Talk:Circumcision/Archive 32

Article too long?
Is it just me, or does this page take a long time to load into a browser compared to a short page such as Canada's Food Guide? Maybe because it has so many references -- I think it takes time to process the footnotes. It might be a good idea to move some of the material into subpages. --Coppertwig 23:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea is to do that eventually, but for some reason it continues to be pushed off. Most likely due to the constant disputes. I'd really like to merge the Medical aspects with the medical article. Jake, is the latter ready? -- Avi 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To do so would be a blatant POV-fork. Why not create a "religious aspects of circumcision" page and merge all the religious aspects to that article?  Blackworm 00:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article in itself should still be balanced, but it can be supported by other articles focussing on religious or medical aspects, and it can be shorter on the whole. Many of the references can be moved to those other articles, allowing this page to load more quickly. (I think there's too much about religion in this article anyway -- it would be good to move most of it to an article on religion and circumcision.) Alternatively, if the references are formatted a different way (not using the footnote feature) the page may load faster.  They could look the same in the display but the wikitext would be more complicated. --Coppertwig 04:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Black, please read WP:SUMMARY for an explanation of what was suggested. Summary style article construction is not a POV fork. In our case, "Medical" aspects is SO large as to justify its own article (which it actually has!). Should we be able to work out an NPOV compliant (and remember what NPOV means; it does NOT mean NO point of view) section, THAT IS SUFFICIENTLY LARGE, it too would merit its own article. POV forks are something different. Please see Content forking. Thank you. -- Avi 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you can't have it both ways. The pro-circumcision authors controlling this article want to define circumcision as "a surgical procedure" (surgical = legitimate, good, beneficial, sterile, performed by experts -- *all* debatable POV notions carried by the word) in the first sentence of the article, but relegate the ugly, grisly medical details of circumcision, as well as any mention of the *actual* debate and controversy surrounding circumcision in the medical community, to a subpage they know most people won't read.  Meanwhile, they encourage having a *larger* religious section in the main article, emphasizing circumcision as a tradition to be honored and respected.  I don't buy it.  It's a POV-fork.  Offload the negative material regarding circumcision into subpages (most of this work has already been done), and retain and slowly add more positive material.  Intimidate dissenting voices with tag-teaming and administrative threats, and maintain control.  Since the #1 hit on Google for "circumcision" is this article, you control the absolute truth for millions of people.  Fork away all that nasty "medical" stuff -- except how great circumcision is for AIDS, of course; that, I'm sure, will take up half the exclusively pro-circumcision summary. Blackworm 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Blackworm, it would really be appreciated if you could assume good faith and avoid making incivil accusations. I think that somewhere in there you're making some points that are at least worthy of serious discussion, but frankly if you make them in such a hostile and accusatory manner then it only makes people (including myself) reluctant to do so. Jakew 12:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More specifically, what I suggest is this: That the article as a whole be shortened as follows  That a separate article on "religion and circumcision" be created, and according to summary style the religion section here be shortened; and that the following sections also be shortened: the medical section, especially the part about benefits and most especially the part about HIV, to bring the section on benefits down to about the same length as the section on risks;  medical aspects are covered in more length at Medical analysis of circumcision); and the history section, which is covered at History of male circumcision; and the "Prevalence of circumcision" section, which is covered at Circumcision worldwide.  Note where it says at the beginnings of some sections in italics, "Main article: ..." Those are the links to the more in-depth articles for the Summary Style.  Blackworm, it's not clear to me what proposed action exactly you would consider to be a POV-fork.  How do you (and others) feel about this particular proposal?  If you consider it a POV-fork, please explain exactly why.  --Coppertwig 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be a POV-fork because the medical aspects of circumcision are those most cited by those opposed to the controversial practice of male circumcision. The religious aspects are almost exclusively cited by persons who see circumcision in a positive light.  The same editors who chose to define circumcision in the first sentence of the article in a positive light (i.e. "a surgical procedure") now wish to move the section of the article regarding the reality of the surgical procedure to a subpage.  The emphasis of the article must remain consistent with the definition. Thus the admittedly large amount of information regarding the apparent benefits and harms of circumcision from a medical perspective would be reduced to the same meaningless summary as the lead paragraph, perhaps emphasizing protection from disease without properly interpreting the data, choosing weak, emotional phrases like "the [source] felt that X, Y, and Z" to describe conclusions of certain large medical organisations, and emphasizing the medical sources' mentioning "parental choice" and "tradition" -- ironically, two aspects which have very little to do with the health aspects of circumcision.  Conversely, these same editors oppose an attempt to subpage the material concerning circumcision and religion.  Ultimately, by specifically giving emphasis on the medical nature of circumcision in the first sentence of the article (aided by the truism that "surgery" is always something beneficial), but seeming to bury countering material in a subpage... Draw your own conclusions. Blackworm 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, may I suggest that you read Coppertwig's proposal (and table) at the end of this section? Jakew 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify something, Coppertwig? Are you suggesting that this article should be a kind of contents page (in summary style) for a family of sub-articles? Or are you suggesting it should be the main article for a few remaining topics?
 * Incidentally, there is already an article about circumcision and religion. It should probably be renamed and definitely revised, though, since among other things it is rather Christian-centric: Circumcision in the Bible. Jakew 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it an affront to you that an article on a subject like the Bible, for which the overwhelming majority of believers are Christian, is "Christian-centric?" Do you believe it should be revised because the largest Christian church, the Catholic Church, officially proscribes circumcision, and some other religions prescribe it?  Is it a matter of NPOV?  Discuss on my talk page if you wish.  Blackworm 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that it be done as described in the Summary Style page, where it says in part "Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." The Circumcision article should not be just a table of contents, but should be an informative, balanced, (somewhat shorter than it is now, though) article that's useful to readers in itself, and which also has links (as it does now) to more in-depth articles on some subtopics. To be honest, I'm getting tired of waiting for the page to slowly load every time I try to look at a diff link or anything.  So I suppose it wastes time for the ordinary reader, too. I hope that answers your question. It's fine with me to either rename the Bible page or make a new religion page. As far as the medical stuff is concerned:  there's a tag on the medical article saying the HIV information is out-of-date.  Maybe people added it to this article rather than keeping that one up-to-date.  I think most of it needs to be moved there. (It's just too long in comparison to other topics here.) --Coppertwig 01:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I expressed my question poorly. When I referred to a 'contents' page, I did not mean for that to be taken literally, but as a metaphor for the logical structure. I am aware of WP:SUMMARY, and I understand the reasoning for wanting a change. However, I do not have a clear picture of what sections you propose to change and specifically, what sections you propose to leave as they are.
 * To put my question more clearly (I hope), could you go through each of the (top-level) sections and explain whether you see this section becoming a summary & link to a sub-article, or whether you see it holding the main content itself.
 * As an aside, the article formerly known as 'circumcision worldwide' is now prevalence of circumcision. Jakew 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's my proposal in more detail. Feel free to comment and suggest modifications. I propose to try to rename the Circumcision in the Bible page to a name like Circumcision and religion, and if that doesn't fly, then to create a new page "Circumcision and religion" (or else use "Circumcision and the Bible" with its current name). It would be listed as the "main article" for the religion section. The other sections which I propose to shorten already have "main articles" linked from this article.

In this table, I've listed each main section as one entry except the medical section, which I've divided into three for purposes of planning their length; I'm not proposing any changes to the subheading structure. I propose to first make sure that all information in the sections to be shortened exists in the corresponding "main article", then to shorten the religion section here to approximately 300 words; shorten sexual effects to approximately 200 words;  shorten risks to approximately 300 words;  shorten the medical aspects subsections 6.2 to 6.8, which are mostly about benefits, to a total of approximately 500 words;  shorten the history section to about 500 words;  and shorten the prevalence section to about 200 words.

