Talk:Circumcision/Archive 34

Why only male circumcision?
If this is just about male circumcision why isn't the article called "male circumcision" as there is also a seperate "female circumcision" page. Shouldn't we make a redir or something to have a correct structure? Wiki1609 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a "correct structure"? Should we have a 'gentlemanbird' page to match ladybird? Or should Wikipedia reflect language that's actually in use? Jakew 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Circumcision" is used to refer to circumcision of both males and females. That male circumcision advocates along with anti-female circumcision activists now control the terminology and wish to downplay similarities between the male and female forms is interesting, but should be irrelevant to the organization of an encyclopedia in my opinion. Blackworm 23:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate this:  It seems I'm not the only one to observe this problem. How do you propose we fix this, Wiki1609? Blackworm 06:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems much more logical to have the structure like this:
 * Circumcision
 * Male Circumcision
 * Female Circumcision

Now it is like this:
 * (apparently Male) Circumcision
 * Female Circumcision

I don´t really care what its called in females, its just that this structure is wrong. And female genital cutting isn´t a word that´s used much, I hadn´t even heard of it before I saw the article. Regardless of that, the structure is wrong because circumcision has two forms: female and male, so that´s how the article should split. Like in >dog: bitch and stud<. Not >stud: there are also bitches<. Debate about the term should be in the female section. I suggest a short article saying circumcision is the cutting of whatever for whatever purpose; theres circumcision in males and circumcision in females. In the second article you can say circumcision in females in usually called FGC, but it remains circumcision. Wiki1609 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is a disambiguation page. Please see WP:MOSDAB: "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. The recommended practice is to use a hatnote on the article for the primary meaning to link directly to the secondary meaning." (emph added)
 * And, sure enough, that's what we have at the start of the article: "This article is about male circumcision. For the practice sometimes referred to as "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting. For Judaism's circumcision ritual, see Brit milah." Jakew 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The hatnote implies that it is incorrect to refer to "female circumcision." That is factually incorrect and violates WP:NPOV.  Circumcision refers to an action performed on both males and females.  It is a violation of WP:NPOV to restrict the circumcision article to discussion of circumcision of males.  There is no consensus that circumcision of females is in any way a "secondary meaning."  In my opinion, the article should be renamed "Male Circumcision," references in the article likewise changed, and a disambiguation page created for "Circumcision."  The "Brit Milah" hatnote is misplaced, since it is certainly not a "secondary meaning," but a separate discussion section exists on this page for discussion of that recent addition made without consensus or discussion.  Blackworm 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, then, that this non-secondary meaning isn't even mentioned here: Medterms.com National Cancer Institute Centre for Cancer Education, and listed second at: Circumcision, Merriam-Webster. Jakew 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you mean that Blackworm's understanding seems to go against that of the National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Education, and Medterms? Also, the Webster link defines Female Genital Mutilation as the clitero/labiodectomy and says that it is "called also" female circumcision, whereas a Brit Milah is in the primary definition of Circumcision. Are these sites also run by pro-circumcision activists? -- Avi 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that the American Heritage Dictionary, Princeton University's Wordnet, and MediLexicon must also all be controlled by activists. An WP:NPOV violation, anyone? -- Avi 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've both sure had to dig into and cherry pick some pretty obscure sources. "Medterms?"  Please.  Two "cancer"-related sources, one of which contradicts the American Cancer Society[], the largest and most prominent of these groups?  It's not convincing.  You are not going to convince me that the female form of circumcision is a "secondary" definition, unworthy of being even CALLED circumcision anywhere in Wikipedia, because the female form is described as (1b) instead of (1a) in a medical dictionary.  That is simply preposterous.  Avi goes further, muddling the discussion, by arguing in a backwards manner, from the FGM definition back to circumcision, when definition (1) of "circumcision" itself includes the female version.  As for Western medical sources, since female circumcision isn't routinely practiced by Western medical specialists, it should not be surprising that it is ignored by them.  It should also not be surprising that they attempt to appropriate the word for the procedure they profit from, and dissociate the word from a practice widely regarded as an assault.  Regardless, it doesn't change anything I've said.  Circumcision is done to males and females[], and always has been, despite ignorance of the female form of it in the West, and current widespread attempts to change the terminology for advocacy purposes.  The current Wikipedia article, written and maintained (i.e. maintained in a pro-circumcision state) by at least one known circumcision advocate, defines circumcision as only done to males.  This is factually incorrect, as several editors have pointed out.  Wikipedia is not for your circumcision advocacy.  If you wish to aid this present whitewashing of the use of "circumcision" to describe the female form of circumcision, publish on your advocacy web site, or donate to the WHO or to Schoen or whoever your male circumcision advocate/female circumcision critic of choice is.  Here at Wikipedia, we are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Blackworm 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could have saved a lot of time by simply typing "You are not going to convince me that the female form of circumcision is a "secondary" definition", Blackworm. Clearly, no amount of evidence will do so. Jakew 12:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a "secondary definition" or not, you have yet to validate the current organization of these articles -- which would require you to show that the female form of circumcision is not circumcision. Kind of a contradiction, but have at it.  Blackworm 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No such claim is made, Blackworm. In accordance with the recommendation in MOSDAB, quoted above, the article is about the primary meaning, and includes a hatnote directing readers to the secondary meaning ("This article is about male circumcision. For the practice sometimes referred to as "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting"). Jakew 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I judge by your misquote of the hatnote, which omits the Brit Milah link, that you agree that Brit Milah should be out of the hatnote? Perhaps you could comment in the appropriate section, above, regarding your apparent views on that.
 * The presence of the Brit Milah definition, the THIRD given under the banner of "circumcision," invalidates your argument that those terms of Wikipedia policy apply. Again, we are discussing a disambiguation page here to avoid precisely this problem.
 * I propose either of two things: Wiki1609's suggestion to turn "Circumcision" into a disambiguation page with the three meanings discussed here, or remove "Brit Milah" from the hatnote, and rephrase the FGC reference to say, This article discusses male circumcision. For female circumcision, see female genital cutting.  In addition to either of these changes, me must change the title of the article to "Male Circumcision," and keep consistent with this definition throughout the article, referring to "male circumcision" where there may be ambiguity.  Note the two links -- they appropriately validate female circumcision as an often used term (same way the WHO does, actually), without judgment and POV, and direct the interested reader to the best current article related to the subject.  Since the "female circumcision" page does not exist, and since "female genital mutilation" and later "female genital cutting" are more recent UN/WHO-invented terms, this encyclopedia organization is more likely to stand the test of Wikipedia standards and policy than the current format and wording.  The disambiguation page is a more neutral solution in my opinion, but I acknowledge that POV is a strong thing; therefore the removal of "Brit Milah" and the rewording of the FGC reference is also an acceptable solution to me.  Blackworm 01:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You judge incorrectly, I'm afraid. I simply quoted the part of the hatnote that was relevant to this discussion. I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, and am mystified by your proposed 'solution'. What exactly do you hope to achieve by a) removing a common form of (male) circumcision from the hatnote, b) including two adjacent links to the same article (one via a redirect, one direct), c) renaming the page from an obvious, common name to a non-obvious usage, d) including, on a page entitled 'male circumcision', the text 'This article discusses male circumcision. For female circumcision, see female genital cutting.', and e) padding out the article with unnecessary 'male' qualifiers? Alternatively, what is the point of a dab page with only 2.5 entries, and how is the reader served by having to click on the primary meaning to get to the page that he was almost certainly looking for (and if he wasn't, he'd have found the alternative in the hatnote)? Jakew 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mislead by implying the hatnote currently only has one "secondary" link, when in fact it has two; invalidating your argument above based on the WP policy you quote: "Some disambiguation pages [...] list only two meanings, [...]."
 * What I hope to achieve is clear from my previous comment. I quote from first paragraph of the source of your quote (which, as you have used it, is inapplicable).  WP:MOSDAB: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term."  This is Avi's incorrectly applied argument for the inclusion of "Brit Milah" in the hatnote (the above refers does not refer to hatnotes but to disambiguation pages, a term which when brought up caused Avi, an admin, to go curiously silent).  Nowhere does it say you can point the user toward two other "meanings," -- one, "sometimes used," the other, Judaism's ritual male circumcision -- in the hatnote, and then, especially, claim through subsequent application of the term that circumcision only correctly refers to male circumcision.  I am really sorry if you and Avi cannot understand at this point, but my reasoning is solid and I stand by it.  There are several distinct and separate violations here, and your defense of them is weak and disheartening.  This is an NPOV issue (and, yes, factually incorrect) due to the article's misuse of the term "circumcision"[] to be equivalent to male circumcision.  Wikipedia should not claim this by omission, organization, or content; and right now it fails in all three aspects you are defending.  The current organization is indefensible.  You ask what I hope to achieve: neutrality, and Wikipedia policy.  What do you hope to achieve by arguing against this change, Jakew?  I am mildly interested, but if you are merely seeking personal opinions from editors interested in making this change at this point, you have to understand that bothering to respond to you is optional.  Now, do we think we should also slap a "totally-disputed" tag on this flawed article soon?  For some reason they keep getting removed, but it seems appropriate.  Blackworm 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you bother to read the section of MOSDAB from which I quoted, you'll see that it is applicable, since it discusses a recommended alternative to disambiguation pages. Furthermore, you'll find that it links to WP:HAT. On that page, in the section entitled WP:HAT, you'll find a (somewhat extreme) example that links to no less than four other articles. Furthermore, since the hatnote clearly states that the article is about male circumcision, it is perfectly proper to use the term in that context, and certainly there is no implication that this is the 'only' correct usage. Nor, for that matter, does the fact that colour redirects to color imply that I spell the term incorrectly - in both cases they simply reflect a logical way to present information without redundancy. Jakew 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not assert that I did not read the section. You continually fault my reading, which is a personal attack disguised as a valid argument.  As I clearly indicate above, I read the section you quoted which clearly refers to splitting up a disambiguation page if there are two meanings on it and one is overwhelmingly more "meant" than another.  This is not the case here; the current organization fails both these clauses.  That there are potential examples of longer hatnotes, that does not mean one is appropriate here.
