Talk:Circumcision/Archive 35

BMA source curiously used
Is that an appropriate use of the source? It really seems a bit more complicated than that. Further claiming that the BMA observes that "controversy exists on the issue" doesn't correct this apparent misrepresentation of the source. Blackworm (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. I think the BMA footnote (the last of four footnotes) should be removed from that sentence.  The BMA source says "As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." which seems to me to mean that the BMA is not itsef intending to set limits on what parents can do, but that society can set such limits;  but the way it's cited in Wikipedia seems to be saying that the BMA believes that society should not set such limits.   Actually, we should look carefully at the wording and how it represents the other medical associations, since I doubt the other medical associations mean that either -- I think they just mean that doctors won't make those decisions. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, perhaps we could alter the sentence to say "...take the position that the parents should be entitled to determine..." This seems a fair representation of "the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests", isn't it? Jakew (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clear they believe society trumps parental choice -- why do you wish to omit this point and make it appear to be the reverse? Blackworm (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It just seems a fairly unimportant point: society creates laws regardless of whether the BMA approves or not. Still, if you think it's important, how about: "...take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should be entitled to determine..." Jakew (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's still not good enough; it has to be clear that the BMA believes that "parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." This crucial point is lost is your version. Blackworm (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite an important point. A medical association could take the position that governments should not make laws that restrict parents' choice and that they believe that parents are entitled to make those choices.  I think that is not what they mean at all.  I think they only mean that the medical association is not making those choices and is advising doctors not to make those choices but to leave it up to the parents -- they're not saying anything about what the government ought to do, IMO.  If we were to quote them as saying they believe parents are "entitled" then it would sound as if they were saying something about what governments ought not to do.  Even taking a sentence of theirs out of context can look as if it means that.  And in the case Blackworm quotes, they're actually saying the opposite of parents being entitled. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I only added "be entitled to" because it was in the source itself. But if you prefer, how about "...take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine..."
 * The sentence that Blackworm quotes is about a different issue. Rather than addressing how the best interests should be determined, it addresses the question of what should be done once the child's best interests are established. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) The parents should determine what? It wouldn't make sense to say that the parents get to determine what's in the child's best interests and then, once that's determined, the parents don't get to make a choice that goes against those interests. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The parents should determine the best interests of the child or, as the BMA put it, "how best to promote their children’s interests".
 * I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense in the majority of cases. Sadly, however, a few parents are quite aware of what is in their children's best interests yet act against these best interests, either out of selfishness or sadism; just ask the NSPCC. Jakew (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is flatly wrong to claim that "should determine how best to promote their children's interests" means the same as "should determine the best interests of the child." The BMA is specifically claiming that parents are not in the position to determine the best interests of the child.  Coppertwig never said it "doesn't" make sense, he said the BMA's statement wouldn't make sense if we were to interpret it in your rather tortured way.  Your flawed interpretation is further disproven by such statements in the source as "The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure."  The child's wishes trumps parental wishes there -- unlike almost any other aspect of his life, where his parents make all decisions.   Read also, in the source, "Summary: best interests."  You will find it is clear the BMA does not believe that parents are the sole determinants of a child's best interests.  Anyway, this BMA source is an excellent read, chock full of information regarding how infant circumcision is likely to be successfully challenged on the basis of the Human Rights Act, how some doctors argue there are lifelong adverse effects from circumcision, and so on.  I can see why it is misinterpreted/misused/underquoted here. Blackworm (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting interpretation, Blackworm. May I refer you to "The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision", by R Mussell of the BMA's ethics department (J Med Ethics 2004;30:254-258). Please examine the box entitled 'Summary of the key points in the BMA guidance'. The third bullet point, to quote, states:
 * "it is for parents to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a child’s best interest" (emph. in original).
 * This contradicts your claim that "The BMA is specifically claiming that parents are not in the position to determine the best interests of the child". Jakew (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Demonstrating is not determining.  It is a lawyer's job to demonstrate; it is a judge's job to determine.  You say yourself it's the third point; that proves that there are other points that describe what other factors may determine the child's best interests. Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Perhaps you could demonstrate for me what is 15 + 7, without first determining the answer to that question? Jakew (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I can demonstrate. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  Those are 15 X's.  XXXXXXX.  Those are 7 X's.  Count them all together and you'll determine the answer.  Blackworm (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I would be most interested to know what you think "should determine how best to promote their children's interests" does mean, if not the above: what is the difference between what is "best to promote their children's interests" and their children's "best interests"? Jakew (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone is required to demonstrate that something is in the child's interests, then I would say that that means that that person is not the one who is being given the authority to decide what is in the child's interests; rather, apparently the person to whom they are required to demonstrate it seems to me to be in that position.