Table 1
(*) (Some of the parts share the same "main article"). --Coppertwig 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The only problem I have with your proposal is that circumcision procedures, pain & pain relief, and policies of... should point to medical analysis. (I have some concerns about whether it could actually be made to work, but these are implementation problems.) Jakew 11:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. One step at a time! :-) I concur, and have modified the above table as per your suggestion.  That way, all parts of the article will have expanded versions. (The article as a whole acts as the expanded version of the Leadin.) --Coppertwig 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well? What do other editors think? Is it a good idea to shorten the article as described above?  --Coppertwig 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, thank you for taking the time to come here at my request and answer my question. However, I still don't understand exactly what proposal you are opposed to, or why.  Are you opposed to moving content about religion off this page onto another page?  Are you opposed to the proposal described in the table above?  And why?  I understand that the anti-circumcision material tends to be contained within the medical section and that the religion section tends to be pro-circumcision (that's inevitable, I think, due to the nature of the subject).  What I don't understand is what proposal you oppose, and on what grounds.  When you talk about a POV fork, do you mean that this page would become too biassed towards one view, or do you mean that another page (onto which some of the material would be moved) would become too biassed, or both? Please be more specific.  --Coppertwig 16:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I put notices on the talk pages of the "main articles" to which content may need to be moved, directing discussion here. I'm thinking of adding a note at Talk:Circumcision in the Bible saying that discussion about renaming the page should take place there.  Any comment?  (I.e. should discussion of renaming that page take place here instead?) Thanks.  --Coppertwig 13:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Edwardsville said in another section of this talk page, "I do not think that the article should be shortened, since there will be no agreement as to what material is important and what isn't." Edwardsville, would you agree to the proposal that the article can be shortened, but only if there is consensus about how to shorten it (i.e. what to leave out)? --Coppertwig 13:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I don't get more clarification from Blackworm and Edwardsville, I'll assume that Blackworm opposes moving anti-circumcision medical stuff off this page without also moving religious stuff, and that Edwardsville opposes moving stuff without agreement, but that neither opposes carrying out the above plan if it can be done with consensus. In any case, I'd like to move on to the next step:  checking that the "main article" pages contain all the information that's on this page.  (Some of those articles may need to be updated anyway.)  (

Table 2
I encourage people to check and compare sections of this article with the corresponding "main article" and sign in the appropriate box in this table if in your opinion all the information from here is essentially contained there at the time you sign. More than one person can sign in each box if desired. Rows in the box may be added for sub- or sub-sub-sections if desired. (--Coppertwig 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

See WP:SUMMARY. --Coppertwig 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC) See instructions above re signing in boxes to indicate you've checked a section. --Coppertwig 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created a place for discussion of moving Circumcision in the Bible to Circumcision and religion.

I don't support moving the religious material to another article. It is too important not to be included here. If we want a long discussion of religion, that could be done in a separate article, but this article should list what the various faiths do regarding circumcision, and should quote in full all of the instructions in the Bible regarding circumcision.

Edwardsville 13:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Edwardsville, please explain how your opinion on the placement of the religious material fits in with Wikipedia policy [policies and guidelines], particularly Article size and WP:NPOV. Actually, Article size seems to suggest an even more drastic shortening than suggested in the first table, above. --Coppertwig 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a temporary page be created named Talk:Circumcision/Summary style to contain draft shortened versions of the various sections of the article. Discussion of editing those drafts would take place on this talk page. --Coppertwig 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't support skipping the religious material either. If you want to shorten the article this isn't the place to shorten it since so much circumcision is done for religious reasons. If you have an argument as to why this section is less important than others, I'm interested in hearing it.

Just David 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I created the temporary page Talk:Circumcision/Summary style. People are welcome to put shortened versions of the sections to be shortened there. Discussion about it should be on this talk page. --Coppertwig 00:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Having thought about it, the section on religion could do with a fair amount of expansion, so it may warrant more space in its own article. What about an article linked from this one on genital cutting in religion? It seems odd to treat male genital cutting in isolation, since cultures that practice female genital cutting on religious grounds generally practice male genital cutting on religious grounds.

