP as opposed to a neutral association, are also OUTDATED and OBSOLETE, if not REPUDIATED. I am reverting to the previous version, and we can carry out the discussion on the talk page of the article, and I am copying this text there as well. Thank you. -- Avi 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to French-Doctor 

message: See here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/094263764X/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex/104-5614918-3879160?ie=UTF8&p=S006#reader-link
Serendipitously, the AC's are what Amazon allows you to see. Note the entry goes from "Acrotomophilia" directly to "Accupuncture", conviently skipping "Acucu…". I checked that the pages are consecutive (the end of the article before accupncture IS Acrotomo…), so not only is tis source not available in the 17-20 libraries that make up my home system, it now seems more like a hoax. Until someone can show me the text (via PDF or e-mail scan) I am very prone to think that it is false. Of course, I reserve the right to be proven wrong, but my due diligence implies that it is not in the text. -- Avi 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've discussed it already (at great length) in the archives. Here is a scan of the relevant pages. As you can see, Love mentions the term but does not define its meaning - thus, the 'source' is misrepresented. Another user had the interesting theory that Love's mention established the word as 'real', while a dubious and non-RS online 'sex dictionary' gave its meaning. That was why I added the disputed notice, and why - after a long wait for serious sources - I deleted it. Jakew 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brenda Love" reference is very dubious 

message: Jake, please remember to be civil and assume good faith.  Including the recommendation of the CPS is not "cherry-picking that which is anti-circumcision".  The recommendation is the best summary of the CPS position.
The CPS recommendation needs to be included in the quotes from the CPS for the article to have a NPOV. -- DanBlackham 02:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, it is already in the larger quote as "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns." But notice, by using the ENTIRE quote, instead of the recommendation 1-line blurb, it makes it much more NPOV. Regardless, the recommendatin is in the larger quote, and it is redundant to have both; unless you are interested in cherry-picking, which none of us are, I hope. -- Avi 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Paediatric Society

message: I do not know who you are, 172.193.203.146, but it is extremely poor form, and outright vandalism, to take a direct quote, and replace it with something else. The quote is als follows: “Health issues 
There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research. Doctors performing circumcisions must ensure that those giving consent are aware of the issues, including the risks associated with any surgical procedure: pain, bleeding, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia. All appropriate steps must be taken to minimise these risks. It may be appropriate to screen patients for conditions that would substantially increase the risks of circumcision, for example haemophilia.”
That is ONE COMPLETE QUOTE. Throwing in a sentence from elsewhere in the same quotation marks is vandalism, and just plain false.
Further, the words used in the abstract of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1766331 is "MUST" not "CAN". “These results suggest that the financial and medical advantages and disadvantages of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each other and that factors other than cost or health outcomes must be used in decision making.”
Please discuss anything of import here, and refrain from vandalising the article to push a particular POV. -- Avi 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixing up quotes

message: :I don't think you can be so sure.  It may not be representative of the average uncircumcised erect penis (mine, for instance, shows more foreskin than that), but it does illustrate that some uncircumcised erect penises don't show much foreskin.  I believe, in fact, that it is the same penis shown flaccid next to it.  The skin tone, pubic hair tufts, and one vein are all consistent between the two images.  The original photographer, uploader, and model (viz. User:Clawed) claims that they are both the same penis, and I am inclined to believe him.
:I do think that an image of an erect uncircumcised penis with more visible foreskin would be beneficial to the article.  A quick browse of commons's category:penis didn't reveal any pics that looked suitable, sadly.  If I had a digital camera, I'd solve the problem myself. LWizard @ 08:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The picture on the foreskin article is kind of better than this one in showing that, the one in this article here (circ) looks like the guy has a somewhat tight foreskin Cuzandor 02:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: This (a) requires a citation and (b) doesn't really merit a separate subsection given that the autocephalous churches of the Oriental Orthodox Communion are doctrinally ad idem. In fact circumcision is rare among Oriental Orthodox churches. (Indeed the historical record would indicate that Oriental Orthodoxy was brought to the Malabar Coast -- where circumcision is unknown in non-Muslims -- by Christianised Jewish traders.) Coptic Orthodox clergy I have consulted advise that circumcision is a cultural norm in Egyptian society and predated both Christianity and Islam; there is no Oriental Orthodox religious mandate for it and Coptic clergy in countries where circumcision is not common do not suggest that Coptic families should fly against any social norms for any religious reason. However I have no documentary evidence and Wikipedia does not permit that citation "personal communication," which is deemed to be "original research." This is not to say that circumcision is not practised by Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea; it is well known that it is. Nor can it be advocating a point of view; it is bare fact, just as it is common for American Christians to be circumcised without any religious position on the issue one way or the other being taken by their religious denominations. Masalai 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Circumcision is customary in the Coptic Christian, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Eritrean Orthodox religious traditions...." 

message: The "rites of passage" analysis does explain many, but not all, traditional societies' mandating of male circumcision. (For that matter, there are assorted other procedures which the young may be required to undergo in various traditional societies which may seem to the uninformed outsider to be "initiations" but which have other rationales.) I have moderated the generality of the statement.Masalai 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "initiation rite"