 * You are also taking a major leap in your argument. It is not proper that the article entitled "circumcision" refers solely to male circumcision.  This is the central point.  It is not enough that there is a weak disclaimer in the hatnote -- circumcision is not male circumcision.  In the article on "Breast Cancer," would it be appropriate to have a hatnote saying, "This article refers to female breast cancer.  For male breast cancer, click here," and then imply in the article that only women get breast cancer?  Your arguments are not nearly valid by any stretch.  Blackworm 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you appear to disagree with the recommendation in MOSDAB, which views it as perfectly proper for an article to be about the primary meaning. Jakew 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree with your assertion that the meaning you wish to exclusively assign to the word "circumcision" in this article is the primary meaning, or is the entire meaning of the word, as the organization and content currently imply. Further, WP:MOSDAB describes a disambiguation page as a "harmless" solution to these disputes; therefore your vehement opposition to the suggestion seems misguided. Blackworm 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement with sources is noted. I'm afraid you have misunderstood the organisation and content: the very existence of the hatnote is incompatible with your claimed 'implication'. Jakew 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have ignored my response, in which I specifically deny that I disagree with the source you present. I'm really sorry that you seem to be having such trouble understanding.  The existence of a hatnote does not dispel the implications found in the title of the article and elsewhere that circumcision only correctly refers to male circumcision, and thus it doesn't dispel the WP:NPOV issues; see my "Breast Cancer" example above.  Blackworm 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jakew said: "[...] certainly there is no implication that [circumcision referring to male circumcision] is the 'only' correct usage." It is debatable whether the implication is in the hatnote; what is not debatable in my opinion is that the implication is present in the title of the article, and everywhere else in the article, including in the first sentence (the definition), which currently reads: "Circumcision is the surgical procedure that removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." Blackworm 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki1609: I agree with everything you said; it is clear that these articles should be organized in the way you propose, to avoid the massive POV issues we have now. "Circumcision" does not equal "male circumcision," despite the POV of the editors primarily responsible for making this article what it is today (i.e., biased).  Blackworm 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on how the reliable sources use the term. Here are examples of sources which use quotation marks or other things to imply that they do not wish to call FGM "circumcision":    .  On the other hand, there are a lot of publications that simply use the term "female circumcision", and I get more hits on Google Scholar for "female circumcision" than for "female genital mutilation".  How about doing something in between the current and proposed wordings, e.g. "For female genital mutilation, also called female circumcision, see ...".  --Coppertwig 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that if someone searched for "female genital mutilation", they wouldn't have found this page. So I can't see how this helps the reader. We only need to cater for the situation (however unlikely) in which someone searched for 'circumcision' while looking for information about female circumcision, and direct them to the page they wanted. Jakew 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "However unlikely" is your POV, contradicted by the evidence Coppertwig and I present. Coppertwig's research suggests that the terms "female genital cutting" and "female genital mutilation" should in fact redirect to the most often used term, "female circumcision."  It also invalidates much of your argument in favor of the status quo, Jakew. Blackworm 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of discussing the renaming of a different page here, Blackworm. There are good reasons for the present state of affairs, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss those. My comments refer to proposed changes to the text of this page. Jakew 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems your confusion is still high. This subthread on a different article was started by you, in response to Coppertwig, with the sentence, "It occurs to me that if someone searched for 'female genital mutilation', they wouldn't have found this page."  I'm sorry, I cannot help you further in the face of this bizarre about-face and illogic on your part.  We are clearly discussing changes to this page, unlike you. Blackworm 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what you meant by: "Coppertwig's research suggests that the terms "female genital cutting" and "female genital mutilation" should in fact redirect to the most often used term, "female circumcision."" Which seems to indicate that you propose to move FGC to FC. Jakew 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your irrelevant observation with something also perhaps more appropriate for discussion elsewhere -- although it did serve to reinforce Coppertwig's point that "female circumcision" is widely used, which I do believe indicates that it should fall under the banner of "circumcision," i.e., THIS article, and not in the form of a POV disclaimer in a hatnote with a link to a more recently invented and less widely used term. If you object to the forum for discussion of this particular idea, then let's both end this diversionary tangent you started, right here.  Blackworm 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, do you think that male menopause should be merged into menopause? Jakew 14:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is yet another irrelevant, diversionary tangent. If you wish complete your analogy and argue for that change using dictionary definitions and other reliable sources, I suggest you do so in the appropriate place.  This isn't it.  Blackworm 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, that is not an acceptable solution. Circumcision is not male circumcision, period.  For Wikipedia to take that stance, rather than report on that usage as notable in the West (where female circumcision is almost unheard of), violates WP:NPOV.  Whether we change the wording of the hatnote or go with a disambiguation page, the usage of the word "circumcision" and the title of this article must change.  Otherwise, we must representatively write about female circumcision under the article entitled, "circumcision."   Your proposal also uses the phrase "also called" which may continue to imply incorrect usage of "female circumcision," and inexplicably and in violation of WP:NPOV favours the less used (by your own standard) term "female genital mutilation," (also considered non-neutral POV by many), by using it first and implicitly claiming it was what the reader really meant.  Just because there is longstanding POV in this article does not make that POV any more valid.  Blackworm 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * “Circumcision is not male circumcision, period.” Once again, that is your genital-integrity based POV talking, Blackworm. Jake and I have already brought plenty of neutral, unaffiliated, sites, both lexicographic and medical in nature, that define circumcision as only applying to males. WP:NPOV, yet again. -- Avi 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dispute that Jakew and yourself have brought "plenty" of sites arguing your point; certainly not enough to show universally accepted usage, and not enough to warrant exclusive use of the term to refer to male circumcision. Most of your links actually referred to circumcision applying to females also; in case you have forgotten, you were arguing then that the female form was a "secondary meaning," not that the procedure only applied to males, which you are now arguing.  And, I have presented a dictionary definition, from the same dictionary you quote from, which defines circumcision as done to males and females.  In addition to the Webster's definition I've repeatedly quoted, it is defined as applying to both males and females here [], here [], here [], here [].  Also, arguably, here, by WebMD: [] (see the definition of "prepuce" here: [].  Coppertwig presents solid evidence that "female circumcision" is widely used in the literature.  Female circumcision is referred to here [].  It is not a case of WP:NPOV, since the current organization and content give zero weight to this usage and in fact dismiss it entirely.  That is the WP:NPOV violation.  Blackworm 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't noticed, Blackworm, but two of these definitions are, in fact, Webster's. So your additions are a somewhat unimpressive mixture of repetition and OR. Your reference to Coppertwig's evidence also fails to support your point, since this relates to the use of the explicit term "female circumcision", rather than usage of "circumcision" (without qualifier) to mean that of the female. Jakew 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jakew, please. Two of your three own quoted dictionary sources plainly include the female form under the definition; here for [American Heritage Dictionary], and here for [Medilexicon] -- note Medilexicon's use of the word "prepuce," which they define [here]. Your characterization of my presentation as violating WP:OR is disingenuous and unsupported by any evidence.  "Female circumcision" simply refers to the circumcision of females, in plain English.  The usage of "circumcision" without qualifier to mean that of the female is evidenced in the dictionary definitions already quoted by both of us, and it is also used in other places such as here [], here (NIH, PubMed) [], here (Oxford Journals) [], here [], and here (NYTimes) [], which are just the results of a cursory search.  Blackworm 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, synthesis of sources is OR, I'm afraid. And I'm completely mystified by your examples of "usage of 'circumcision' without qualifier", since these examples seem anything but. You cite Female Circumcision: Rite of Passage Or Violation of Rights?, Circumcision and infibulation of females: a general consideration of the problem and a clinical study of the complications in Sudanese women., Female Circumcision: Management of Urinary Complications, Discussions of Female Circumcision, and Forced Circumcision Is Alien to Nigeria. Of these, all but the last explicitly discuss female circumcision in the title, and the last refers to 'circumcision of females' explicitly in the text. So you seem to be confirming my point: when 'circumcision' is used to refer to FGC, the term tends to be 'female circumcision' (presumably to avoid confusion with the primary meaning). Even though you haven't presented evidence of it, I am quite prepared to believe that there are sources that refer to 'female circumcision', using 'circumcision' without a qualifier, and since that is a secondary meaning I would expect as much. But I would expect such sources to be in the minority. Jakew 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jakew, your continued confusion in light of plain evidence is trying. You will find that all of the sources I mention use "circumcision" without qualifier to refer to female circumcision.  Here are some quotes from the five sources you link to above: "In these countries, from 43% to 97% of reproductive-age women have been circumcised." "[...] the overall proportion of women who have undergone circumcision is 94%"[] "Circumcision and infibulation of females: a general consideration of the problem [...]"[]   (Read the title of this article you yourself posted again, Jake -- it plainly says "Circumcision [...] of females", not "female circumcision.")  "Seventy-three paediatric and adult female patients presented with post-circumcision complications [...]"  "Seventy-two [female] patients were circumcised [...]"[]  "Some groups circumcising females also circumcise males." "Many groups that now circumcise men but not women were influenced by missionary and other European colonial influences to stop circumcising women[...]"[]  "She alleges, you report, that forced circumcision of females takes place [...]" "Although circumcision of females has been an ancient traditional practice [...]" [].