 * Determining what a person's interests are and determining how to promote those interests are logically two different things.
 * Some of these arguments may be getting a couple of steps removed from the point, so I'd like to clarify where we are in this discussion. Does anyone object to the removal of the BMA reference from the list of four references, as I suggest above, and if so, on what grounds? --Coppertwig (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct, Coppertwig. Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we're getting somewhat off-topic.
 * Instead of simply deleting the BMA reference, I propose that we replace it with: "The BMA take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests."
 * The last seven words are exactly as they appear in the source. As such, the reader can interpret what is meant for him/herself. Thus the question of whether Blackworm, Coppertwig, or I have the 'correct' interpretation does not need to arise. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is completely disingenuous; the "seven last words" are what you want to add. Why not add the direct quote, such as "The BMA believes that 'the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests,' but there are 'limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests.'  That is an appropriate summary.  Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil, Blackworm. I'm afraid you are mistaken about what I "want to add". If you review the above discussion, you'll see my initial suggestion was "take the position that should be entitled to determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child". As a result of discussion, I then proposed "take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should be entitled to determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child". After further discussion, I proposed "take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine". Finally, when it became apparent that some disagreed with the interpretation of "make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests" as "determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child", I substituted the exact seven words used in the source, thus: "take the position that, subject to those limits imposed by society, the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests". Jakew (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you do not address the first quote from the BMA in this section, preferring your weakened interpretation. Blackworm (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I commented previously, this quote is about unusual circumstances in which parents consider not the child's best interests but their own. This is obvious when one examines the preceding text: "Although they usually coincide, the interests of the child and those of the parents are not always synonymous. There are, therefore, limits on parents’ rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child’s best interests."
 * In contrast, the quote which I'm using is a "general rule", and in the limited space available, seems rather more representative. Jakew (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the BMA reference also says "Circumcision of male babies and children at the request of their parents is an increasingly controversial area ..." I don't think your suggestion is a good representation of what the source says. The BMA position is already discussed later in the same paragraph, e.g. "The BMA insists that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child," so I think that's enough -- we don't need to lengthen the article by adding more about the BMA position. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We already note the BMA's acknowledgement of the controversy, Coppertwig: "the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49]" Jakew (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm pointing out things you're already aware of. Here are a couple more interesting quotes from the BMA reference BMAGuide2: "The Association has no policy on these issues." and "It is clear from the list of factors that are relevant to a child’s best interests, however, that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."
 * It's my understanding that you've suggested an alternative to deleting the footnote, but you haven't explicitly said you're against deleting the footnote, nor have you identified anything as being grounds for not deleting it. I'm not trying to avoid understanding what you might be getting at;  I just prefer that things be stated explicitly by the person making the point. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not against deleting the footnote if it is replaced with a fair representation of their position.
 * However, I think that deleting the footnote without replacement would effectively misrepresent the BMA's position. If I were to describe someone's position, and only state that they insist that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child, wouldn't you get the impression that they were mostly opposed to circumcision (neonatal or otherwise)? Now what if, in addition to that, I told you that they believe that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests? Wouldn't that create a more balanced impression?
 * Now, suppose that after I'd told you these things, you actually read the document. Would you feel it was more representative if I'd told you a) only positive-sounding statements, b) only negative-sounding statements, or c) a combination? Jakew (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At least you're admitting that you are most concerned about what impression the reader is left with. Blackworm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "most concerned", but yes, I'm certainly concerned that we give a fair and balanced impression of both the subject matter and the various viewpoints about it. This is essential to achieve a neutral point of view. Jakew (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) The "parents should be entitled" quote should not be taken out of context. Its context includes "... no policy ..." and "As a general rule, ...". Another alternative might be to find some other, relatively neutral quote. Maybe something about consent from both parents being required, or something about children being involved in decision-making; or something about members of the association having widely divergent views;  or the first bullet point of principles of good practice, that doctors must act in the child's best interests. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't completely understand your argument, but your 'alternative' isn't a bad idea. Here's a suggestion. What if we replace the current paragraph:


 * Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46][47] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA state that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child.[49]


 * With this:


 * Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA state that "[p]arents must explain and justify requests for circumcision, in terms of the child’s interests", and state that "[c]ompetent children may decide for themselves".


 * Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It still misses the point that the BMA believes there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." What is wrong with, "The BMA believes that 'the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests,' but that there are 'limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." (?) Blackworm (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just addressed this issue above. Same edit, so the date should be the same as this one. Jakew (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the wording suggested by Jakew is fine, except that the BMA footnote should still not be attached to the first few words, and I would change "take the position that" to "state". That footnote could be moved later to after some of the other words. Blackworm, I think the point about there being limits on parents' right to choose is made clear in the quotes Jakew suggests. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the point made that they believe "parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests?" Why must we ignore, or weaken this language, and why is Jakew's choice of quote better than mine?  Is my suggestion "fine," as well, or is there a specific problem with it?  Blackworm (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, I thought I had removed the BMA footnote, but I may have got the footnote numbers wrong. If so, I apologise, and please understand that that is what was intended. Your other suggestions seem fine to me. Jakew (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies to both Jakew and Blackworm.
 * To Jakew re the BMA footnote. My mistake.  Yes, you had removed it.  And it can be just removed, not moved, because the same source is referenced elsewhere in the article, so the link is not lost.
 * To Blackworm for my need to have suggestions very specific and explicit. Would you please re-state your suggestion, perhaps quoting the paragraph to give an example of how it would look if your suggestion is implemented, or saying exactly where an inserted quote would go, even if you already did, because I can't find it above?  In answer to your question:  it seems clear to me that the words Jakew suggests, "p]arents must explain and justify requests for circumcision, in terms of the child’s interests" imply that parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests, and that some other words he suggests, "[c]ompetent children may decide for themselves," implies that a circumcision cannot go ahead if a (competent) child consistently refuses it.  (Presumably crying of babies is still ignored.) They're just stated in less extreme-sounding words.  What I seem to be doing is working out a compromise with Jakew:  rather than one very positive quote and one very negative one from the BMA, to have more neutral quotes.  Do you think one specific quote really has to be in there, and if so can you explain why?  --Coppertwig (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was in quotes in my edit of 22:07, 18 November 2007, and repeated in my edit of 00:02, 19 November 2007. I propose it should replace the last sentence (beginning "The BMA state...") in Jakew's proposal (which otherwise seems fine to me as well).  The suggested edit is:  The BMA believes that "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests," but that there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests."  Again, why must we weaken, obfuscate, or suppress this language?  Jakew's edit still does not get this point across well enough -- the only word in his edit hinting at it is "justify," but it is not clear to whom they need to justify it (possibly to themselves?) nor is there any idea of limits, entitlement not lying with the parents, or the suggestion that circumcision possibly is not in a given child's best interests.  Blackworm (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making a specific suggestion, Blackworm. Either that one or Jakew's version looks OK to me; in fact, the two seem rather similar to me. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I explained some problems with the "limits on parents’ rights to choose" quote in my post dated 13:02, 19 November 2007, in which I discussed the context in which that sentence fragment appears. Jakew (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've temporarily reduced the paragraph to the following:
 * "Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49]"