Edwardsville 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

HIV subsection: I'll have to re-check. I may have missed copying over some information. --Coppertwig 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC) OK, I re-checked probably as much as I'm going to. Still not word-for-word, but I think the essential ideas are there. --Coppertwig 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are the massive quote dumps in the references (e.g.,, , ) necessary? Seems excessive to me. — 203.173.16.103 08:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I gather it was a compromise arrived at earlier. I don't much care one way or the other.
 * Ethics section: material from this section has been copied to Bioethics of neonatal circumcision, Circumcision and law and Medical analysis of circumcision. A small amount of the information may only exist on talk pages of those articles (at least for now). --Coppertwig 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note discussion at Talk:Bioethics of neonatal circumcision about where to put this sentence: "Another argument questions why the genital cutting of males is allowed while the genital cutting of females is prohibited. ". Please discuss there. --Coppertwig 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Copying of information to subpages is now complete. The next step is writing draft shortened versions of the selected sections in Talk:Circumcision/Summary style, with discussion here. I welcome participation. --Coppertwig 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm late and out of touch (sorry, everyone in Italy takes the wholemonth of August off for vacation) but my opinion FWIW is that the article Circumcision should be replaced by a list of links to specifc articles as is done with other broad categories in wikipedia.Zandrous 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I've put draft shortened versions of the History and the Prevalence sections at Talk:Circumcision/Summary style. --Coppertwig 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Also the religion/culture section. After the 6 sections to be shortened all have draft shortened versions, blank footnotes have to be checked for before pasting them into this page. --Coppertwig 16:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've finished writing draft shortened versions of the sections to be shortened. I'm going to check for blank references, then if there's no objection I'll paste the short versions into the article. --Coppertwig 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked for blank references. There were only a few and I think I fixed them. By the way, I think the program I've been using to count the number of words counts a superscript as a word; and when I was remarking earlier that WP:SUMMARY seems to almost demand that we shorten the article, I had made some sort of arithmetic error and it isn't really as bad as I thought. Still, I think it will read better shortened. We should probably shorten the footnotes too, but that isn't quite in the current plan as outlined in table 1 (although I did copy the positions section to Medical analysis of circumcision thinking that it would be shortened here.) --Coppertwig 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've copied the shortened versions into the page. It now has only 113 references rather than 179, and apparently loads much faster into my browser. I don't think any significant information has been lost, since it had been copied into the subarticles. --Coppertwig 15:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The page Talk:Circumcision/Summary style is no longer needed and I'm planning to move it to userspace. --Coppertwig 17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethics subheadings
Let's try to find a phrase that covers ethics, emotional consequences and legality, use it as a section heading and put the ethics, emotional and legal parts as subheadings of it. Possibilities include "Ramifications of circumcision", "Societal considerations", "Ethical, emotional and legal considerations". --Coppertwig 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand including both ethical and legal issues together, but why emotional? Might a section on adult persepctives be appropriate since adults seek both circumcision and uncircumcision, i.e. men occur as both satisfied and dissatisfied with being both circumcised and uncircumcised in infancy?Zandrous 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) They seem to me to go together; they're all in a sense about effects of circumcision other than direct medical effects; or they're all about society's reaction to circumcision (or noncircumcision).  (2) They're three short sections, so combining them together helps keep the article tidy.  (3) They were together until recently. Why not put them together? --Coppertwig 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should go together, but they also have to do with direct medical effects. Emotional considerations are the basis for ethical considerations; and when combined with scientific evidence ethical considerations are the basis for legal ones.  Blackworm 00:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Zandrous, what you're talking about basically boils down to men regretting not having been circumcised in infancy. Are there such men in any significant numbers?  How do they compare to the number of men who are upset at having been circumcised in infancy?  What is the percentage of men who are unaware they were circumcised?  What is the percentage of circumcised men who know what circumcision is?  What is the percentage of all men worldwide who believe the practice immoral?  Etc., etc.  These are the questions we should be asking -- and the answers are nowhere in the article on circumcision.  It's a sad state of affairs. Blackworm 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm: Could you come up with some sources that provide numbers like that? That would be interesting and probably usable in this article or at least in one of the subarticles. --Coppertwig 15:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very little research has been done. The only peer-reviewed study with meaningful data that I can think of is Schlossberger et al. Jakew 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
Should there not be a criticism section in this article?Bless sins 07:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC) tn:I don't understand what you mean by a "criticism section". --Coppertwig 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC) No The practice of circumcision has come under criticism. Should we not have a section to reflect those views?Bless sins 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the article, you will see that every section contains elements of criticism. There is no need for a separate criticism section, just as there is no need for a separate advocacy section. Each subsection and corresponding child article has plenty of reference, and references, to both sides of the debate. Take a half an hour or so and read the entire article; it's rather interesting. -- Avi 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think every section does at all. Further, I think the ones that do, do so in such a way so seemingly calculated for minimum sympathy that they are a misrepresentation -- and thus a disgrace.  Take this example: "One argument is that male circumcision is ethically identical to female geital cutting."  The source is .  Read that page.  owhere are the words "ethic" or "ethical" used, nor "identical" nor "equal."  By presenting this apparent criicism of male circumcision (I believe the site is highly critical of the female form of GC as well, based on its name, "The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project"), the site is merely presenting facts, albeit in an emotional way; not drawing ethical conclusions.  That the WP author interpreted this as "ethically identical" is his problem.  It's not even clearly "criticism."  YOU are drawing the conclusion that it is criticism, based on YOUR ethics and worldview.  To those people who believe both forms of cutting are fine, and the arguments presented on that page on both sides make sense, would it be called "criticism of circumcision?"  That is a contradiction.
 * The problem isn't not having a criticism section; the problem is that there is no fair and well-presented criticism in the article. This isn't the fault of the sources that present circumcision fairly with respect to female genital cutting (which I *do* believe is mutilation, irrelevant as that is here) -- it's not their place to advocate, just to present facts.  Blackworm 03:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) Here is another example. The following phrase used to be in the article. It is a seemingly perfectly valid criticism (at least a debatable one), which anyone can find in different forms read again and again almost anywhere you find any criticism of circumcision. The phrase was, "Another argument is that as it's his body, any decision to circumcise should be only be made by the owner of the foreskin when he reaches adulthood." It is a seemingly very appealing argument; a valid argument to many if not most; certainly an argument used in criticism of both male and female genital cutting; and phrased in a balanced, non-fringe sounding way. Gone from the article. Why? Blackworm 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig has done excellent work implementing summary style So, while that exact sentence may no longer be in the article, the idea remains as "Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault." with a main tag to Bioethics of neonatal circumcision where the intro states "Because the tissues, once excised, cannot be entirely replaced, many question the appropriateness of their removal in childhood." Which is the same idea, and further fleshed out in the Bioethics article. Perhaps the sentence you list, with its sources, can find an appropriate place in the proper child article (referenced above). -- Avi 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't approve of Coppertwig's change. The first sentence you quote doesn't explain WHY "those opposing circumcision" take that stance, and thus is merely a statement of the existence of others' criticism, not criticism in itself.  