 * There is no synthesis of sources here, and I resent your repeated, unsupported claim that there is. What is unsupported is your claim that circumcision of females is somehow a "secondary meaning," and that further this justifies the organization and content of this article which currently implies that there is no other correct definition for "circumcision" besides male circumcision. Blackworm 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, the synthesis relates to dictionary definitions that you attempted to combine, not to these usages. As for these, as I've already noted, they explicitly discuss female circumcision (or, equivalently, circumcision of females) in their titles. Similarly, I would not be surprised if sources discussing the male menopause simply use the term 'menopause' once their subject is clear, but if sources did not qualify 'menopause' at all I would presume that they were talking about the primary (female) meaning. That's how English works. Jakew 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Your "menopause" analogy is completely flawed, since you will be unable to cite five unique reliable dictionaries which include this definition under "menopause."  Your claim of equivalence between "female circumcision" and "circumcision of females" is noted; but I should point out that it invalidates your prior argument, and strengthens mine for reorganization of this article.  Blackworm 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, Merriam-Webster gives the following for 'menopause', meaning 2: ANDROPAUSE. (Please note that I cited the same dictionary in my post of 22:29, 1 November 2007, as an example of a dictionary listing FGC as a secondary meaning for 'circumcision'.) So I guess the analogy isn't flawed... Jakew 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not "completely" flawed. But still, completely irrelevant. Blackworm 16:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, that dictionary defines circumcision as: "1 : the act of circumcising." It defines "circumcising" as (its sole definition) ": to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)."  Where is the "secondary" part?  Again, there is no consensus here that circumcision of females is in any way a "secondary" meaning, but even if there was, that still would be no excuse to imply everywhere in the circumcision article that circumcision is something only done to males.  Blackworm 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Applying your reasoning (such as it is), 'menopause' currently implies that the only correct usage of 'menopause' is that of the female. To continue applying your reasoning, the correct thing to do is to either a) have 'menopause' as a dab page, or b) rename 'menopause' to 'female menopause', and change the terminology throughout. I could go on, but I think it's already obvious that applying this reasoning has silly, if not absurd consequences. Jakew 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the disambiguation page is "harmless," according to WP:MOSDAB, I don't see why it would be a silly or absurd consequence at all, if you can make your case. It is still irrelevant here, of course.  Also, you have yet to show five unique dictionary definitions which list "male menopause" under "menopause."  You have yet to show any dictionary definitions that have it as definition 1 (unlike several do for "circumcision" referring to males and females).  If you do that, take all the info over to Talk:Menopause, alert me, and I will support your proposal. Blackworm 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you thought I was making a proposal. I thought it was clear from the fact that I described it as "silly, if not absurd" made it obvious that it was an example used to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning. Perhaps English is not your first language?
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. Where possible, pages should be named using common names, because those are what people search for. It is doubtful whether people will search for 'female menopause', so moving the page would not help anyone. And a disambiguation page would make the encyclopaedia less useful, because the vast majority of readers would then have to click on 'female menopause' to get to the page they wanted in the first place. In short, both of the changes resulting from application of your reasoning would make the encyclopaedia worse, less accessible.
 * As for "yet to show five unique dictionary definitions", I have already supplied one, which substantiates my point: that it is a secondary meaning. If I were to supply five, my point would still be valid, but I would have wasted more time. Jakew 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no flaws in my reasoning that you have brought to light. Both the organization of the article and its content currently violate Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NPOV, for the reasons I have shown.  I further resent your continued personal attacks and incivility in the form of repeated questioning of my reading ability or my proficiency in English, especially after I have made it clear that I have no deficiency in either area.  Blackworm 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The flaws are presented above, but evidently you choose not to see them. Jakew 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, alternately, could it be that I have countered your objections, and you choose not to see that fact...? No, I wouldn't go so far as to say that, since that would imply either self-denial or deceit on your part, which would be a violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL.  Blackworm 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, please, you are talking so much nonsense here. How can it not be entirely clear that circumcision is simply a surgical procedure. And being just that, you can perform surgery on both males and females, but why are males suddenly the default sex to undergo surgery and is surgery on females a "secondary meaning"? This is the reason why I asked about changing the title, because it is simply illogical to have circumcision consider just males. To give you the best example possible: orgasm, does this article only consider male orgasm with a "orgasm can also be a female orgasm" line on top? No, because orgasms are experienced by both males and females. These two types of orgasms differ and males have them more often, but does this mean an article on orgasm has to be just about the male thing? No. The same goes for circumcision, you can circumcise males and females, and although different things happen, both procedures are circumcisions. I hope now you understand why an article about circumcision should be about circumcision as surgical procedure. It should have both a male and female section, maybe linking to bigger articles that handle just male/female circumcision, but not like now making one of them default for no reason but a few random publications. And please don't bother trying to take down what I just said with some obscure wikipedia rule, because an encyclopedia should be clear, and clear is the way me and Blackworm are proposing. Wiki1609 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki1609, Wikipedia should reflect real-world usage (see WP:UCN), not the other way around. In common usage "circumcision" without qualifier almost invariably refers to that of the male. Consequently, if someone searches Wikipedia for "circumcision", then they are likely searching for information about that subject, and should ideally find that article straight away. In the event that they want information about female circumcision, the hatnote will direct them to the appropriate article.
 * Incidentally, please review WP:CIVIL. Jakew 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To me real-world usage is that circumcision leaves in the middle on which sex it is performed. As I tried to make clear in the orgasm example, just because males get circumcised more often (in some parts of the world) doesn't mean that the word circumcision an sich refers to male circumcision. And who are you (or I) to say that people searching for circumcision are most likely searching for the male version? Because we can never tell, it would be more clear to start at a more neutral approach covering both male and female circumcision. I said this from the start, the structure rght now is unclear and presupposes things that cannot be presupposed. And I wasn't being be rude, it just seems you are very stubborn on maintaining the current status, while the changes proposed will only make things more clear no matter how you look at it (as far as I can tell). Wiki1609 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in real-world usage, may I suggest that the "Google test" may be a helpful guide. Go to the search engine of your choice, and search for "circumcision". Now examine each result, and see whether it's about male, female, or male & female circumcision. I think you'll find that 90% or more of the first few pages of results are about male circumcision.
 * I'm afraid I can't see why the following is more clear, or indeed more useful. Consider the following usage scenario:
 * A reader, looking for information on (male) circumcision, searches Wikipedia for 'circumcision'.
 * He is presented with a disambiguation page, telling him to click on some link for info on (male) circumcision.
 * He finally gets to the page he wanted.
 * As opposed to:
 * A reader, looking for information on (male) circumcision, searches Wikipedia for 'circumcision'.
 * He gets to the page he wanted. Jakew 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this alternate usage scenario:
 * An average Western reader wants to know what "circumcision" is.
 * They type "circumcision" in search.
 * They learn, much to their surprise given their cultural bias, that circumcision is done to females as well as males. The next time they want to refer to male circumcision, they will type "male circumcision" in search.
 * Such a scenario should be a goal of Wikipedia -- to inform, neutrally. Not to reinforce ethnocentric POVs.  Blackworm 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your desire to 'surprise' people with such information seems troubling, Blackworm. Please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Regardless, the hatnote already informs people of the existence of the term 'female circumcision', and where they may find information on it. Jakew 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on the content, not the editor. Do not make unfounded accusations of violating Wikipedia policy.  Blackworm 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jakew's objection is internally inconsistent and has no merit. Even if we were to accept this tortured and illogical reasoning above, there is no explanation for only discussing male circumcision under the article title of "circumcision," and repeatedly and exclusively using the term 100% of the time to specifically describe male circumcision, and forbidding its use to describe female circumcision. The fraud is made complete by defining "circumcision" as male circumcision, and implying that "female circumcision" is incorrect usage in the hatnote. It is a huge, fraudulent violation of WP:NPOV that has been allowed to continue for way too long. Blackworm 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We clearly explain that the article is about male circumcision, and we direct people to the appropriate article if they were looking for the procedure known as 'female circumcision'. This is consistent, as explained several times already, with the recommendation in MOSDAB. Jakew 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to ignore what I said. Maybe a quote from guideline would help: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article)." Naming conventions (precision).  Further, the content must not then generalize and use "circumcision" to mean "male circumcision" when there can be ambiguity, as that violates WP:NPOV in addition to being factually incorrect.  Blackworm 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Curiously, you overlook the fact that the article you cite goes on to say "(See disambiguation for more details)."... Jakew 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please make an argument instead of arguing through innuendo. The article does indeed say "(See disambiguation for more details)." -- which you quote with no link.  The link is to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, inviting the reader to read more.  Again, what is your point?  Nothing you have said nullifies the Wikipedia guideline's call for article titles to be non-ambiguous, keeping exactly in line with my proposed change to the title. Blackworm 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you follow that link, which you kindly supplied, and keep following links to appropriate policy and guidelines, you will find that there is a recommendation for the specific case in which there are two meanings, one primary and one secondary. I've quoted it above. Jakew 12:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Jakew is just overgeneralizing. His comment that 90% on googling "circumcision" is about male circumcision shows the flaw in his thinking. Just because more males get circumcised doesn't mean that the whole TERM circumcision will only apply to males. Can't you just admit this is true and let's make an article on circumcision on both sexes or just a disambiguation site. Wiki1609 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki, I'm not saying that more males get circumcised. I'm talking about terminology, not prevalence. What I'm saying is that when the term "circumcision" is used, in most cases it refers to male circumcision. That is the primary meaning of the term 'circumcision'.
 * As such, we would (if we executed your proposal) have a disambiguation page with a common, primary usage and a less common, secondary usage. And, as noted above, "The recommended practice is to use a hatnote on the article for the primary meaning to link directly to the secondary meaning." WP:MOSDAB. Jakew 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I already told you what I think about the terminology argument, circumcision is just a surgical procedure and does not, in the first place, connect to any sex on which this surgery is applied. In fact you were talking about prevalence, because that's what 'usually' means, the most prevalent case. In some countries circumcision may usually point to male circumcision because they don't do female circumcision, but that doesn't make female circumcision a secondary meaning. They're still equal. A secondary meaning is between unrelated things, like a tip meaning the point of something and also giving a waiter some money. That does not apply here, circumcision in males and females is the same, it's cutting tissue off the genitals. A secondary meaning of circumcision would be cutting something off in construction or something, but that's not the case. Wiki1609 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Sorry, I made my suggestion without looking carefully at the current wording first. Current wording is For the practice sometimes referred to as "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting.. I now suggest changing this to: For "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting.  Reasons:  (1) Brevity. (2) reflects current usage in a more NPOV way in my opinion. "sometimes referred to" goes further in the not-wanting-to-touch-it-with-a-ten-foot-pole direction than seems warranted by the small number of articles I found that use quotation marks or something to distance themselves from the usage; yet by retaining quotation marks it can also be interpreted as avoiding actually calling it by that name.