I understand that this section of the paragraph is not disputed. I suggest that material can be added when there is consensus to do so. Jakew (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that edit removes too much. Pretty much all the suggested edits above had something about the BMA's position about there being some limits on parental rights.  Much of the controversy on this talk page is about how to show balance in the article;  I don't think there's consensus for removing one side of the BMA's position from the article.  It would be better to put in one or another of the suggestions above.  May I remind everyone to please use the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting.  --Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is intended only as a temporary solution, while we discuss how best to insert the new material. Allow me to explain.
 * The original concern raised in this thread was that the BMA may be misrepresented. That footnote was therefore removed.
 * Although there were several suggested edits, there was no consensus to include any particular edit. I raised an objection to Blackworm's proposal in my post of 13:02, 19 November 2007, but unfortunately this appears to have been overlooked.
 * As I explained in my edit of 19:49, 18 November 2007, I have a concern about misrepresenting the BMA's position by giving undue weight to certain material, including "states that a circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child".
 * As far as I know, nobody has objected to any part of the reduced paragraph quoted above.
 * As such, I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus upon the inclusion of the reduced paragraph above, but disagreement over how to phrase what should be added to it. Do you think that's a fair assessment? Jakew (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, as obvious by my immediate response to your proposal. I objected to the unexplained weakening and obfuscation of the BMA's position, and the omission of their specific language regarding the "limits on parents' rights to choose."  There is no undue weight issue here; the BMA's position is explicit, and the quotes I added balance the part you object to by including the source of the previous (incorrect) summary (the quote, "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests"). Your objection to the "limits" part of the quote is addressed below. Blackworm (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You said: "As I commented previously, this quote is about unusual circumstances in which parents consider not the child's best interests but their own." This is pure WP:OR.  The BMA makes no claim that parents acting in good faith will always choose the child's best interests.  Your argument fails.  If you wish to restore "context" to the quote that you feel is missing, I invite you to add the previous sentence to the quote; but your objection to its presence is invalid.  Blackworm (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you disagree with my argument. The following is a direct quote from the source. It states: "Although they usually coincide, the interests of the child and those of the parents are not always synonymous. There are, therefore ..." How would you prefer to paraphrase? Jakew (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that interests may not "coincide" does not imply that parents are not considering their child's best interests. They may simply be in error.  That is the point, paraphrased perfectly by my suggested edit.  Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct that the source does not refer to what parents consider. However, it also makes no reference to errors. It considers a situation in which the parents' interests and the child's interests are not synonymous, and this situation is contrasted with one in which they coincide, which is "usually" the case.
 * Unfortunately, your suggested edit does not include this information. The two statements are quoted without context.
 * An additional problem is that due to this quote and the "must not go ahead" quote, there is again imbalance in the representation of the BMA's position. This situation could be improved by replacing that with "[c]ompetent children may decide for themselves".
 * Since you appear to insist upon the inclusion of the "limits" quote, I'd suggest something like the following paragraph:
 * Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA believes that in general, "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests." However, they state that because the parents' interests and the child's interests sometimes differ, there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." They state that competent children may decide for themselves.
 * I've indicated the changes in bold. I'm not completely happy about this paragraph, and I think it does have some problems, but I think it better represents the context of those quotes. Jakew (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this is any better. You wish to weaken the conclusion by confusingly framing it as a rare case where a competant child disagrees with his parents' wish to have him circumcised, rather than the clear position of the source that society has a right to ultimately determine the best interests of a child who is incapable of expressing an opinion.  By pure chance (assuming good faith), this crucial point is the half of the "promote their children's interests" sentence you omit -- namely, "and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices."   I'll agree to your proposed change, if you include this conclusion of the "promote their children's interests" sentence.  This crucial bit of context is lacking in your version.  (Your quote isn't even technically accurate -- if you wish to omit the end of the sentence, you must write, "interests, [...]."  not "interests."  The BMA did not end the sentence in the way you quoted.)  Thus my suggestion is: Blackworm (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some medical associations take the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the infant or child,[45][41][46] but the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue.[48][49] The BMA state that in general, "the parents should determine how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." They state that because the parents' interests and the child's interests sometimes differ, there are "limits on parents' rights to choose and parents are not entitled to demand medical procedures contrary to their child's best interests." They state that competent children may decide for themselves.
 * Personally, I think my previous version is better. It gets the same points across in a much more succinct way.  I don't see how direct quotes can cause "imbalance" in the representation of their position -- replacing strongly-worded direct source quotes like "[circumcision] must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competant child" with weak, more ambiguous and less informative paraphrased summaries ("children may decide for themselves", i.e. no mention of requiring BOTH parents approval) seems indefensible, unless your idea of "balancing" a source means overriding their opinion with your own.  Presumably, if there were "imbalance" in the representation, such strong language would be balanced by other direct quotes elsewhere.  But regardless, if the above paragraph is acceptable to you, it is acceptable to me.  Blackworm (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re Jakew's most recent and Blackworm's most recent suggestions: Too long and too repetitive, especially Blackworm's, but I'm unable to come up with a shorter wording that I think stands a chance of being accepted so I'm willing to accept either of the two suggestions for the sake of consensus.  It's too bad the bit about both parents' consent being needed isn't included, but given that there are caveats (not if the other parent is dead, and only if it's non-therapeutic circumcision) it would probably take too many words to include it here. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Both are too long (which is one of the problems I mentioned) and Blackworm's suggestion is too repetitive. Nevertheless, I'm prepared to go along with it. I'll implement the changes. Jakew (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to the consent section
I note that this revision has been deleted:


 * The BMA states "Both parents must give consent for non-therapeutic circumcision." It also states: "All children who are capable of expressing a view should be involved in decisions about whether they should be circumcised, and their wishes taken into account. The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure."