It is also presented as a liberal-fringe sounding legal issue, that if calculated could not have been written better in order to shock people into opposing the stance.  It speaks exactly to those opposing change, without presenting any argument in favour of the change at all.  "They want to make a law?  No way, there are enough laws!"  The second sentence is from a subarticle; I will not discuss it here.  I've said in the past I believe all subarticles of this page are huge, rarely-read POV-forks and I don't wish to spend my time on them. Blackworm 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement is a better, more neutrally presented summary of several arguments, rather than one in particular. That it is a statement of criticism rather than criticism itself is a testimony to good NPOV editing. Jakew 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no. It is not a statement of criticism.  It is a statement that criticism exists (from "those" kooks wanting to change the law).  The article (now) does not present any arguments critical of circumcision.  It contains many, many arguments in support of circumcision.  This is not NPOV, this is keeping out the anti-circ kooks -- something which you have been praised for by several editors on your user page, in response to your stated goal of removing material you see as critical of circumcision.  Good job, you have helped eliminate all criticism of circumcision from the article.  Nice NPOV.  Blackworm 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, the article shouldn't argue for or against. It should present facts and (to a lesser extent) viewpoints (which, when attributed properly, are facts themselves).
 * There are two statements here, both presented as viewpoints, and I have no idea where you're finding the claim of kookishness:
 * Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, preventing infections, and slowing down the spread of AIDS.
 * Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault.
 * I can't see it. There are simply two statements, one summarising certain viewpoints of those in favour, and one summarising certain viewpoints of those against. Jakew 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The statements you quote are a perfect example. The pro-circ one presents the REASONING behind  the stance -- in the form of supposed facts (reinforced elsewhere in the article): circumcision prevents infections, circumcision slows AIDS.  Where is the reasoning in the anti-circ statement?  I would add "because they believe only the owner of the penis should decide whether a part of it should be amputated without medical reason, leading to intense pain, reduced sexual sensitivity, emotional harm, and risk of major injury and death."  Of course, you would never allow that, citing NPOV, NOR, RS, and whatever other acronyms you like to drum up whenever you revert anything actually presenting any anti-circ argument.  Blackworm 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me put this another way in case the ridiculous imbalance isn't already clear: the first sentence could be equivalently written as:
 * Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, since it prevents infections, and slows the spread of AIDS.
 * The above sentence is an argument. Because of A, these people believe B, thus they advocate C ("as would any logical person" is implied).  An argument advocating C, logically presented.  Let's look again at the second sentence:
 * Those opposing circumcision, however, question the legality of infant circumcision by asserting that infant circumcision is a human rights violation or a sexual assault.
 * Can you rewrite this as an argument? No.  It's merely a statement that some people exist who assert that infant circumcision is a human rights violation.  Saying that they claim it is sexual assault is redundant, since sexual assault is also a human rights violation.  However, by putting "sexual assault" in there, the article assures that people will be repulsed by the drawing of a comparison between a "procedure" they have seen all their lives as normal, and rape, which is seen as a crime more horrifying than murder.  Obviously the desired reaction is, "I disagree."  More importantly, however, notice that is no implied "since," or "because," or "as a result of," or any language which would signal that an argument is being presented.  There are no supporting facts as to why these people believe it is a human rights violation.  The sentence cannot be equivalently written as an argument, because it is not an argument.  The article contains no arguments critical of circumcision.  You have accomplished your stated goal.  Blackworm 07:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current wording, but another wording of similar length could be Those opposing circumcision, however, question the imposition of an unnecessary procedure involving pain and risk on someone too young to consent. or Those opposing circumcision, however, mention pain, risks including death, loss of natural tissue and incompetence of infants to consent.  Blackworm, perhaps you could come up with alternative wording of similar length, perhaps including the word "since".  I think the current wording actually makes a stronger anti-circumcision case than these wordings I propose here.  --Coppertwig 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your second sentence, although it is unclear why opposing views would need to be summarized in one sentence in a 100 kilobyte article on a controversial subject, which otherwise continuously extolls the benefits. But here, how about Those opposing circumcision, however, mention the pain inflicted by the procedure, risks of major injury and death, irreplaceable loss of erogenous skin leading to reduced sexual feeling, and the right of every human to decide for themselves how their body will be permanently modified.  These arguments parallel those used in opposition to Female Genital Cutting.  Never will that make it into the article, however.  It's just too... true.  Blackworm 18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Too long and too POV, actually. Jakew 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Too wrong-POV, you mean. Blackworm 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll expand on that. First, "too long" is a completely arbitrary objection, which could be applied to anything you don't like.  If two lines are "too long" to summarize all possible arguments against a controversial subject, while at least 100 lines in the article are the presentation of pro-circumcision arguments, you can hardly call that balanced editing.  (Note that one would never get the impression circumcision is controversial from the article, because editors controlling the article are all on one side of the controversy.)
 * Second, the statement is no more "POV" than the one talking about circumcision advocates. Your objection is simply that it presents an argument against circumcision -- something the article fails to do at the moment (and yet presents an argument for circumcision in practically every paragraph).  Please explain to me how the above is "too POV," since it merely states fact -- the fact is, that those opposing circumcision do so because of reasons X, Y, and/or Z.  It is exactly the same format as the myriad statements advocating circumcision in the article, which you support.  The facts could easily be referenced.  I can only conclude that you wish these facts to be omitted from the article because actually present an argument against circumcision for the first time in the history of the article (at least since you have accomplished your stated goal of remove anti-circ POV, and only anti-circ POV).  When circumcision advocates control the presentation of the arguments of those opposed, what you get is the current WP article: a fraud, a disgrace, and a farce.  Blackworm 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to summarise, and we're presenting a minority viewpoint (hence we need to avoid undue weight. Both of which imply that we should try to get the text as short as possible.
 * The first problem is that beliefs are presented as fact. In the case of those advocating circumcision, we correctly note that they 'assert'. But here, instead, they 'mention', implying that these are uncontested statements. Worse, relatively factual statements such as 'risks of major injury' are lumped in with highly controversial claims such as 'reduced sexual feeling' and completely unprovable beliefs such as the 'right of every human'. Finally, there is a wild bit of POV about arguments against FGC.
 * Although it is still too long, and thus would be inappropriate to include, let me show you how a more neutral version might read: "Those opposing circumcision, however, argue that the procedure causes pain and carries risks of major injury and death. They claim that irreplaceable loss of erogenous skin leads to reduced sexual feeling, and assert that every human has a right to decide for themselves how their body will be permanently modified. They argue that the procedure is equivalent to Female Genital Cutting, and believe that similar arguments can be made in opposition to both procedures." Jakew 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[Unindenting.] First, you have yet to show it is a minority opinion. Second, two lines is not "too long" to summarize one side of a supposedly controversial subject. Third, the beliefs of the circumcision advocates (slowing HIV, e.g.) are presented in precisely the same way, when they are, in fact, also contested. It is clear from the text that the advocates/opposers share those opinions. That you personally believe the "facts" the advocates believe, but not the "facts" the opposers believe, is immaterial. Fourth, the "completely unprovable beliefs" are the ethical beliefs of those opposed, and should be presented as such. The "wild bit of POV" is again, the opinion of those opposed, and is presented as such -- since it is attributed to them, and not the opinion of Wikipedia, it is not POV.