Re secondary meaning: If you do a web search for "circumcision" what you tend to find at first is some articles that use "circumcision" (without qualification) in the title but which turn out to mean male circumcision if you look more closely. This suggests that the primary meaning of "circumcision" is male circumcision. I haven't seen any articles that say "circumcision" (without mentioning a sex) in the title and turn out to mean (only) female circumcision. So I think the primary meaning of "circumcision" is male, and the article title is OK. Someone searching for "circumcision" is probably looking for male circumcision. Reply to Wiki1609: some secondary definitions in dictionaries are very similar to the primary one. The tissue excised is not exactly the same: male and female genitals differ from each other about as much (or nearly as much) as one organ of the human body differs from another organ of the same body.

Re synthesis: It would be OR and disallowed to count numbers of definitions in sources in order to state in the article something like "more publications use this terminology than that terminology". But, counting numbers of sources in order to decide what words to use in the title and body of the article is exactly the type of thing we're supposed to be doing to satisfy WP:NPOV, in my opinion. --Coppertwig 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to go along with your suggestion re the hatnote, Coppertwig. Jakew 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasoning, Coppertwig. Common specific usage of a word does not allow us to change the definition to suit the most popular case.  If you Google "penis," I'm reasonably sure 99.9% of entries will be discussing the human penis.  Even that overwhelmingly high percentage would not allow us to define "penis" as being the exclusive domain of humans, or warrant the barring of any mention of any other penises in the penis article.  Also, I totally dispute your comments regarding male and female genitals; I believe they betray a profound lack of knowledge of anatomy.  In any case, they are original research.  Circumcision is done to males and females.  Denying that it is proper to refer to circumcision of females (for example, through your use of quotation marks), is factually incorrect, and a violation of WP:NPOV.  Claiming by omission and definition that circumcision is only done to males, is factually incorrect and violates WP:NPOV.  Blackworm 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunate, then, that we're not changing the definition, nor denying proper usage, nor claiming that circumcision is only done to males. So all these NPOV violations are hypotheticals. Jakew 12:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we are, currently, for the reasons I outline in detail above; your flat and unsupported assertions notwithstanding. Blackworm 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. When we say "this article is about male circumcision", we are describing the context and scope of the article, not the term itself. Next, neither the current hatnote nor Coppertwig's proposal implies that "female circumcision" is incorrect usage. Does a sentence fragment such as '...for "gravity", see...' imply that the term is inaccurate? FC is merely one of several possible terms, none of which are incorrect as such, though Wikipedia must, where possible, try to use neutral terminology. Finally, your assertion that we claim that circumcision is only done to males contradicts the hatnote, which refers to FC. Jakew 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are forcing repetition again. See the definition of "circumcision" given in the first line of the article.  See the title of the article, inconsistent with the content (against guideline).  See the hatnote, which through the use of "sometimes referred to as" instead of a neutral statement like "also called", implies the incorrectness of the usage of the term.  Even YOU don't use ever the term circumcision to refer in any way to a procedure done to females, despite its validity, carefully using words like "called" and "referred to" -- a reflection of your apparent bias.  A hatnote disclaimer does not allow WP:NPOV to be violated in the remainder of the article. Blackworm 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The first line exists within the scope and context of this article, as established by the hatnote. 2) The title is the common term for the procedure, and the primary meaning of the term (consistent with WP:UCN, and the recommendation in WP:MOSDAB). 3) Although I disagree with your interpretation of the current hatnote, I'd suggest that you re-read Coppertwig's suggested language ("For "female circumcision", see Female genital cutting."), which would address your concern. Jakew 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The scope and context should be established by the title of the article, not the hatnote. See the guideline, quoted above.  The disambiguation page is "harmless" according to WP:MOSDAB, yet you vehemently oppose it as a means to resolve this dispute, for unclear reasons.  Also, the term "circumcision" is defined incorrectly and used incorrectly in the article.  There is no basis to define circumcision as male circumcision.  2) That is WP:OR, completely unsupported. You have not established that circumcision, by definition, primarily applies to males (your "primary meaning").  You cannot establish this, especially not by your invented criteria of looking at the numbering of definitions in a dictionary, given that several of the most prominent dictionaries define circumcision in a gender neutral or gender inclusive way in their number (1) definitions -- as I have shown above.  Even if you did establish this, it would not allow you to redefine circumcision as only applying to males.  If the title of the article was "Circumcision (male)," and the remainder of the article consistent with that usage, you MAY have a point to defend the current organization and lack of a disambiguation page.  As it stands, the organization and usage are indefensible. (3) No other interpretation is possible.  For at least the third time: please stop faulting my reading, as that is incivil and a personal attack.  It is also inappropriate considering I have already specifically addressed Coppertwig's proposal, in which he admits that "by retaining quotation marks [around "female circumcision"] it can also be interpreted as avoiding actually calling it by that name."  He is absolutely correct; it does, implying that the use of the word circumcision as applied to females is incorrect, which is demonstrably false and a violation of WP:NPOV.  Further, his proposal is unacceptable given that the dictionary definition of "circumcision" makes the meaning clear and correct -- circumcision, by definition, involves the cutting of both male and female genitals.  Since this article in no way suggests any kind of cutting of female genitals is associated with the word, "circumcision," then the article can only properly be called, "male circumcision," or even more appropriately, "Circumcision (male)."  Blackworm 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We seem to be going around in circles, Blackworm, and your edit summary ("Repetition apparently necessary, again. But discussing ad infinitum is discussion, which as long as it continues validates claims of "no consensus."") suggests that there is little point in us continuing to discuss the matter. While I decline to discuss an issue for the sake of discussion, I would be happy to continue if/when you are willing to discuss with a view towards resolution. Jakew 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we both seem adamant in our positions, and in our apparent belief that the other may not be discussing with a view toward resolution, I agree. The next move is clearly some form of mediation.  I will investigate the options and procedure, and initiate this next step.  Blackworm 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the penis article is a good example, because there is apparently no separate article on the human penis: human penis redirects to penis.  How about this example:  Paris goes to an article about Paris, France.  If you want to find out about other places such as Paris, Idaho, you have to go through Paris (disambiguation).  I think it's set up like that because the writers figure that the majority of people searching for "Paris" probably want "Paris, France".  I think that's analogous to the case of people searching for "circumcision".  The existence of an article titled "Paris" with a note at the top stating that it is about "Paris, France" in no way implies that there is no such place as "Paris, Idaho" -- quite the opposite: it tells people how to navigate to a page on that topic.  Similarly, naming this page "circumcision" does not imply that there is no such thing as female circumcision.  The name of the page is supposed to reflect common usage, to aid navigation. (For amusement, see 'Concerning "Paris, France"' on page User:Wetman). --Coppertwig 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're saying, but the problem with your and Jakew's examples is that they refer to two completely different and only tenuously related things. Circumcision involves the cutting of genitals -- of either sex.  Pretty specific thing in common, there; it's not just a random word that happens to have two wildly different meanings or is used in wildly different ways.  There is arguably only one meaning, according to some dictionaries (cited above) that define it thusly: circumcision is cutting off the prepuce (which both sexes have).  It's the simplest, most general way to describe fundamentally what circumcision is.  The attempt to completely separate the male and female forms of circumcision by definition seems motivated by something other than an honest investigation as to what the word means and how it is used.  Blackworm 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note: in the "penis" example I gave, the other article (to complete the analogy) would have been "non-human penis," not "human penis" which is the case mostly discussed in the article. But note that the article on "penis" has an entire section on the non-human penis.  If the "circumcision" article had an entire in-depth section on "female circumcision" (with no subarticle), then much of my objections would be invalid.  But it doesn't.  It first defines, and then presents circumcision as solely applicable to males, which is factually incorrect, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Blackworm 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I think I see what you mean. It's OK to say "This article is about Paris, France. ... Paris is the capital of France." but it might not be OK to say "This article is about Paris, France. ... The word "Paris" means the capital of France." People from Paris, Idaho (etc.) might just possibly object to that, since it seems to be defining the word, as opposed to the other one which just uses the word, like an abbreviation. Suggestion: insert "Male" or "(Male)" before the word "circumcision" in the first sentence of the article (the one which defines the word). --Coppertwig 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree, Coppertwig. Look at it this way. Bob is from Paris, Idaho. He searches Wikipedia for 'Paris'. He's then presented with an article, which begins with "this article is about Paris, France", and directs him to other articles. He then has a choice: whether a) to continue reading about Paris, France, or b) to follow a link to another page. If we assume that he chooses to read an article (a reasonable assumption, since he's reading it) about Paris, France, then why should Bob object to being informed that 'Paris means the capital of France' in this context? Jakew 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hatnote edited, "consensus" claimed. Avraham, a Wikipedia administrator, has edited the hatnote and described it in the edit summary as "consensus." I object to this unilateral, undiscussed change of a topic under discussion and to the misleading labelling of it as "consensus," when it is anything but a consensus. It does, however, assure that third parties reading this discussion will be confused by some of the arguments of Avraham's opponents, since he has caused them to no longer apply. Blackworm 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Avi's use of the word "consensus" seems appropriate to me based on the information that was on this talk page at the time, for the edit removing "the practice sometimes referred to as" from the hatnote. It's still not clear to me whether you yourself oppose that edit, Blackworm, and if so on what grounds.  I get the impression you probably oppose it because you say there's no consensus, but you haven't actually said that you oppose it:  you could  mean that someone else opposes it or that there hasn't been sufficient time for discussion.  You said you disagreed with my reasoning, but that seems to be a reply to a different paragraph of my message which was discussing a different proposed edit.  It seems to me that I proposed an edit to the hatnote, Jakew and apparently Avi thought it was OK, and nobody expressed opposition to it, at least not that I noticed in this rather long discussion, and nearly 2 days elapsed to give people opportunities to comment.  So I think "consensus" is or at least was a reasonable description of the situation.  --Coppertwig 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Coppertwig. I thought it was rather straight-forward as well. -- Avi 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And, I'm curious as to Blackworm's use of bold at the start of his paragraph. One would almost think that he is shouting in deep consternation at some perceived radical attack on the very substructure of the entire article, when all that occured was the implementation of a suggestino agreed to by more than one person with differing viewpoints, that had no major opponents, and which served to make the hat-note more neutral. -- Avi 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit hides some of the POV put in place and vigorously defended there for a long period of time by Avi and Jakew, the moment I begin to discuss the prospect of mediation. It serves to make any third party go "Huh?  That's not true.  What an idiot" when they read much of what I write in this thread concerning the hatnote, or the other evident POV.  It was a move reminiscent of Kasparov.  Labelling it "consensus" when no one ever discussed it, and this issue is still very much alive, *and* the issue of Brit Milah in the hatnote is still alive, is disingenuous.  The change made was not ever discussed here -- the change you proposed here, Coppertwig, was specifically rejected because of the use of quotation marks, which continued to push the POV supported by yourself, Jakew, and Avi that circumcision of females is nonexistent as a concept (evident everywhere in the article).  Avi made a different change, undiscussed by anyone, and labelled it "consensus."  Shameful.  I happen to think the edit is an improvement, but it is not a solution to this issue by any means, and its prematurity only serves to weaken the arguments of Avi and Jakew's opponents; making its appearance at this point CURIOUS and extremely inappropriate.  Yes, there is consternation indeed.  Blackworm 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So, to review: Coppertwig proposes a change, Jakew indicates willingness to go along with it, and Blackworm objects to two quotation marks. Avi removes the two quotation marks, thus addressing the sole objection raised, and implements the change. Blackworm now indicates that the resulting change was an improvement. Does anyone actually object to this change? Jakew 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean for content, as opposed to personal, reasons, Jake, do you not? [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]] -- Avi 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig proposed his change as a solution to this entire issue. I objected to the labelling of the (improved) change as a "consensus," which may imply to some that it settles this issue (and/or the "Brit Milah" addition to the hatnote).  It does not.  Circumcision is not (only) male circumcision, despite Avi's assertion that anyone who believes so is displaying their "genital-integrity based POV."  Apparently the creators of all the dictionaries cited above have "genital-integrity based POV," according to Avi, as well.  Despite a change to finally address some of the POV in the hatnote which Jakew and Avi defended for so long as totally neutral, there remain plenty of WP:NPOV violations to be addressed: in the hatnote (Brit Milah), the article title (not matching content), the definition (not matching the true definition as found in dictionaries), and the content (repeatedly implying the incorrect definition), as discussed above.  Blackworm 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording of the first sentence.
I note that there is a still a dispute over the wording fo the first sentence of the article. Three editors have indicated a preference for this:
 * Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.