The only criticism of this was that I had not discussed it first. While I believe in discussion, there is nothing that I am aware of in the rules to say that you have to discuss before editing. Of course, if anyone has any rational objection to the wording above, please let me know. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This edit would lengthen the article, which is already too long, and would give undue weight to these relatively anti-circ parts of the BMA statement in relation to the relatively pro-circ parts of the same statement and in relation to the statements of the other medical associations. Also, the BMA position is also discussed elsewhere in the article and I think it's confusing to the reader to go into this much detail about it in two places.  This material might be useful in one of the subarticles.   See also the lengthy discussion in the section just before this on this talk page, which is talking about editing the same paragraph. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agreed with what you said until you said "in relation to the statements of the other medical associations." Positions of other associations are irrelevant when fairly assessing and summarizing the position of the BMA.  It seems that certain editors here feel a sense that something is wrong when a medical association seems too "anti-circ" to them; they jump to change the expressed position, rather than accepting even as a possibility that the medical association in question does, in fact, take a rather dim view of circumcision.  This is why this article has so many WP:NPOV violations -- editors proceeding from POV to assess and summarize, rather than neutrally looking at the source and properly conveying its position.  Blackworm (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, your objection sounds eerily like Jakew's famous one: "Too long, and too POV." For some odd reason, only edits seen as being unfavourable to circumcision are ever objected to for these vague reasons.  Blackworm (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the impression that the BMA position is more anti-circ than some of the other medical associations. Devoting a much larger fraction of the paragraph to the BMA position than to the other medical associations therefore seems POV.  Could you explain how you see the uneven distribution of length of wording to be neutral?  --Coppertwig (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, take a step back and remember that my suggested edit was significantly shorter than what is there now. My succinct summary, combined with the sentence which said "must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and the competent child" was appropriate given the exceptional stance of the BMA with regard to consent.  The section is balanced overall.  I don't see a problem.  Also, if you're worried about POV, look at the relative weight in the "policies of medical associations" sections -- the American associations, the most pro-circ, take up half the section.  The summaries of the other associations focus on the point which the pro-circ advocates wish to focus on the most: namely parental consent, not the fact that none recommend it.  The BMA positions is summarized using the weakened language advocates prefer, instead of the strong language the BMA uses in its document.  There is the matter of POV in the lead, with one advocate organization (the WHO) mentioned twice and occupying a third of the lead with its advocacy of circumcision to fight HIV, with no balancing text.  There is POV in the "procedures" section where only a few medicalized instances of circumcision are discussed.  There is POV everywhere.  Blackworm (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Re the medical association positions, that makes sense. I've been meaning to suggest a change to the leadin (if specific benefits are mentioned, specific risks should be too) but haven't gotten around to it. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to the intro
So I remember that one was my edit and looking at the intro I think it is more balanced this way and all the content is still there... + I added the reference to Southern Africa for the sake of the context of the sources as the focus is on regions with extraordinarily high HIV rates. Sf89wei (talk)
 * The sentence you edited is already problematic, as it is original research; none of the sources claim to be "circumcision advocates" "particularly" focussing on HIV as the main reason for it allegedly being a public health measure. The sources merely claim that circumcision reduces risk of HIV.  That claim is cited repeatedly elsewhere.  Your change does not address this.  Any suggestions?  Blackworm (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, when the original research argues in favor of circumcision, none of the gatekeepers here give a damn. Blackworm (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the paragraph beginning "In March 2007 the WHO and ..." really be included in the intro? There is plenty of information in the HIV section on this topic, and the preceding paragraph in the intro refers to it too. Isn't the intro currently unbalanced? Its current structure is:
 * 1st para ("Circumcision is the removal..."): brief technical definition of the word circumcision and some etymological information.
 * 2nd para ("The earliest pictures are ..."): earliest evidence of circumcision and its association with religion.
 * 3rd para ("Circumcision is most common ..."): current prevalence of circumcision in the world (by the way: doesn't the phrase "Circumcision is most common ..." misleadingly imply that the practice is also common, but to a lesser extent, in parts of the world not mentioned in the rest of this paragraph? Why not just use the phrase "Circumcision is common ..."?
 * 4th paragraph ("Opponents of circumcision condemn ..."): brief summaries of the stances of circumcision opponents and circumcision advocates, including a reference to the topic of intro paragraph 5.