YOUR version, on the other hand, again intentionally distorts the arguments of those opposed to circumcision by claiming that they believe female and male genital cutting are equivalent procedures -- in order to get the desired "No way! I disagree!" reaction from the average reader. Nice try, but it don't fly. Just like your whole argument. Blackworm 15:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One source, quoted in the sub-article, remarks on "the emerging consensus" in favour of parental choice. Incidentally, the authors of the source in question disagree with this consensus, describing this viewpoint as indefensible.
 * We have one sentence for each viewpoint. We should not devote twice as much text to a minority opinion.
 * The views of those advocating circumcision are presented as views, not facts: "Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure" (emph added). I didn't state whether I agreed or disagreed with any views, and can only presume that you have misunderstood something.
 * Agree, ethical beliefs should be presented as beliefs. As I noted, your proposal failed in this respect.
 * "These arguments parallel those used in opposition to Female Genital Cutting" is Wikipedia arguing that there are similarities, not that opponents argue that there are similarities. If you can't see that, then have a look at this: "Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, preventing infections, and slowing down the spread of AIDS. These arguments parallel those used in favour of vaccination." Jakew 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The fact that the authors disagree with this supposed consensus is hidden and obscured from the main article because it casts circumcision in a negative light.
 * Again, you have yet to demonstrate that it is a minority opinion. The hundreds of lines making arguments in favour of circumcision, compared to ZERO lines making arguments against, indicates a severe imbalance and a lack of NPOV.
 * You intentionally truncate the part of the advocating quote which makes it an argument, i.e., the supposed facts which support the opinion. Again, if you include the entire sentence, you will see that it is asserting facts about the benefits of circumcision.  The format is exactly the same as the sentence I proposed.  If you do not believe Wikipedia should argue for circumcision, I will truncate the sentence in the article to read exactly as you have quoted it -- as well as any other argument in favour of circumcision in the article.  This may take a while, since there are dozens.
 * The ethical beliefs are clearly stated as belonging to those opposing circumcision, despite your bizarre claim to the contrary.
 * If you prefer the phrasing "Those opposed claim that their arguments parallel..." I have no objection. Blackworm 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently it was not sufficiently obvious, but each numbered point is in response to your equivalent point above ('Firstly' -> 1, etc). I suggest you re-read the above, bearing that fact in mind, and I'm sure all will become clear. Jakew 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only point you have that I have not destroyed is your claim of opposition to circumcision being a minority view. The source you quote mentions an "emerging consensus" in one particular, limited group which historically supports routine circumcision.  It is not a worldwide view, nor a laymen's view.  Please address the fact that this article on this controversial subject contains several presentations of the arguments of advocates for the procedure, but absolutely no presentation of any arguments of those opposing the procedure. Blackworm 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. Do you have any argument, really?  Is there any justification for inserting arguments for circumcision everywhere in the article while refusing to allow even the cited presentation of any argument against circumcision to be included in the article?  And then claiming to be a defender of the Neutral Point of View?  Seriously... How do you sleep at night?  Blackworm 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a real argument. Maybe the solution is, in fact, to have a "criticism section" since it seems all attempts to present the controversial nature of the subject, or present any criticism of circumcision anywhere in the article are met with the above inconsistent and illogical objections from the circumcision advocates who currently own this article. Blackworm 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this, then. ''Those opposing circumcision argue that since it is not routinely necessary, causes pain, carries the risk of death and major injury, and is an irreplaceable loss of erogenous tissue, men should have the choice to elect to circumcise in adulthood, or never. They point to strong similarities between their arguments and those used by prominent sources to oppose the mutilation of homologous parts of the female.'' I believe that the parts between the words "since" and "men," as well as the second sentence, can be sourced properly. But the above argument is written neutrally and is a factual summary of arguments opposing circumcision. It isn't a cited POV presented incorrectly by a critic of that POV, which is what how your version reads. The proposed section conveys multiple aspects of criticism of circumcision directly, concisely, and with no appeal to emotion, in 66 words. It could be the entire "criticism of circumcision" section, and that would be a huge improvement to this article, which, I reiterate, currently presents little if any criticism of this controversial subject. Blackworm 10:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, it is a mistake to have a 'criticism section' such as this, which presents a mixture of opinions and claimed facts, and fails to distinguish between the two. It is better to discuss facts in the body of the article, where they can be discussed neutrally, and to simply present an (appropriately attributed) example viewpoint or two. Jakew 12:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The opinions and claimed facts are clearly distinguished. The proposed 66-word section is neutral and would conform to WP:NPOV by attributing unproven or debatable claims.  Your argument fails.  Further, please note (emphasis mine): "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents." -- Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View.  This, instead of advocates of the practice presenting opposing views incorrectly and marginally, would be welcome in the article for this supposedly controversial subject. Blackworm 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you appear to misunderstand, Blackworm. When claims are unproven or debatable, it is insufficient to put a little footnote number after them. You have to make it clear that this is their argument. Hence, the proposal would need considerable reworking in order to conform to NPOV, eliminating sentence structures such as 'since X, Y should ...' that imply that X is factual. As noted above, it is best to separate factual claims and viewpoints - the former are about the subject, the latter about people. Jakew 11:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't misunderstand anything. All of the claims between two words "since" and "men" are factual and well-sourced.  This brings us full circle back to this sentence, which you support: "Those advocating circumcision assert that circumcision is a significant public health measure, preventing infections, and slowing down the spread of AIDS."  Note that "preventing infections, and slowing down the spread of AIDS" are the analogous claims presented as fact in this sentence of which you approve.  They are not presented as the opinion of "those advocating circumcision," they are carefully worded to assert those claims as fact without attribution.  If the sentence said "since they believe it presents infections, and slows down the spread of AIDS" then you could at least support it and oppose mine without being inconsistent.  The facts are presented the same way, and the views of the supported/opposers framed in the same terms.  Again, you have no argument.  Blackworm 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How can they be well-sourced? You haven't cited any sources.
 * You're really grasping at straws. I'm saying they can be sourced and the section should only go in if it can be sourced.  The claims of "preventing infections and slowing AIDS" ARE sourced elsewhere in the article, as are the claims under discussion here. Blackworm 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What you actually said was 'All of the claims between two words "since" and "men" are factual and well-sourced'. But I now understand that you actually intended 'I believe that they are factual and that they could be sourced'. Jakew 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the "advocating circumcision" claims, they follow "assert that", thus clearly attributing the claims, and avoiding presenting them as fact. But of course we've already gone over this, above. Jakew 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous -- the wording implies the statement of facts exactly like my section does. Consider the example: "Those opposing circumcision assert that circumcision is a violation, causing pain, risking death, and mutilating erogenous tissue."  Do you see a problem with that?  It's their assertion, right?  Now, I grow tired of having to put things in the opposite POV merely for you to have to understand concepts.  Could it be you are too close to this article, and have grown too attached to your years of work advocating circumcision here and elsewhere, to look at it objectively?  Blackworm 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, from an NPOV perspective that's at least an improvement over your previous proposal. At least you're identifying assertions now. Jakew 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Always have been. So then, if the claims between "since" and "men" can be sourced, you have no objection to the content of my proposal?  Only to its appropriateness? Blackworm 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The words "since" and "men" don't appear in the revised proposal (in your comment dated 00:12, 30 October 2007), so I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean. Jakew 12:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment you reference contained an example, not a proposal. Blackworm 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC re Judaism
I'm responding to the RFC asking if this article "should respect the Jewish tradition." The current version does fine at concisely summarizing the Jewish tradition without comment, and also at consisely summarizing arguments against circumcision without comment. The point of view is neutral and does not need a revision. VisitorTalk 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the RFC, but around this talk page, editors who are seen as critical of circumcision are openly painted with suspicion of anti-Semitism without any other supporting evidence or comment, and with the support of certain Wikipedia administrators. Something is definitely wrong indeed.  Also, as discussed above, the summarizing arguments against circumcision are neither representative summaries nor arguments.  They are as if crafted to present the weakest points in the least sympathetic terms, or to make those critical of circumcision appear to be a fringe minority.  The article definitely needs a revision, but not for the reason the instigators of the RFC claim.  Blackworm 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