Two editors have indicated a preference for this:
 * Circumcision is the surgical procedure that removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.

Those who edited this way also deleted the following:
 * Dictionary definitions of circumcision:
 * "The act of cutting off the prepuce or foreskin of males, or the internal labia of females." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
 * "to remove the foreskin of (males) sometimes as a religious rite." The Macquarie Dicitionary (2nd Edition, 1991)
 * "Cut off foreskin of (as Jewish or Mohammedan rite, or surgically), Concise Oxford Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1964
 * Circumcision defined in a medical context:

Why shoot the dictionary? Why revert to a wording that has problems In a non-medical context? Defining circumcision as surgery becomes problematical in some instances and as dictionaries define the word without reference to surgery it is preferable to follow the dictionary definition of circumcision to avoid these problems. Why the continuing fuss? Michael Glass 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clear from a cursory search of dictionary definitions of "circumcision" that the word "surgery" has no place in the definition, despite any evidence that most instances of circumcision are surgical.  The word "surgery" or "surgical" in the definition only serves a POV purpose (since surgery is naturally assumed to be beneficial or required).  Repeated, long debates about this are in the archives, notably the last archive (#32).  Blackworm 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is circumcision synonymous with male circumcision?
Is it neutral and correct for this article to both define and use the word "circumcision" to solely describe the circumcision of males?


 * I'm thinking yes. "Circumcision" by and large refers solely to male circumcision. The technical term for what is often considered female circumcision is generally either clitorodotomy, excision, or infibulation. Modern usage tends to favor other general terms inclusive of various types as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), or Female genital cutting(FGC). It is an entirely different can of worms. Phyesalis (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I think your claims don't hold up.  Please refer liberally to this Talk: section, entitled "Why only male circumcision?"  I argue there that the definition of circumcision by all major dictionaries is either gender neutral (to paraphrase, "cutting off the prepuce"), or gender inclusive (again, paraphrasing: "cutting off the foreskin or clitoris").  The organization of an encyclopedia should reflect the accepted meaning of words as found in such sources.  For example, you may personally choose not to use "circumcision" to refer to female circumcision, due to your apparent personal belief that it is "an entirely different can of worms," but that does not make the usage of the word "circumcision" to apply to a procedure done to females incorrect, and Wikipedia should not support this POV to the exclusion of others.  Even in medical sources, and Western-centric sources such as the Internet, where you would expect that "circumcision" almost always be used in the context of male circumcision (due to the relative prevalence), the phrase "male circumcision" is quite often used to specifically disambiguate.  The circumcision of females is also discussed in volume, using the term "circumcision," in both scientific literature and on the Internet.  The circumcision of females is not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia to my knowledge except using other names invented recently by the UN and its agencies: "female genital mutilation," and "female genital cutting."  I believe Wikipedia should not favour the terminology invented recently by and disseminated by certain interest groups (the UN and WHO are organizations with specific interests) at the expense of the dictionary definition.  Wikipedia should not reflect an adherence to one POV, in content or organization, especially when other POVs are prevalent (in this case, the point of view that circumcision is gender neutral/inclusive).  I don't believe your view is neutral; in fact I believe it makes the same WP:NPOV error that the current article organization and content make.  Blackworm (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "FGM" gets over 2,500,000 hits on google, "female circumcision" gets 640,000 usually prefaced by the term "FGM". Circumcision is not gender neutral. The very use of the term circumcision in conjunction with clitoridectomy (part or all of the clitoris is removed), excision (removal of the clitoris and the labia minora) and infibulation (removal of clitoris and labia minora, and cutting or scraping of labia majora which are then held together so that the wounds heal and scar tissue forms, covering the urethera and most of the vaginal opening) is loaded and inaccurate, which is why the majority of the international community has collectively decided to refer to it as FGM or FGC, at the vocal behest of African women. At worst, the term "circumcision" is often considered sexist and pejorative. At best, "female circumcision" is anachronistic.


 * Male circumcision is not a human rights violation, FGM has been a human rights violation for the last 12 years since the 1995 Beijing Platform of the Fourth World Conference on women, PS - it was the African delegation that pushed for the language concerning FGM. Male circumcision has religious and health arguments supporting its general international acceptance (I have no opinion on male circumcision). FGM is cultural and regularly results in infection, obstetric fistula, lower fertility/sterility, nerve damage, an increased susceptability to HIV and death from labor complications, with ZERO health benefits. How many men have circumcisions, get a woman pregnant and then die as a result of their circumcisions? FGM is internationally recognized as gender-based violence and reason for asylum in the US. If you look up "female genital mutilation" on Pubmed, you will find some articles that refer to FGM and circumcision, but most of these were published before 2000. Almost nothing after 2000 refers to female circumcision.


 * So if your POV is that the UN and the WHO have specific interests (what organization doesn't?) then you better include the US legal system, Amnesty International, American Academy of Pediatrics, Islam and the Muslim Scholars Conference, UNICEF, the international medical community, the majority of womens' rights conferences, the majority of women, the majority of medical and sociology journals. None of these institutions or communities recognize female circumcision as an appropriate term. They tend to use FGM or FGC. And I would venture to guess that their specific interest is in stopping a crippling social phenomenon that has killed and permanently injured countless women.


 * As for sacrificing dictionary definitions for terminology disseminated since the 1970's, don't worry. The Mideast and North African Encyclopedia defines FGM, not female circumcision. Same with the Encyclopedia of Medicine. Webster's Online Medical Dictionary (nih.gov) defines circumcision as "1 : the act of circumcising: a : the cutting off of the foreskin of males that is practiced as a religious rite by Jews and Muslims and as a sanitary measure in modern surgery b : FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION" (emphasis in original). When you look up "female circumcision" it redirects you to "Female Genital Mutilation" which it defines as "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the United States -- abbreviation FGM; called also female circumcision." No doubt to clue in those who had been a bit behind in their modern terminology. The online medical dictionary at cancerweb doesn't even have an entry for female circumcision.Phyesalis (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It does, actually.[]


 * That the three letters "fgm" returns millions of Google hits should come as no surprise. A significant portion of those hits have nothing to do with female genital mutilation.  Try randomly entering any three letters into Google; you will get millions of hits for almost any combination.  A better test is entering "+female +circumcision" -- which requires both words be in the entry, and comparing the result to "+male +circumcision".  The results and 1.71 and 1.79 million hits, respectively.  Searches for "female circumcision" and "male circumcision" (with quotes, indicating an exact match for the phrase) returned 580,000 and 340,000 hits respectively -- the latter being enough to claim that circumcision is not implicitly male circumcision; it often needs to be explicitly qualified.  Of course, that test does not tell us exactly what we want to know either.  In our discussion in the other section above, Coppertwig noted that he obtained "more hits on Google Scholar for 'female circumcision' than for 'female genital mutilation.'"  Further, the argument that one usage is more prevalent that the other does not indicate that the other is invalid, which is the burden that must be met by those seeking to exclude female circumcision from the definition and subsequent discussion of circumcision.