The intro seems reasonably well-balanced so far, but then we have:


 * 5th paragraph ("In March 2007 the WHO ..."): description of announcement by WHO and UNAIDS about circumcision and HIV prevention
 * 6th paragraph ("Circumcision may also ..."): another statement about circumcision's use to treat a medical condition.

The 5th paragraph is dedicated to a more detailed description of one aspect of circumcision advocacy which is already refered to in paragraph 4; and which is treated, in detail, elsewhere in the article. There is no paragraph in the intro dedicated to any aspect of circumcision opposition. This seems unbalanced.

I would like to suggest the removal of intro paragraph 5, and perhaps intro paragraph 6 could be incorporated into paragraph 4 in some way. Also, I would like to change the phrase "Circumcision is most commmon ..." to "Circumcision is common ...". Any opinions? Beejaypii (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:LEAD, Beejaypii. To quote:
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.
 * I would think that this almost requires paragraph 5, since it "summarize[s] the most important points", "explain[s] why the subject is interesting or notable", and "reflect[s] its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources".
 * I can't see any way of incorporating para 6 into para 4, since the two paragraphs have different subjects. In the language of WP:LEAD, para 4 serves to "briefly describe its notable controversies" (we briefly describe both pro- and anti-circumcision viewpoints), whereas para 6 "establish[es] context", explaining why circumcision may be performed as treatment (as opposed to arguments about whether it should be performed). Having said this, I'd be interested to read any suggestions you may have.
 * As for "most common", I suggest keeping the text as it is. Changing it to "common" would imply that circumcision is not common elsewhere, which may or may not be true depending on the definition, and would therefore would require us to define "common". As a relative statement, however, we avoid that difficulty. Jakew (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jakew, you state that paragraph 5 is "almost" (is this sufficient?) required because it "summarize[s] the most important points", "explain[s] why the subject is interesting or notable", and "reflect[s] its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources". However, in that section of your response you didn't quote this bit of WP:LEAD: "...and briefly describe its notable controversies." Doesn't this extract from paragraph 4 of the intro "... ,while advocates of circumcision regard it as a worthwhile public health measure, particularly in the control of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.", together with its citations already serve the cited purposes of the lead, including the "briefly describe" bit, as far as the HIV/circumcision issue is concerned, and bearing in mind that the advice you quote from wp:lead actually applies to the lead as a whole?


 * The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.
 * How can we establish roughly how much emphasis is given to the circumcision/HIV issue by published sources without introducing POV and weighting issues? Do we try to establish what percentage of relevant published sources emphasise this issue? If so, do we include all published sources or only those published in the last X years? And how do we estimate the importance ascribed to this issue by particular sources? Can it be proven, objectively, that the HIV/circumcision issue should receive so much weight in the lead whilst many of the other issues dealt with in the main body of the article are not mentioned there at all? If is not possible to prove this then I don't believe the inclusion of paragraph 5 can be justified.


 * I agree about the word common: its definition is problematic, even when relativised by using the word more. Therefore, I think we need to find a way of re-phrasing the passage in question in order to avoid these difficulties. There is more detailed information about circumcision prevalence in other sections of the article so why not just state in the intro that circumcision rates vary significantly by country and region, citing the extremes as an illustation (one estimate of the global average is provided in the intro anyway)? We could say that circumcision is almost universal in the Middle East (or cite a specific country, such as pakistan) whilst also citing the rate of 1.6% by age 15 in Denmark, for example (with appropriate citations of course). Wouldn't this be more balanced and avoid the problems associated with the imprecision of the term common.