About the pictures
I'd like to propose that a lot of the photographs be removed in favor of anatomical diagrams. Probably at most one photograph is appropriate. Not to be a prude but in principal Wikipedia is supposed to be a generally accessible resource and is not intended to be strictly for academics. The average person would tend to be uncomfortable with these pictures and I do not think they truly add that much value. Perhaps one photo to make the idea very clear is sufficient and then diagrams can be used wherever else illustration is required.

Again, this may sound prudish but mothers and their kids read this stuff and we should try to not be gratuitous about showing uncomfortable images.

--Mcorazao 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to replace them with diagrams, make sure they parallel the diagrams on the page on Female Genital Cutting by referring to the unmodified genitalia as "normal" instead of "uncircumcised," which means "heathen" in English .  We want NPOV.  Blackworm 06:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree- the addition of the repugnant pictures removes the encyclopedic quality and generally degrades the entire article. Diagrams/illustrations should be added that are anatomically labeled. -Robert.starkey 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, at its core, Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored. WP:CENSOR. The only reason they should be taken down is if they could be replaced by something more illustrative of the subject. Since a diagram obviously wouldn't be, there is no reason to remove them. Cheers, Rothery 06:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Of course, any attempt to post similar images to the Female Genital Cutting article would result in a massive outcry, followed by censorship, denial, and rationalization. There is plenty of censorship on Wikipedia; it's just that the norms are dictated differently, and double-standards are swiftly applied without a second thought.  An unmodified vulva is called "normal," while an unmodified penis is called "uncircumcised" (meaning: unclean, heathen -- and emphasis on lack of circumcision, thus presenting the circumcised penis as "normal").  A Western-centric, sexist presentation with censorship on Wikipedia.  With mass approval and smug self-satisfaction and claims of neutral point of view. All par for the course for WP. A big joke. Blackworm 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to generally respond, censorship is a very fuzzy line. I do agree, within reason, to avoid censorship. But I would not agree that choosing between two equally descriptive manners of presenting info based on which one is less objectionable to most people constitutes censorship. In other words, I would only call something censorship when you are actually preventing somebody from gaining knowledge. Although one might be able to argue some tiny grains of knowledge gained from each new phallic photograph I would say that the grains are minuscule at best.