 * The question of whether any form of circumcision is a human rights violation is irrelevant to this discussion. It is entirely valid that one form of circumcision may be regarded as "right" and another as "wrong," but that does not change the fact that they are both still circumcision.  You claim that medical sources after 2000 have changed their terminology away from "female circumcision;" but I claim this, also, is irrelevant to the definition of circumcision.  The definition of circumcision did not change in the year 2000 because certain parties decided they wished to use other terminology, as you suggest.


 * Your broad claim that "[n]one of these institutions or communities recognize female circumcision as an appropriate term" appears to be original research. It is contradicted by material from:
 * the US government [] ("Circumcision, or cutting of the prepuce or hood of the clitoris is the mildest form of female genital mutilation [...]") This incidentally reinforces my point that circumcision and female genital mutilation are not necessarily synonymous.
 * Amnesty International [] ("Associated Press report that an Egyptian conference of Muslim scholars from around the world has declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women.")
 * The American Academy of Pediatrics [] ("The AAP Executive Committee has reviewed the medical opinion of the Section on Urology and concurs with its opposition to female circumcision [...].")
 * An account of the 2006 Muslim Scholars Conference at Azhar University in Cairo [] One thing to be noted about this newspaper article is the frequent use, after establishing context, of the word "circumcision" without qualifier to mean circumcision of females: "Although circumcision is often justified for supposedly religious reasons, there is no religious justification for the practice in either Christianity or Islam." They're talking about females being circumcised there.
 * UNICEF [] ("In Egypt, the practice of female genial[sic] mutilation / female circumcision (FGM/C) is almost universal.")


 * The other groups you mention ("the majority of ...") are too vague to be disproven individually, but the Google Scholar tests is strong evidence of the contrary in the case of the scientific community, including publishers of peer-reviewed journals. I assure you that the word "circumcision" is used quite neutrally and correctly in these sources as well.


 * Your quoting of Webster's online dictionary serves my point; it defines circumcision primarily as "the act of circumcising," and further defines "circumcise" as ": to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)." Your emphasis on its secondary definition of "female genital mutilation" is confusing, since it also serves my point.  It shows that circumcision has come to be used to mean "female genital mutilation," after it was already used to describe one specific form of FGM.  As I've already pointed out, Cancerweb does have an entry for female circumcision, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.  I strongly urge you to read the discussion in the section above entitled "Why only male circumcision," where no less than six dictionaries and a handful of medical and other sources are cited backing up my claim.  Blackworm (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, having gone back and reread the discussion, here is my response to your RfC:
 * As there is already a page for Female genital cutting (which would prove that the consensus over there is that circumcision is not the prevailing term - not that WP is a reliable source but that WP pages should reflect parity) I suggest that you search their talk history for what they used to reach that conclusion.
 * Out-of-hand rejection of UN/WHO terminology is unfounded POV. This isn't an abortion discussion, if you have objections with the international standard take it up on the FGC page.
 * The argument for female circumcision is OR synthesis of disparate sources taken out of context. It suggest a lack of familiarity with the subject and a particular bias. FGM/C terminology has been around since the 70's. Each of the previous examples establishes the greater context as FGM before mentioning FC. For example the selective use of the AAP is from a page titled "Female Genital Mutilation" and is one person's usage published in 1994. However, the AAP policy statement in 1998 "Female genital mutilation--Committe on Bioethics" clearly states "The traditional custom of ritual cutting and alteration of the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents, referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM)..." makes no reference to female circumcision in the abstract or body of the article.[]
 * The argument that FGM/C is NPOV because it is "relatively unheard of" in the West, also suggests a lack of familiarity. The US recognizes it as a reason for asylum, and as a crime under numerous state and federal laws since 1996. There is also a broad body of Western scholarship that regularly uses the term.
 * Given that there is no substantial argument to support anachronistic usage of "Female circumcision" against the prevailing national and international communities use of FGM/FGC, I recommend following the FGC page's lead. The answer to the question of circumcision's neutrality in its application to female ritual cutting is clearly No. It's clear that while the term may be used from time to time within the context of FGM/C, it is obviously not a neutral term, but instead one loaded with various controversial connotations. Phyesalis (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that seems to be completely composed of original research. Even the FGC page you quote as having a "lead" to be followed, includes female circumcision in the first sentence (the definition); not that Wikipedia is a reliable source anyhow. Blackworm (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OR? In an article in 1999 from Medical Anthropology: The extensive literature on the subject, the support of international organizations3, and the emergence of local groups working against the continuation practices appear to suggest that an international consensus has been reached. The terminology used to refer to these surgeries has changed, and the clearly disapproving and powerfully evocative experssion of "female genital mutilation" has now all but replaced the possibly innaccurate, but relatively less value laden-term of "female circumcision".

From Social Science and Medicine: "The term “female circumcision” is a euphemistic description for what is really a variety of procedures for altering the female genitalia. While numerous terms have been used to describe the wide range of procedures, there are generally four commonly recognized forms of genital cutting. The least extensive type, and the only one that can be construed as analogous to male circumcision, is commonly referred to as sunna (Arabic for “tradition” or “duty”), and involves removal of the prepuce or hood of the clitoris. Toubia (1994) claims that in actuality, no medical reports document the existence of this procedure. Rather, in the majority of cases categorized as sunna, the clitoral prepuce is removed with all or part of the clitoris as well. Therefore, in the medical literature it is sometimes referred to as clitoridectomy (Toubia, 1994)... As variations in the practice (degree of cutting, training of the circumcisor, sanitary conditions, degree of medical support) are obliterated, presented is a seemingly objective, scientific discussion of the medical “facts” of a single practice — “genital mutilation”... Shell-Duncan, Bettina. 2001, April "The medicalization of female "circumcision":harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice?" Social Science & Medicine, v52.7 p1013-1028 doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00277-1

And from the ''American Journal of Bioethics": Routine neonatal male circumcision has been the subject of considerable debate among medical professionals. This subject, however, has received negligible attention in the bioethics literature. This suggests that most scholars working in bioethics do not consider neonatal male circumcision, unlike the practices of female genital excision that are common in parts of Africa and elsewhere, to be a morally troubling surgical procedure. (p35) ... [Take] clitoridectomy, for example. Of course, in addition to being strange (at least to those outside of the cultures where it is practiced), is also very harmful. It is this harm that separates female genital excision from male circumcision. (p44) Benatar, Michael & David Benatar. 2003,April. "Between Prophylaxis and Child Abuse: The Ethics of Neonatal Male Circucision |journal=The American Journal of Bioethics, v3.2, p35-48

3 impeccable sources, all peer-reviewed, and not one of them feminist or UN/WHO related. OR? OR is unsubstantiated and irrelevant dismissal of international orgs like the UN and WHO. Phyesalis (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first source seems like excellent material for the female circumcision section or article. Again, that organizations choose to advocate male circumcision and oppose female circumcision, and thus choose to adopt terminology to further these goals, is relevant and notable, and to be presented in Wikipedia.  It does not change the validity of the original terminology.  There are other users of the English language who correctly refer to the circumcision of females.  It is not verboten to use the word in this way, as you seem to imply.  The point here is not whether "female circumcision" is more or less desirable a phrase than "female genital mutilation/cutting," the point is that circumcision is done to males and females -- which a person with a dictionary can easily confirm.  As presenters of the neutral point of view, that means we don't choose to redefine words for advocacy reasons -- even your source admits that "female circumcision" is a "less value-laden term."  In any case, your source does not claim that circumcision only means "male circumcision," and that it is incorrect to use "circumcision" to describe any procedure does to females, which, if unopposed by anyone, would be the claim required to substantiate in order to retain the current organization and usage in the Wikipedia article(s).  Of course, since it is proven that the term is valid and is used, I really don't see how any of what you present is relevant.


 * Your second source is interesting, but again, what does this prove? Presented in the large discussion section above ("Talk:Circumcision") are uses of circumcision to describe a procedure done to females in at least five dictionaries and five various peer-reviewed sources.  The Google searches support the position that it is improper to deny that the word is used to apply to females.  Certainly some object to its usage, and that can be documented; but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.


 * Your third source uses the phrase, "neonatal male circumcision." Why is the word "male" needed here, if it is implied by the word, "circumcision?"  The answer is, of course, that "circumcision" does not necessarily imply male circumcision.  Your own source proves my point.  I am not sure what point you were trying to show by its presentation.


 * Finally, I think you are misunderstanding my position. I don't "dismiss" the WHO or the UN, I dismiss the idea that they should have the power to redefine English words for the rest of us, in their attempts to control how we think.  They can try, and we can document their attempts, and even some of their success in their attempts (as evidenced by some sources you present).  What we cannot do is take their position to the exclusion of other positions, or present their position as undisputed fact.  That is the violation of WP:NPOV in this article and its organization.  Ultimately, the definition of a word in Wikipedia needs to be undisputed; the definition we have for "circumcision," in the first line of the article, is disputed, is a particular POV, and is not a neutral POV, or even one of a majority (if we count lexicographical sources, which I believe are the only good sources for a definition).  The remainder of the circumcision article builds on this error.  This needs to be repaired.  Blackworm (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The word circumcision in it's application to females has been disputed since the 70's. It is just as loaded as FGM. The least value-laden term is FGC (I can get you sources on that - but it's in the FGC article sourced), female genital surgeries, or the more specific clitorodectomy, excision or infibulation. Why not use the term clitorodectomy? "Female circumcision" even in it's euphemistic, less-precise, value-laden terminology refers to a whole range of rituals not related to the cutting of the clitoris. Clitorodectomy is the most accurate, analogous and least loaded term. It is also in dictionaries and has an undisputed def., unlike FC/FGM. I think this would be a reasonable compromise that does not give weight to either side.