 * I haven't yet come to a conclusion about paragraph 6. Beejaypii (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Beejaypii, no, I don't think that the "advocates of circumcision" part of para 4 is sufficient, at least in its present form, because the focus of that paragraph is on (controversial) claims made by advocates on each side of the debate. To (heavily) paraphrase, it basically says "people opposed to circumcision say that it's bad (because XYZ), while people in favour of circumcision say that it's good (because XYZ)". It's a paragraph about people and their views, not the subject itself. It doesn't by itself establish notability (or perhaps even that the subject is interesting).
 * Para 5 does establish that the subject is notable, because it tells the reader that a significant international health organisation has deemed it to be an important issue.
 * I also think it would be harmful to combine these paragraphs in a modified form. At present, para 4 is quite carefully balanced, and largely contrasts the views held by some advocates with views held by advocates of another position. If we were to combine the two paragraphs, we'd be comparing anti-circumcision advocates with pro-circumcision advocates plus the WHO and UNAIDS, and would have to adjust the relative weights accordingly. This might be somewhat unkind to the anti-circumcision advocates.
 * You ask: "How can we establish roughly how much emphasis is given to the circumcision/HIV issue by published sources without introducing POV and weighting issues?" Well, there are two obvious ways. First, one could examine statements from medical organisations that have been issued since the RCT evidence became available (WHO and AUA). Second, one could examine recent publications. For example, if you search PubMed for "circumcision 2007[dp]", you'll find that 268 medical papers about circumcision were published in the last full year. And if you search for "circumcision hiv 2007[dp]", you'll find that 116 (more than 40%) of these discussed HIV (to put this in perspective, searching for "circumcision phimosis 2007[dp]" returns 16 papers, or approx 6%, and "circumcision balanitis 2007[dp]" returns 7 papers, or approx 3%). (According to Google News, the situation in the media is similar: 2840/5210 (~55%) of circumcision articles discuss HIV.)
 * Re "common", I don't think that extremes would give a representative picture, but a possible alternative might be to simply remove these sentence(s). Jakew (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jakew, I disagree with your assessment of paragraph 4. I think it's about people and their views on circumcision. I think it's about the fact that one group of people advocate circumcision, and another group oppose circumcision. It's about the existence of a significant debate concerning various aspects of circumcision, and some of the main aspects of both sides of that debate. It's about human rights, physical impairment, public health, HIV, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Doesn't paraphrasing (in fact, haven't you heavily abbreviated rather than heavily paraphrased?) in the way you have done divert attention away from the detail? And isn't the detail the primary focus of our discussion? Also, If I were to adopt the approach you adopt when describing paragraph 4 as being "about people and their views, not the subject itself", wouldn't I be entitled to describe paragraph 5 as being about two organisations and their statements, not the subject itself?
 * Is it accurate to state that paragraph 5 "tells the reader that a significant international health organisation has deemed it [the subject:circumcision] to be an important issue."? Doesn't this paragraph simply tell the reader that the WHO and UNAIDS stated in March 2007 that circumcision is effective in preventing HIV, but only partially, and not in the absence of other interventions? Does that really tell us that these organisations deem the whole subject of circumcision to be an important issue? Or does it simply tell us that these organisations deem one aspect of the effects of circumcision to be important enough, in the context of HIV prevention, to warrant the issuing of a statement?
 * I'd like to revisit this passage from wp:lead:


 * The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.


 * Do your proposed methods of establishing relative emphasis meet these requirements, even roughly? Don't your methods just measure frequency of co-occurrence of key terms in reliable, published sources, rather than "importance to the topic according to reliable published sources"? Also, wouldn't the papers returned by your PubMed search, if their contents were examined, be likely to demonstrate the importance of one possible effect of circumcision to the subject of HIV, rather than the importance of that possible effect of circumcision to the whole topic of circumcision?
 * I'd also like to draw your attention to other passages from wp:lead:


 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.
 * Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole.


 * Does the lead, with paragraph 5 intact, "stand alone as a concise overview of the article"? I believe it doesn't because the concision of paragraphs 4's reference to the HIV aspect of the article is compromised by the "over-specific description", in paragraph 5, of one particular event related to this aspect.
 * Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.
 * Doesn't paragraph 5 drop the reader into the middle of the subject?
 * in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text.
 * Is the relative emphasis given to the information in paragraph 5 reflected in the rest of the text? I've carried out some word counts which, I believe, suggest it is not: approximately 300 words out of 4600 are dedicated to the HIV/circumcision issue in the main body of the text (excluding the lead, table of contents, and everything from the see also section to the end). That's only about 7%. Paragraph 5, together with the HIV bit of paragraph 4 (from "particularly in the ...") contains approximately 60 words, which is approximately 30% of the total word count of the lead - which stands at about 210 words.
 * Provide an accessible overview
 * Does the lead, with paragraph 5 intact, provide an accessible "overview"?


