Talk:Circumcision/Archive 33

message: A study in 1987 found that the prominent reasons for parents choosing circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.
Begging the question, what were the prominent reasons for parents choosing against circumcision?  Answer: we don't care -- anyone against circumcision is wrong.  The views of those who oppose circumcision or choose against it are the irrelevant views of a tiny majority.
A 2005 study speculated that increased recognition of the potential benefits may be responsible for an observed increase in the rate of neonatal circumcision in the USA between 1988 and 2000.  That same study speculated that this may result in increase surgical complications.  Do we care?  No, surgical complications from circumcision make circumcision look bad.
Finally -- we choose to highlight and expose any study claiming that circumcision rates are on the rise (becuase officially, according to Wikipedia, circumcision is GOOD and GETTING BETTER).  Any study claiming that worldwide circumcision is on the decline, or that circumcision anywhere is on the decline, that stuff all belongs under "prevalence."  Any information claiming an increase in prevalance may be scattered around the article, in order to give the impression of a rising trend.  Any information about anyone being opposed to circumcision may be mentioned briefly if absolutely necessary -- but make sure not to present any supporting reasons or facts, even if attributed to those opposed.  They is too long.  The sources are not "the best sources."  That info belongs in a subarticle.  Actually, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, since we are NPOV and that means only pro-circumcision arguments are to be explored fully.
Thanks for reading these tips on getting your edits past the controllers of this article!  Blackworm 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Blackworm, but I have long-since given up trying to get any edits past the owners of this article. It's a shame, but there it is.  Well done to you for still trying. --Nigelj 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One would think that if enough people came forward at the same time to push for balance in this disgraceful article, progress could be made.  Unfortunately I suspect that all reasonable editors who come in are immediately alienated by the pro-circumcision owners, frustrated by their edits being reverted, and end up leaving in disgust.  What would it take, specifically, to destroy this fraudulent farce?  Three of the four owners are Wikipedia administrators with specific watchdog-like editing agendas motivated by their particular cultural points of view.  They e-mail each other to discuss strategy, which is why they are rarely seen responding to each other in discussion.  They never (never) oppose each other in any discussion.  They will not allow this article to reveal that circumcision is controversial.  They will not present both sides of the controversy.  They enforce a state of lacking NPOV.  They furthermore conceal the dispute by systematically removing any "disputed" tags on the article -- when it would be obvious to anyone glancing at the talk page that the neutrality of the article is completely and fully disputed.  When anyone is bold enough to stand up to them, the administrators in the group make administrative threats.  What to do in the face of such a blatant fraud?  Blackworm 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tips on what to say to get your edits to stick. 

message: I think based on WP:NOR policy, you would need a reliable source that discusses the relationship between those statements and circumcision in particular.  There may also be issues about the length of this page and whether material should go in a subpage. --Coppertwig 15:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If reliable source(s) interpret these statements in the context of circumcision, then such interpretions could be cited in a sub-article. Since the statements themselves do not even mention circumcision, however, they should not be included. The very idea that they are "international consensus statements" with respect to circumcision appears to be pure OR. Jakew 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of like the idea, claimed as fact without citation in the main article, that circumcision is traditionally presumed legal, or is a "traditional right" for parents.  But that kind of pro-circ OR  stays in the main article under heavy guard. Blackworm 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International consensus statements 

message: Mention that circumsized males often have no idea what uncircumsized males look like, and visa versa.
Nor do they understand if there is a variation of what the other group is supposed to look like, and what the norms are.
(Nor does Wikipedia present them with a concise page to help. E.g., list percentiles on how many look like :Image:Foreskin2.jpg).
Jidanni 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're proposing.  If you wish to mention something, find a reliable source claiming something, and present it and reference it in the article or on this talk page. Blackworm 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no idea of what un/circumsized looks like. 

message: Please describe edits accurately. Michael Glass 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of edits 

message: "Circumcision is a positive commandment obligatory under Jewish law for Jewish males, and is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child." What would you guess to be the prevalence of circumcision among Jewish males given that information?  Should we cite a reference and quote a percentage?  Blackworm 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? -- Avi 07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why what? Blackworm 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I now see from your edit summary that you are asking, "for what purpose?"  It is still unclear what you are referring to, specifically.  If you ask why we should cite a reference and quote the percentage, then my answer would be simply to enhance the article.  We have eight lines devoted to prevalence specific to countries; it seems logical to devote one line to prevalence specific to one of the religions that most commonly circumcises.  But then, I'm asking the opinion of others here on whether this information should be placed in the article. Should I put you down for a "no?"  Your resistance seems to suggest that I should -- in which case I would ask, why? Blackworm 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was just curious. I don't know of any sources, but theoretically, the prevalence among Orthodox Jews will be around 100% (exceptions made in the case of hemophilia or other blood-clotting disorders, for example). Among Reform Jews, my hunch is that it tracks the general population, and Conservative Jews will be somewhere between. Of course, that's completely unacceptable for wiki, but a logical estimation. -- Avi 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your estimates, Avi.  We need something more concise, however; this article is attempting to conform to WP:SUMMARY.  Now how about we find a source for prevalence among Jews and cite?  Is this area of no interest?  Blackworm 07:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What prevalence among Jewish males does this imply? 