Clearly "lexicographical sources" do not agree, we have all cited various dictionaries and encyclopedias that had contradicting takes on the term. Choosing the ones that suit your purpose is cherry-picking. If you can find some peer-review sources on the history of the terminology that say female circumcision is both superior to and more commonly used than both FGM AND FGC, you might have an argument. Additonally there is the issue of parity - the FGC page makes no mention of male circumcision per se (though it does refer to male circumcision advocates), nor should it have to. The MC page has no obligation to address FGC. They are two different things with different pages.

While you may have personal issues with interational consensus (as previously cited) it is still international consensus. The UN and WHO didn't just get together one day and decide to hijack language for their own purposes - they did so in response to scholarship and at women's behest because they showed good reason to divorce the concept of female cutting from the religious and medical contexts of circumcision. And guess what - the majority of the world agreed. Circumcision can be defined as a surgical procedure with health benefits. FGC cannot. You have provided no sources to support your cherry-picking of definitions. Definitions and terminology have changed over time, first FC, then FGM, now FGC or female genital surgeries. While a circumcision and a clitorodectomy might have an argument for comparison, "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" do not. And though the term may still be employed in some limited contexts, very few people would argue that the two phenomena are the same thing differing only by the sex of the person cut. Given the fact that the FGC page want nothing to do with MC, and seemingly, the Circumcision page wants nothing to do with FGC, why don't you start a daughter article that addresses the multiple contexts and debates? Politics of circumcision? You can link to this and the FGC page.

And that's it - I've offered my comments, backed them up with peer-reviewed sources and provided one compromise (clitorodectomy) and one alternative (start another page). I'm sorry that you put out the RfC and have only gotten one comment, one you don't like. Phyesalis (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You continue to reinforce my position. You make reference to the circumcision article as "the MC page," which I take to mean "the Male Circumcision page" -- but such a page does not exist.  The page discussing male circumcision (exclusively) is called "Circumcision," and it is my exact proposal that we rename it to include the word "male," which would resolve some of the WP:NPOV violation.  Your suggestion that sources like Merriam-Webster,[] American Heritage Dictionary,[] and Oxford English Dictionary[] are "cherry-picked" is completely absurd.  No one has yet demonstrated one prominent lexicographical source that defines circumcision as exclusively the domain of males.  The Wikipedia article is a glaring exception, and it should not be.  In order to maintain the status quo, it seems that at least a majority of these sources would have to define circumcision thusly.  It seems just as absurd to me to claim that male and female circumcision cannot be compared (due to the details of these procedures), and therefore the female form should not be discussed in the article entitled "Circumcision."  It also seems completely bizarre to me that you apparently suggest I discuss circumcision of females in a new article "Politics of Circumcision," yet you believe no one should be allowed to discuss circumcision of females, or indeed ever refer to any procedure done to females as "circumcision" in Wikipedia, contrary to the dictionary definition of the word.  The Orwellian word doublethink comes to mind.  Regardless, thank you for responding to the RfC.  Blackworm (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm is still being right all the time, so I wonder why the article's structure has not been changed with reasonable consensus yet. Most sources Phyesalis brings up indeed serve to strengthen Blackworm's story. The WHO and UN indeed cannot change the english (or any) language, people arguing circumcision does not include females should understand that FGC and similar terms were simply invented to increase awareness of the problem, because when they called it circumcision it probably didn't attract enough attention (this is not OR, it would be OR to think that because the UN uses a more serious term this should be the normal english word, and deform a neutral verb to something sex-specific). Using a shock-term like genital cutting helps making aware that circumcision in females serves no 'real' purpose, but does not change the fact that it is circumcision on a female, nor were these terms ever invented to achieve this. Therefore it does not mean that cicumcision suddenly becomes a male-only thing, because cutting off anything from the genitals was already called circumcision. So objectively there is no reason to deny that cutting off parts of females' genitalia is circumcision (where did you people get this idea?). Read the meaning of the word: circum caedere, to cut around. It does not say to cut around a penis, so includes cutting around any genitalia. Furthermore, Phyesalis and others need to understand this discussion was not about calling the cutting off of parts of the vagina either FGC or female circumcision. We argued that whatever the term used at some point in time, it remains circumcision, and hence the structure now is wrong (circumcision does not equal male circumcision). What if we all call male circumcision willycutting suddenly, will that mean that circumcision has no meaning anymore? Nope, willycutting and FGC are just the terms of the moment for circumcision, one for fun and one to attract attention to a problem. Do we agree to change circumcision to redirect to a female/FGC part and a male circumcision part? Wiki1609 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because international consensus is that FGC is not circumcision, FGC comprises a greater set of procedures that have no known health benefits and many known complications. Excision and infubulation are not types of "cutting around". Circumcision could possibly be used to refer to clitorodecotmy, the only part of FGM/C that involves cutting around anything, and even that often includes the excision of the clitoris. (I doubt many would support the assertion that circumcision is the complete excision of the penis.) Everything else involves cutting off parts, like the labia minora and the complete excision of the clitoris, or the sewing of parts together, not to close a gap of missing skin, but to create new and unhealthy forms, like the sewing together of labia majora. If you would like a section that refers to clitorodectomy - I say go for it - but any assertion that circumciscion is synonymous with FGM/C should be well documented and contextualized in secondary or preferably tertiary sources (as I have done to show that it is not). Blackworm has relied on dictionary definitions to support a contested term. Get some secondary or tertiary sources to support your claim, merely citing the term in use is OR. Phyesalis (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your contradictory statements. If, as you say, "circumcision could possibly be used to refer to clitorodectomy," doesn't that confirm an answer of "no" to this question posed by this RfC?  Also, if you read my comments in the "Why only male circumcision?" section above, dated 14:40, 4 November 2007, you will see how a cursory search reveals multiple instances of the word circumcision being used to refer to procedures performed on females, in other sources besides dictionaries. Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to draw your attention to Wikipedia's naming convention, which begins, "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." (Emphasis in original.) Note that the use of "circumcision" as the title of this article, which solely discusses male circumcision, conflicts with "circumcision" used to describe a procedure performed on females.  The convention also states, "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage."  Wikipedia seems to agree with my point that recent scholarship (the terms "female genital cutting/mutilation") should not determine titles of articles.  I believe this shows that the article "female genital cutting" violates this convention; however this is a matter for that article's talk page.  Blackworm (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight, you post an RfC, I comment. You don't like my comment. I try to find several compromises and now you take exception to that? Cursory searches of definition and examples of use in the face of documented tertiary sources are merely OR. And FGM/FGC is the common name. (I have to say Blackworm, in light of your objections over on the FGC page, this is kind of confusing - you removed material that asserted common usage because the citations only contained usage, not assertions of usage.) And just how far back does "recent scholarship" cover? The documented history of the international adoption of FGM or FGC goes back, depending on how you want to look at it, over 25 years ago. Please show me a tertiary source from the 21st century which states that "female circumcision" is the common name. 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)   My bad, not enough tildes. Phyesalis (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you are continuing to misunderstand the issue under consideration here. There is no onus on anyone to show that "female circumcision" is common in the last seven years as a term, in order to allow the mention of the circumcision of females in the article on circumcision, or elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Despite this, your request is easily met: an advanced Google Scholar search on "female circumcision" (with quotes, indicating exact phrase match), restricted to articles published in the years 2001-2007, returned 2700 hits.  "Female genital cutting" returned 953 hits, and "female genital mutilation" returned 3160 hits.  I suspected some overlap between the latter two searches, and thus searched on "female genital cutting" OR "female genital mutilation", which returned 3710 hits.  A similar search for articles containing any of the three terms returned 5390 hits.  Subtracting the result for articles using either or both of the two UN/WHO terms from the number of articles using any of the three terms, I conclude that 1680 articles out of 5390, or 31.2% of all Google Scholar articles on the subject published after 2001 exclusively use the term "female circumcision."  I thus conclude that "female circumcision," meaning the circumcision of females, is a valid, scholarly term, and this is even more solid evidence that Wikipedia should reflect the reality by changing its presented definition of "circumcision" with the correct, gender neutral definition. Blackworm (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Questions regarding whether female genital cutting should be renamed 'female circumcision' are not appropriate for this talk page, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of the above was to show, again, and in a different way, that "circumcision" does not mean "male circumcision," and therefore this page must not quietly assume that it does. Blackworm (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me explain. If I were to present to you evidence that "baked alaska" is a far more frequently used term for a particular dish than "hot snowman", would it appear to be an argument a) that we should rename the (hypothetical) 'hot snowman' article; or b) that alaska does not mean "most northern US state"? (I'm copying your words here, but in this analogy I think you mean that alaska can mean either "most northern US state" or "strange icecream recipe".)
 * What I'm trying to say is that a phrase can have a different meaning from the individual words, so I don't understand how you can use the frequency of a phrase to demonstrate the meaning of a word. If your argument is that "alaska" commonly means "baked alaska", then wouldn't it be better to discuss the usage of the bare word? Jakew (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your strained analogy fails; "circumcision" is defined as a procedure done to males and females.[][][] That is the discussion of the "bare word." Blackworm (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, I realize you said "tertiary" sources. My point about the incorrectness of your criteria in this application still stands.  Blackworm (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you brought up "naming conventions". Since I have provided tertiary sources for FGM/FGC, and you haven't provided anything outside of your own OR, the onus is on you to support your claim the "female circumcision" is more common than the terms FGM/FGC. Furthermore, you must then be able to provided sources about the analagous nature of FGM/FGC since there are a number of sources that clearly separate the two phenomena. This is an RfC not a debate. Comment: find your sources or you have no leg to stand on. You can wait for someone else can wait for someone else to come in for comment or let it go. Comment over. Phyesalis (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that I never claimed "female circumcision" is more common than FGM/FGC (though it possibly is), and the fact that such a claim would be quite irrelevant to this discussion, shows me that you are possibly having difficulty understanding the issue raised. Perhaps you are confused by the phrase "common name" as discussed in WP:UCN.  "Circumcision" is the common name for a procedure performed on males and females.  That is the entire point, and one I believe I have demonstrated beyond doubt.  Your repeated, bizarre claims that I have presented no sources to back up my arguments are easily disproved by a simple reading of this talk section and the previous discussion section.  Blackworm (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quote from the WHO site: [Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.][] It does not matter for this discussion what you call it, it remains that circumcision in females is everything done to the external parts of the vagina (from stitching together to removal of clitoris). Jakew's analogy does not count, it's hard to think of anything that is similar to the word circumcision where one form gets a special name (in this case the female form). Phyesalis, you are talking about something else than what I proposed in the "why only male circumcision" discussion. According to the WHO quote circumcision in females exists, and it has many forms. Therefore circumcision does not equal circumcision in males, but is gender-neutral. In all these pages of discussion noone has actually proven that circumcision equals circumcision in males, nor is this possible. Wiki1609 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Circumcision, or cutting of the prepuce or hood of the clitoris is the mildest form of female genital mutilation [...]."[] Circumcision and female genital mutilation don't seem to be used synonymously.  One seems to be a subset of the other, referring to a specific form.  You wouldn't call an infibulation without excision "circumcision," for example.  The literature shows it refers specifically to excision of the clitoris (clitoridectomy), or the removal of the female prepuce (clitoral hood) in a procedure called clitoridotomy.  It also seems to only be used to refer, in females, to procedures done without the consent of the female.  Some procedures falling well into the definitions of "circumcision" and the UN/WHO's "female genital mutilation," but that are sought out and generally performed in aseptic environments with anaethesia by surgeons, are not called by these terms; rather, they are labeled "labiaplasty" and, more colloquially, "vaginal rejuvenation" and "designer vaginoplasty."  Oddly, male circumcision is still called circumcision even if sought out by the male; it would be interesting to see if any studies have been done to see if this is a result of the cultural acceptance of male circumcision vis a vis the female form.  But, under the current organization, where would one place this hypothetical information?  By de facto excluding the female form from the "circumcision" article, past editors have assured such comparisons and contrasts will have no place in Wikipedia.  Perhaps this is why I feel strongly about this RfC's question -- besides being wrong and violating WP:NPOV, the organization and narrowed context of the "circumcision" article is stifling both thought and the presentation of information.  Blackworm (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