In any event, I don't have any anatomical diagrams to contribute. Hopefully somebody out there does. --Mcorazao 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not made the case that the two manners under discussion are equally descriptive. The images in this article currently answer the questions: "What does an normal/circumcised man look like?"  Diagrams would not.  The images on the FGC page do not answer the questions: "What does a normal/circumcised woman look like?" Blackworm 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. Without having the diagrams in question how can you argue that they would be less descriptive? --Mcorazao 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since your offense seems derived from the photographic nature of the current images, I assume your proposed "diagram" would be non-photographic, and intentionally omitting detail -- similar to how the FGC diagrams on the FGC article completely obfuscate the real, true, aesthetic result of FGC. Again, would diagrams fully answer the question, "What does a normal/circumcised man look like?" If a photograph would answer that question better, then it is more descriptive. A diagram having the same descriptive quality would have to be so detailed and realistic that I suspect it would be just as offensive to you. Personally, I would go much further in describing circumcision through images and video of the actual procedure; but given that these images would be so horrifying to many, and would cause instant averse reaction to unneeded infant circumcision should they be seen by any substantial number of people, especially when combined with the information that circumcision is painful and usually performed without anaesthetic, such images are censored from this article. The normal penis shown is dark-skinned and hairy, eliciting one response -- the circumcised penis is white, clean and trimmed, eliciting another. "Uncircumcised" means "unclean." The power of images. Advocates control this article and thus the objective truth about this controversial subject, while hiding the fact that it is controversial. This article is a farce. Blackworm 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that photographs of erect penises are not usually displayed in a general encyclopedia. One way to deal with this would be to remove the pictures but provide links to them. That way, readers who want to look at the pictures could do so, and those who do not want to look at such pictures would not have to. Michael Glass 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good suggestion. I doubt it will fly, however.  If we take that route, we lose much of the justification for not having links to images of the procedure.  That will never happen on this page. Blackworm 09:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Avi's claim of "POV bias"
(Heading added by Blackworm -- Avi 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Heading should have been added by Avi.) Blackworm 08:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your POV bias is showing, Blackworm. -- Avi 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, yours is, Avi. The unmodified genitalia of the female are described as "normal" on the FGC page; there is no reason not to call the unmodified genitalia of the male "normal," except if you have cultural bias or a particular POV to push. Also, since the word "uncircumcised" is also defined as "unclean," and "heathen," use of that word carries offense, as well as pushing a particular POV.  This POV is continuously reinforced in popular culture (e.g. a scene in the Hollywood movie "The Ex" in which the antagonist's penis is ridiculed as a "giant, uncircumcised anteater"), thus I can understand if it may be difficult for you to look at it objectively.  I hope this clarifies things.  Blackworm 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm's definition of "normal"
(Heading added by Avi; should have been added by Blackworm) -- Avi 06:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (Why is that, Avi? I neither started this section nor went off on an irrelevant personal attack in an attempt to derail discussion. ) Blackworm 00:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC) n
 * Blackworm, if you refer to something as "normal" while contrasting it with another, you are implying that the other is "abnormal". That is the POV problem. And since both circumcised and uncircumcised penes are normal ('conforming to a norm'), one has to find another word.
 * While it is true that one sense of 'uncircumcised' does indeed mean 'heathen', this does not present POV problems since nobody in their right mind would think that meaning was intended here (similarly, there are no POV problems with using the word 'FAT' in the context of filesystems). It is quite blatantly obvious that, in the context of an article about circumcision, the word 'uncircumcised' is simply a neutral term that means 'not circumcised'. Jakew 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I use normal in these senses, "2 a: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern, 3: occurring naturally." The penis is normal at birth.  All penises, whether eventually circumcised or not, begin as not circumcised.  That is the standard, the regular pattern, the norm.  Circumcision is a procedure done to normal penises (and also some abnormal ones), which causes the penis to deviate from this norm.  Again, compare the use of "normal" to describe unmodified female genitalia on the FGC article.  This is a correct usage of "normal," just as it is correct to describe the unmodified male genitalia as "normal."  Using "normal" is not a value judgment on circumcision; things can be "normal" and then subsequently "improved," but that is up for debate.  What isn't up for debate is what "normal" is.  You can claim circumcision is normal for circumcised people, but then you lose the essence of what normality is.  If we allow that claim, we must allow that women who have undergone FGC also have "normal" genitalia; normal for their particular culture.  But we do not -- the Wikipedia FGC page makes it clear only unmodified female genitalia are "normal."
 * Whether I believe that meaning of "uncircumcised" is intended here comes down to my assuming good faith. I do not know the intent of the editor, therefore I prefer clearer, less offensive wording that does not carry the "unclean" and "heathen" definitions.  The meaning is there, in the dictionary, documenting our cultural bias against the non-circumcised.  This cultural bias is evident thoughout the article.  Your "FAT" analogy is, as usual, ridiculous, since that is an acronym, and not a word derived from the word "fat."  A better analogy would be the use of the word, "sinister," to describe left-handed people.  "Sinister" does mean precisely that, but you could see how left-handed people might object to the word being applied to them, because of the other meaning ascribed to the word.  This other meaning was applied to the word *because* being left-handed was associated with the devil, just like being normal rather than circumcised is associated with being unclean physically and spiritually (e.g. "heathen"). Blackworm 08:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, while you may choose to ignore the 'according to a norm' sense that you yourself quote, since you evidently prefer a chronological norm (in which, presumably, babies are normal and elderly people abnormal), but it is unreasonable to expect readers to intuitively understand that you're using this special sense. In ordinary usage, and in the absence of special definitions, circumcised and uncircumcised penes are normal, as are pierced ears, trimmed fingernails, and filled teeth. If the FGC page is using the word 'normal' as you describe, then it does not conform to NPOV. The correct approach is to fix the problem, rather than to spread it. Jakew 10:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter bunkum, bursting with cultural bias. I don't prefer a "chronological norm," I'm using a near-universal norm: penises begin with a foreskin, and stay with a foreskin unless that foreskin is intentionally cut off.  Same goes for having two arms or two legs.  Having two legs is normal.  Being an amputee is not.  Again, it is not a value judgment.
 * And considering you hover over and enforce your POV on the FGC article too, don't pretend that you aren't well aware of what they call "normal" in that article. Blackworm 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't consider myself responsible for every word of that, or any other artice; I just do what I can in the spare time I have available. I'm just curious about your views: is it abnormal to have trimmed fingernails? To have hair that's shorter than it would have naturally grown? To have a beard (among men)? To have any dental work? Jakew 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying something is normal does not imply that everything else is abnormal. The word "abnormal" carries notions of being unusual, and even exceptional, and is not only used as the strict converse of "normal."[]  That is why your argument seems to make sense, when, in fact, it is using a loaded term.  Similar to "uncircumcised," which is a loaded term meaning not circumcised, or unclean, or heathen.  The beauty of this discussion is that you are forced to accept that I may perfectly logically and by the dictionary definition use "normal" to describe a penis that is not circumcised, and it appeals to you about as much as you logically and by the dictionary definition using "uncircumcised" to describe it appeals to me.  Will you accept that we don't call certain ones "normal" if we also don't call them "uncircumcised?"  Somehow, I doubt it.  Blackworm 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem opposed to the use of the term, "normal" to describe female genitals which have not undergone FGC. That would surprise many people, I'm sure.  Why don't you go make your case for improving Wikipedia in this way on the FGC page which you also edit?  It would help you diversify your contributions.  This should be good.  Blackworm 08:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to interject, I think there is some confusion here, and add the definition of normal tends to be what society defines as acceptable, having a penis with a foreskin is natural, and is normal, while being circumsized is not natural but still normal.Coldpower27 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus making the case that for a female in some parts of the world, undergoing FGC is normal.   Ahh, were you perhaps talking about *your* society?  Blackworm 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't discussing FGC, at all, I was just talking with regards to normal as what a society accepts as acceptable, but with that definition, you still have to clarify what you mean by society as you seem to allude to. If you were talking about African countries, then yes in some FGC is normal with regards to those societies, but if normal only means what is acceptable by society, it doesn't preclude the fact that FGC has other social implications attached to it, such as "is it right?", and from that standpoint it is much less clear if it is acceptable or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldpower27 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the same could be said of male circumcision. Blackworm 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm quite sure Jakew and Avi would both object to "natural penis," as well, even though you and I believe there is no doubt on that question. Blackworm 08:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As opposed to one made of plastic? Jakew 10:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NATURAL 2 a: being in accordance with or determined by nature. The "natural form of the penis," if you prefer.  Address the points, Jakew, or concede.  Any why aren't you over on the FGC page improving it by fighting over the word "normal" over there?  Could it be that that article is also guarded by ideologues, making that task unpleasant?  Better just to keep the current double-standard, correct?  It fits with your advocacy goals anyway. Blackworm 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Natural form of the penis" is a little better, but somewhat ambiguous. Fortunately the term "uncircumcised" is precise, neutral, and commonly used. Jakew 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim that the word "uncircumcised" is neutral if you admit that it also means "unclean" and "heathen." See my "sinister" example above. Your logic fails.  Your argument fails.  You will never admit this, because until the day you admit being wrong on anything, you may continue to engage in heavy-handed unilateral reversions and edits while claiming to be engaged in "discussion."  Blackworm 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that "black" can also mean "gloomy; pessimistic; dismal", "boding ill; sullen or hostile; threatening", "without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked", "marked by disaster or misfortune", "illegal or underground", or several other negative meanings, would you suggest that that word should be considered POV? Should black people be renamed? Jakew 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you use that example. In the US, black people are referred to as "African-American" precisely for that reason.  That sentiment is fading since its peak in the early 90s -- with the mainstreaming of hip-hop culture, popular culture has become much less racist, and no longer equates black people with "without any moral quality or goodness."  Unfortunately, the same is not true with respect to popular culture and circumcision -- as evidenced by my "The Ex" movie example above, the natural form of the penis is associated with ugliness, fear and ridicule, and the circumcised form presented as the preferred norm.  You still hear the word "uncircumcised" used pejoratively, while not hearing "black" used pejoratively at all.  Thanks for trying.  Blackworm 02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) It's been several days since anyone has commented. Can anyone refute that the words "normal" and "uncircumcised" are both valid to describe the physical male persons, and the penises of same, who have not undergone circumcision? If not, are we prepared to accept the usage of both terms in this way in the article? If not, why not? Blackworm 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, the problem is not that it "normal" is a valid description of an uncircumcised penis. The problem is that it fails to differentiate, since it is also a valid description of a circumcised penis. This problem, obviously, does not affect "uncircumcised". Jakew 11:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not clear at all. If I were to use the same terms, I would say, "Jake, the problem is not that 'uncircumcised' is not a valid description of a normal penis or male. The problem is that it fails to differentiate, since it is also a valid description of an unclean penis or male, or of a heathen male."
 * There has been no ambiguity in my meaning when I have used "normal" to describe a penis or male, because I used it in correct context, contrasting a circumcised penis or male. I see no reason not to adopt this style here or in the article, if we are to assume that the sensibilities of editors opposed to the proposed use of the words "normal" and "uncircumcised" are not a factor. Blackworm 12:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, as noted above, given the fact that this article is about circumcision, it is blatantly obvious that 'uncircumcised' is used to mean 'not circumcised'. To read it in any other way would be deliberately perverse, much like reading "the Model T Ford is black" as "the Model T Ford is marked by disaster or misfortune". Since 'normal' describes both uncircumcised and circumcised penes, we could only conform to NPOV by using it in both cases (pointless), or neither. Jakew 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted above, in the context of my use of the word "normal," is it blatantly obvious that I'm referring to the natural form of the penis, in contrast to the circumcised form. You have not have your case for WP:NPOV in the case of "normal" any more than I have made mine in the case of "uncircumcised." Blackworm 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jake's logic is correct here, Blackworm. Furthermore, how is a circumcised penis considered not normal? Which of the difinitions listed http://www.webster.com/dictionary/normal here] dies it fail? This is the second time on this page that it begins to appear that perhaps English may not be your first language, as you are making assumptions that at best indicate a poor understanding of colloquial vocabulary and at worst indicate a distinctly limited world-view based on the fundamentals of anti-circumcision gential integrity. -- Avi 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Jake's logic is not correct, as I plainly have shown. The definitions you seek are the ones I quote above (3: occurring naturally), which is incontrovertible; and also (2 a: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle).  The "rule" here being that all penises begin as not circumcised.  Your repeated personal attacks and incivility are, of course, irrelevant and unwelcome. Blackworm 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, Avi, "world view" is not hyphenated, though you may also write it "worldview." Blackworm 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)"Repeated use"? That would be humorous if it wasn't sadly hypocritical. Here are just a few examples of your personal attacks that you may have forgotten. Note some of the edit summaries as well, please:
 * 1) 04:21, July 29, 2007
 * 2) 02:10, August 5, 2007
 * 3) 18:18, August 5, 2007
 * 4) 23:09, August 6, 2007
 * 5) 15:30, September 16, 2007
 * 6) 18:25, October 13, 2007
 * 7) 14:17, October 23, 2007
 * 8) 14:29, October 25, 2007
 * 9) 20:51, October 25, 2007
 * 10) 21:06, October 25, 2007