message: From the article: The frenulum is cut if frenular chordee is evident.[23][24]  I read this somewhat ambiguous sentence as, "The frenulum is always cut during the circumcision procedure if there is evidence of frenular chordee."  Assuming that is an accurate reading of the statement, neither of the two sources cited make that claim.  The claim seems farcical; it would seem apparent that not all circumcisions are performed by experts who can diagnose frenular chordee with 100% accuracy and who consequently cut the frenulum.  Is there another interpretation of the article statement?  I propose this sentence be removed. Blackworm 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal seems reasonable. Jakew 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you agreeing?  Oh, I see.  You don't want any mention that the frenulum is often cut off during circumcision for no reason at all.   Now I understand.  That sentence must have served to weaken that point by implying it was only done if necessary.  Now you'd rather see the whole idea go away.  Hmmm...  How can we rectify this?  Well, I guess we can start by removing the sentence, then we can cite a source later.  Blackworm 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you: the claim is unsupported by the source material. But apparently you are now unable to assume good faith and remain civil even when others agree with your position. Jakew 20:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are now and have always been unable to discuss anything without either injecting POV, illogic, or WP:AGF behavioural guideline violations -- the latter being obsolete among the parties present here.  And where am I being uncivil above?  I was publically musing; merely trying to "talk out" my confusion.  I'm better now, and my apologies for burdening you with my mumblings.  Thank you. Blackworm 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, Jake, I'll tone it down.  Perhaps I'm just celebrating a possible first; I invite you to do the same.  Sorry.  Blackworm 02:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion not supported by source. 

message: The sentence I deleted is: In pacific islands circumcisions do not remove the foreskin REF (mp3)  This is not a reliable source.  Further, your statement is demonstrably untrue.  The word "circumcision" means "to cut around" and does not refer to a dorsal slit, which the unreliable source (an interviewee on a radio program) mistakenly calls circumcision.  It should remain out of the encyclopedia article.  Blackworm 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackworm is correct on this one, I believe; the source in question is insufficiently reliable to be added to the article. -- Avi 03:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of "pacific islands foreskin not removed in circumcision" 

message: The section on circumcision procedures goes into great detail about three related forms of the procedure, all discussing aseptic uses of a clamp.  There are myriad other circumcision procedures that are performed in both aseptic and septic settings.  The section as a whole perhaps depicts the majority of circumcisions performed, but neglects to mention other significant forms of circumcision.  As a WP:SUMMARY article, this is unsatisfactory.  Also, the specific choice of presented procedures may lead the reader to form certain incorrect general conclusions about circumcision.  Therefore, I believe this is a case of a violation of WP:NPOV through an absence of material.  Blackworm 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you list the other 9,997? You did claim there were 10,000, or are we allowed to use more than one definition now, such as 1a here? -- Avi 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, Avraham ("Avi") is a Wikipedia administrator. Blackworm 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point (besides the implied personal attack) is ? -- Avi 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That you should know better than to waste time and space with irrelevancies when something someone writes upsets you but you have no argument against it. Blackworm 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does the term irony seem to be apropos? -- Avi 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in reference to our apparent role reversal. Blackworm 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision procedures section incomplete, and not [[WP:NPOV]]. 

message: Was this appropriate?  Nah, probably not, despite the general lack of sense of controversy one gets from reading the article.  That only shows the article is deeply flawed, not that this tag is.  On second thought, I'll remove it.  Sorry.  Blackworm 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added {{tl|fact}} to controversial warning in preview 

message: The ridged band is the most important part of the foreskin, but it's not mentioned in this article at all.  I hope someone can add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.107.128 (talk • contribs) 
:The subject of this article is circumcision, not the anatomy of the foreskin. The 'ridged band' is discussed in other, more appropriate articles. Jakew 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I hope someone can add it in, too.  The anatomy of the foreskin is highly relevant to this article, which currently inexplicably focuses on the remaining parts of the penis (e.g. the glans) to argue, for example, that circumcision is not harmful to penile sensitivity.  Do you have a specific edit to propose? Blackworm 21:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs information about ridged band