global warming
global warming has been a problem science the lat 70 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponkiller (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the article on circumcision? ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on studies referenced in this article
I am a practicing epidemiologist and have a few comments on what is presented here. I will make this argument as concise as possible. Epidemiological studies are not perfect and often not under the guidance of health professionals. I have noticed that the WHO findings are cited in the introduction, vember 2007 (UTC)
 * The AAP's 1999 statement obviously predates the findingsand by it's placement it is somehow more relevant than other studies. The WHO study mainly incorporates African populations, which are often unable to provide circumcision nor STD prevention due to economic restraints, among others, yet correlate circumcision to incidence of AIDS. The American Association of Pediatrics has released a statement in 1999 that no definitive conclusion can be made regarding circumcision and disease, which is the only conclusion that can be made. Judging from the ongoing discussions/arguments about what studies are relevant and/or correct, I think most of you would agree there is no conclusion that can be made. I suggest that this statement from the American association of Pediatrics is presented in the introduction beforehand or no such study presented in the introduction. Individual studies should be discussed thereafter in the following sections. It is gross overrepresentation of credibility on behalf of the WHO.209.189.246.41 05:26, 11 No of the three randomised controlled trials. The World Health Organisation's statement was released some months afterwards, and in response to these trials. In the opinion of their experts, the efficacy of circumcision is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jakew 13:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But why do we give them more credibility and notability than the AAP? Why is the WHO, referenced elsewhere in the article as a "circumcision advocate," allowed to present its opinion twice in the lead section, occupying almost half the lead section, with no countering or balancing source?  Do we give circumcision opponents as much attention?  Blackworm 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The AAP have not yet issued a statement addressing the subject of the HIV RCTs (though reportedly they are in the process of revising their statement in light of that evidence). When they do, we may well need to update the article.
 * As for 'circumcision advocate', are you suggesting that the amount of coverage given to an organisation should reflect their stance on the subject? As an example, since the WHO are opposed to HIV, should we avoid using them as a source (or at least minimise our reliance on them) for that article, giving equal weight to alternative theories which view HIV as harmless? Jakew 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the mistaken impression that WHO was listed as a reference for statements in the article regarding circumcision advocates. Nonetheless, one sentence in the lead has no less than four cites to apparent circumcision advocates (though whether the conclusion is supported by the source is dubious at best).  That WHO promotes (and thus advocates) circumcision is documented, however; and it is unclear whether balancing views are adequately represented, especially in the lead section.  Note in the lead section: the current live dispute on the high global prevalence estimate we quote from the WHO, and the uncontested and unbalanced five-line paragraph repeating the WHO's stance on circumcision with respect to HIV.  Blackworm 22:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the lead section mentions HIV prevention as a (possible) benefit of circumcision, then at the very least the lead section needs to mention some (possible) risks/harms/side effects of circumcision, for balance. --Coppertwig 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One would think. How about we say that circumcision is painful, that analgesia doesn't eliminate the pain, and that most doctors don't use analgesia anyway?  These are all facts cited later in the article, just put together in a way that doesn't suggest circumcision is usually painful at all (combined with the idea that it is more humane not to "subject" the infant to anaesthetic before circumcising him).  Blackworm (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYN. Jakew (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The current arrangement violates that policy too.  Thank you, Jakew.  Blackworm (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Jakew (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you? Coppertwig and I were discussing mentioning harms of circumcision in the lead, for balance against the multiple benefits presented. Do you have any suggestions of what we could say? Blackworm (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not entirely convinced that we actually need to say anything. In the lead, we have two 'pro arguments' ('worthwhile public health measure' and 'HIV') and two 'anti arguments' ('medically unjustified' and 'infringement upon individual bodily rights'). I'm afraid I don't see why there's a pressing need to upset that balance. Jakew (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost the entire lead, with its focus on medical benefits (and no risks/harms), and religions that support the practice (presenting none who prohibit it), is a "pro" argument. (I notice also that the cited section on the Roman Catholic church prohibiting circumcision has "mysteriously" disappeared from the article.)  Blackworm (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one benefit is mentioned, and that is HIV, which I mentioned. We also discuss some medical conditions for which circumcision might be used as treatment. I'm not aware of any religions that prohibit circumcision outright (ie "sorry you've got a gangrenous foreskin, but you can't be circumcised"), though of course in several religions circumcision has no special meaning.
 * So we establish context by discussing situations in which circumcision occurs: religion, prophylaxis, and medical treatment (I can't see how you can view this as a 'pro' argument). In the process, we also give a broad overview of the article. In addition, we also summarise the controversies, giving some arguments for and against. Jakew (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<< outdent) Jakew, I believe your last comment is evidence of either a very faulty memory, or bad faith. I direct the reader to Archive 28 of this talk page, which contains the following exchange:

The edit Avi refers to as being an accurate paraphrase of the source, and which Jakew read and agreed with, was:

Now, given that you read this text, and read this source, and "agreed" that it was accurate, your suggestion that you are "not aware of any religions that prohibit circumcision outright" is extremely difficult to accept. Please explain.

Finally, the lead section is not currently a broad overview, but a specific, concentrated barrage of pro-circumcision POV. It even introduces pro-circumcision ideas not mentioned later in the article (circumcision used to treat penile cancer), contrary to specific instructions in WP:LEAD. It devotes about a third of its length to discussing the WHO's advocacy of circumcision to fight HIV, going into detail which is completely inappropriate for the lead (and without mentioning any criticism of the WHO's position). It quotes only the near-highest prevalence estimate (30%, again, from WHO), rather than summarizing sources (a range of 16-33%), and further presents the estimate as a fact, rather than an estimate. It only discusses religions "friendly" to circumcision. Jakew defends all this as neutral. It is dumbfounding. Blackworm (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of photos
After a long and agonising discussion over the proper photos to include it seems a pity that all photos have been peremptorily removed. It is fit and proper that confrontational photos not startle but it is surely anomalous that in a discussion of removing the foreskin there is no illustration at all of what such a beast is. There are plenty of obviously pruriently-intended photos in the Wikipedia Commons and most of them can properly be discounted, but could not a pair of non-prurient photos of an uncircumcised and a circumcised penis be returned to the article in the appropriate place? Not everyone who looks at such an article as this will be an adult, but everyone will be literate and will have sought to be informed. Masalai 12:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there should be photos. Up to a few weeks ago, there were two pairs of photos.  Then the uncircumcised photos were apparently deleted from Commons for some reason, I think, or for some reason were not displaying. (typo in link?)  But I think the pair of circumcised photos is still there.  Why not include it?  And find another uncircumcised photo. --Coppertwig 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my first comment as to photos. It does seem odd that so agonisingly (and continuingly agonisingly) worked-out a discussion should fail to provide a simple photographic or diagrammatic illustration of precisely what the beast is that is under such protracted discussion. I had no idea myself till I was in high school and in communal showers that there was any difference as to nether configuration; I certainly never entered into such discussion with my children (of both sexes), who are now grown, as to such matters -- the bare basics of heterosexual intimacy are quite embarrassing enough to broach, without descending to such minutiae. I forbear to barge in by introducing photos, even from the presumably commonly assented to Wikipedia Commons, without there being a wide consensus that it is proper -- they are so readily and without objection peremptorily deleted. Is it not proper? Could this be discussed? Masalai (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)