-- Avi 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not (outdent) in the middle of a thread; it confuses the discussion. Then again as this is possibly your intent, given that you have no standing argument, I cannot blame you. Blackworm 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, you do provide a bit of humor to this thread, BW. Sometimes, such as now, you are so easily confused; other times, such as in the relationship between circumcision and Jewish circumcision, you are so adamant in the clarity of your understanding, and via projection, of the understanding of every reader of wikipedia, who would, of course, immediately revert to a state of total befuddlement when faced by the term "female" circumcision. [[image:Face-smile.svg|25px]] -- Avi 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to argue that Jewish circumcision is not a subset of "circumcision," and thus deserves an appearance in the "other uses" section before the article on circumcision starts, please do it in the appropriate section. If my logic is confused, point out the error.  Do you have something relevant to add? Blackworm 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Similarly, all penes begin as small and hairless. So, applying your carefully selected rule, neither circumcised nor uncircumcised adult penes are normal. :-)
 * But this misses the point. Since this is the English Wikipedia, and not the Blackwormish Wikipedia, an object is normal if it fits any reasonable interpretation of any of the definitions. For example, a Model T Ford, despite not occurring naturally, is normal if it is typical of Model T Fords. Thus, since a circumcised penis does conform to a norm, it is normal. To suggest otherwise is either a) use of a private dialect of English, or b) an attempt to employ language to gain political advantage for the anti-circumcision lobby. Jakew 22:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The rule is "occuring naturally." Apply that and your argument fails.  And I fail to see what is amusing.  Your assertion that an object is normal if it fits any reasonable interpretation of any of the definitions is interesting, if open to interpretation.  Given the context of the greater, naturally occurring, universal norm of all penises beginning as not circumcised, with a minority later being circumcised, my use of the term in context is correct.  The medical definition may also assist you to understand: "1 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern 2 : occurring naturally and not because of disease, inoculation, or any experimental treatment ."[]  I also also heartened by your joining Avi in attacking me personally; I believe this indicates that you are grasping at straws. Blackworm 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you are trying to apply a single, narrow 'norm' of your own choosing. I'm quite happy to accept that in Blackwormish, normal means 'that which occurs naturally'. But since English is not Blackwormish, and there is such a thing as a normal Model T Ford, there are other norms. Jakew 11:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are acting akin to a child yelling with his hands over his ears. You have no argument. I'd be afraid to have you as a pediatrician -- if a baby came out circumcised, you would write on his chart: "PENIS: NORMAL."  Blackworm 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How terrifying. Blackworm, if you wish to show that a circumcised penis is not normal, it is insufficient to show that it fails one carefully chosen interpretation. Instead, you must show that it cannot meet any reasonable interpretation of the term. Jakew 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. That is no precedent for that.  Further, one could easily apply your argument to "uncircumcised."  I never said a circumcised penis is not normal; it is, by some interpretation and context.  I use the word "normal" to contrast the naturally occuring form with the circumcised form -- just as they do in the FGC article -- in order to avoid POV issues with defining children as "uncircumcised" (i.e. unclean, heathen) when they are born.  When you classify objects, you begin with the universal norm to established context, then specialize.  Again, consider "normal foot" and "foot that has undergone toe amputation" -- one might easily see those two captions in a medical textbook, and no ambiguity is present. Blackworm 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are no POV issues with 'uncircumcised', but you're obviously determined to believe otherwise. Just as long as you don't propose to violate NPOV by using "normal" in the article... Jakew 12:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are merely asserting things that I have disproved above without argument or reasoning. There is no indication to avoid using "normal" in the way I use it here, in the article. Blackworm 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your 'disproof' was evidently so subtle that I hadn't noticed it. The reason to avoid using 'normal', as noted several times above, is that it violates NPOV, by implying that the circumcised penis is not normal. Yet, as you grudgingly acknowledge, a circumcised penis is normal "by some interpretation and context". Jakew 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as you seem to acknowledge through silence, a penis begins as "normal," then is circumcised. General norm, versus more specific norm.  The disproof also refers to your assertion that there are no POV issues with "uncircumcised" (meaning unclean, heathen). Blackworm 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, the purpose of language is to convey meaning. Now while you might intend "normal" to mean your chronological norm, the reader doesn't necessarily know that. He's free to apply any reasonable interpretation of that term. (This is why it can be risky to enquire whether large, violent men are bastards, even if you merely wish to know about the marital status of his parents.) As such, it is important to find terms that cannot reasonably interpreted incorrectly. 'Normal' fails in this respect. 'Uncircumcised' does not, as I've explained above, because it is obvious from context that the terms you express concern about do not apply. Jakew 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent)You repeat arguments I have countered. I don't refer to any chronological norm, as I explain above. All penises begin as not circumcised. That is the general norm, the rule, the principle (definition 2 of "normal"). It also "occurs naturally" (definition 3). What reasonable interpretation of "normal" would the reader mistakenly apply to "normal penis" when contrasting a circumcised one? If context can remove the "unclean" and "heathen" definitions of circumcised, surely it can remove the POV you perceive with the use of "normal." Do you see any POV in referring to a "normal leg" versus a "leg with amputated foot?" Blackworm 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Blackworm, it is not the norm/rule/etc, it is merely a norm/rule/etc. It is perfectly reasonable to apply another norm, such as that of society, or indeed a third of the world's population, and if one does so, a circumcised penis is perfectly normal. And these norms may be more intuitively obvious to many people: consider whether it is normal to wear clothes in public (even though we are born naked, and thus, by your definition, it is not normal). And in general I would try to avoid describing any person (or part thereof) as 'not normal', regardless of whether it may technically be true. Wouldn't you? Jakew 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the rule, in the context in which I use it, regardless of your attempt to apply more specific and less general rules. I have never used the words "not normal" to describe anything; since without context, that would indeed fall victim to the POV issues you describe.  Further, "normal" is used in medical texts in precisely the same way I use it.  There are no POV issues with it; certainly no more than there are with "uncircumcised" (meaning unclean, heathen).  Blackworm 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you acknowledge that "not normal" carries certain POV issues. Since using "normal" to distinguish one thing from another implies that the other is not normal, let's avoid usage of that word. Jakew 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite acknowledge that -- note the phrase "without context." Since I provide context, there are no POV issues -- just like the medical sources which use "normal" in the same way I do. Blackworm 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you propose to use the term in the article, then how do you propose to provide sufficient context in the article? Jakew 15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The same way I do in this discussion; by contrasting a normal penis with a circumcised one, just like in reliable sources. Now please, end this attempt to force your POV on others.   Blackworm 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, that is Svoboda talking, and we know his opinions on the matter. Of course he will use a POV definition, he is one of the foremost advocates against circumcision. -- Avi 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who Svoboda is. The authors of the above quoted paper are Cruz, Rio; Glick, Leonard B.; and Travis, John W. 1943-.  And yes, it is their POV -- so what?  By your logic, anything from the World Health Organization can be similarly criticized, since they are the foremost advocate of circumcision.  Now please, stop supporting some POVs while opposing others in this article.  To do so is a violation of WP:NPOV.  Blackworm 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were referring to the Benetar paper and Svoboda's comments. And you should know who Svoboda is, he's quoted twice in the Circumcision article. -- Avi 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the WHO offer a definition of 'normal', do they? If they ever do, then let's treat the language with the same caution as we do here, thinking carefully about the NPOV implications before we adopt it. Sources often use language to prop up their viewpoint, and we often rephrase them, in part to present them neutrally. There's no exception here. Jakew 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not made any case that there is unacceptable POV inherent in the using the word "normal" as reliable sources, medical texts, and I do. There is no reason to rephrase any such uses, despite the fact that your advocacy goals would be served better if we did.  You are not the sole arbiters of NPOV -- and do not deserve that responsibility given than you consistently choose terminology successfully argued as being POV by some editors ("uncircumcised," "surgical," "removal [...] from the penis") when it suits your circumcision advocacy goals, and reject terminology you perceive as POV("normal", "intact", "amputation", "cutting off") when it doesn't.  Your consistent support or opposition of any terminology, phrase, sentence, source, cite, section, or organization seemingly based simply on whether it casts circumcision in a more positive or more negative light, regardless of the reliability of the source or the merits of the arguments of other editors, calls your credibility into serious question. Blackworm 06:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only have I made a case, but you have grudgingly acknowledged a) that "not normal" may have POV issues and b) that circumcised penes are normal by certain definitions. To provide sufficient context to allow you to use the term in comparison without risking POV interpretation, you propose to ... drum roll ... use the term in comparison - an intriguing, if unconvincing example of circular reasoning. Jakew 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is a misrepresentation, which I resent having to correct. What I said was, "I have never used the words 'not normal' to describe anything; since without context, that would indeed fall victim to the POV issues you describe."  The context is the comparison.  And yes, (a) and (b) are true; so what?  The meaning, when I use it, is clear.  Reliable sources use it.  Medical definitions confirm it.  You have no case.  Blackworm 07:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide sufficient context, using the term carries significant risk of POV interpretation, and thus violates NPOV. Jakew 12:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's provide a fresh perspective from a new voice (excuse my lack of a username, you can all hack me directly via my IP). I solidly agree with Blackworm that the penis a human being is born with is normal.  I will go perhaps a step further to say that a circumcised penis is abnormal.  There is nothing normal, nor rational, about taking the knife to perfectly functioning gentiles.  When this is done on a non-consenting child, it is sexual mutilation and abuse in every sense of either definition.  The support for this procedure comes chiefly from the Torah, a book which also advocates the murder of homosexuals, the keeping of slaves, the shunning of menstruating women, and large amounts of stoning.  There is no way you can rationally justify the cutting of a large (useful) piece of the penis.  It is nonsensical.  No human being would ever remove the foreskin if not for the influence of religion, based around an ancient book containing heaps of demands and commandments no longer accepted in civilized society.  So, how is that normal?  It is not.  It is abnormal.  And I have had sexual partners who were circumcised, and had no problem with them, or with the state of the members.  But that does not change the fact that these were men with MODIFIED sex organs.  They did not have a NORMAL Honda Civic in their pants.  They had a MODIFIED Honda Civic.  The penis is a single vehicle, a toy that comes whole and complete in the box.  It is not a bag of Lego to be reassembled into several different equally "normal" designs.  There is the original, and then there are the modifications.  And in this case, the modifications are reductions from the normal device.  Now, that is a mathematical reality.  I personally think circumcised men have suffered a crime at birth, but it does not make THEM less.  They are victims of tradition.  If they are proud of their penis, that is wonderful.  I enjoy confidence!  But let it be a tradition that dies with this generation.  In that sense, it is irresponsible to call circumcision anything but abnormal.  Signed: Anon 99.241.10.185 06:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't be turned into a debate about the subject. Your POV diatribe could not be more calculated to weaken my point; since nothing else at this point could, in my opinion.  I do not welcome it.  Blackworm 06:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)