 * Finally, I'm going to temporarily refrain from discussing the details of paragraph 3 for the moment. I intend to return to it at a later stage. I think that trying to discuss several issues at once can get overcomplicated. Beejaypii (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Beejaypii, I deliberately omitted the detail because the content of the arguments is less important than noting that there is a controversy. In fact, we could list a completely different set of arguments for and against (as we have done in previous versions), and the paragraph would fulfill exactly the same function. But the existence of a controversy doesn't necessarily make any of the arguments involved valid, nor does it necessarily make a subject interesting.
 * When paragraph 5 is taken together with the material it summarises (in "HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases"), particularly "In 2007, the WHO and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention,[14] but emphasised that it does not provide complete protection against HIV infection.[78]", I think it does constitute an important issue.
 * If you dislike my methods for determining importance, please propose an alternative. I'd be delighted to assess the subject from a different angle. Jakew (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jakew, can you provide an alternative version of paragraph 4 which lists a "completely different set of arguments for and against" but still fulfills "exactly the same function"? Yes, a different version would still fulfill the particular function of noting that there is a controversy, but that's not the only function which paragraph 4 is fulfilling: it also plays its part in rendering the lead "a concise overview of the article". I suspect that if a completely different set of arguments were to be provided in that paragraph, this aspect of its function would be altered to some degree. For example, would the function of the paragraph be "exactly the same" if its current reference to the HIV related argument were removed and replaced with a different argument (which I'm certainly not implying should be done by they way, it's just the example I choose to illustrate my point)? I would say that amongst paragraph 4's current functions is the one of providing a concise reference to the HIV issue in the lead, and the presence of this concise reference is one of the reasons I cite for removal of paragraph 5 and the "over-specific description" of one event related to this issue in said paragraph.
 * You have not responded to most of the points I made in my previous contribution. In particular, you have not countered my assertion that paragraph 5 does not reflect the relative emphasis given to its contents in the rest of the text (and you have chosen not to comment on the word counts I provide in evidence of this assertion). You have not demonstrated that paragraph 5 is not "over-specific" and you have not demonstrated that its contents are "central to the article as a whole" (with reference to the guidance provided in wp:lead). You have not shown that the presence of paragraph 5 does not compromise the concision of the reference to the HIV prevention issue in paragraph 4 in the way I suggest in my previous contribution. You have not demonstrated that your proposed methods for establishing "importance to the topic according to reliable published sources" can achieve their stated aims (and the point is not whether I dislike or like these methods, or whether I can come up with an alternative method; the point is whether or not they can be shown to be valid: can they demonstrate "importance to the topic according to reliable published sources"?). Finally, I'm aware that, with respect to the contents of paragraph 5, you "think it does constitute an important issue.": but that's a declaration of your point of view, and not sufficient justification for the continued presence of paragraph 5. Beejaypii (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misundersood, Beejaypii. I'm not saying that my view is that it is an important issue. I'm saying that the World Health Organisation's view is that it is an important issue, sufficiently important that they "recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men" (to use their language ).
 * So, I see three options: a) we leave para 4 and 5 as they are, one expressing viewpoints of pro- and anti-circumcision advocates, and the other establishing notability and global context; b) we amend para 4 so that it covers a different pro-circumcision argument; or c) we amend para 4 so that it includes viewpoints of pro- and anti-circumcision advocates in addition to the WHO and UNAIDS. Jakew (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jakew, I would like to take the opportunity to briefly summarise some of the arguments I've described in more detail above:


 * Paragraph 5 does not reflect the relative emphasis given to its contents in the rest of the text.
 * Paragraph 5 is "over-specific" and not "central to the article as a whole" (with reference to the guidance provided in wp:lead).
 * Paragraph 5 compromises the concision of the reference to the HIV prevention issue in paragraph 4.


 * In your option a) you suggest that we might leave the lead as it is. This would not address any of the three points above. Furthermore, doesn't para 3 already "establish global context" in relation to the main topic? And didn't I cast doubt, in a contribution earlier in this debate, on the validity of your assertion that para 5 establishes the notability of the article topic?
 * The changes you suggest in your option b) do not effectively address any of the three points above. Yes, substitution of para 4's reference to the HIV prevention issue with a reference to another pro-circumcision argument would avoid the issue of the concision of the para 4 reference being compromised by the contents of para 5, but it would also mean that the concision would be lost from the lead: we would be left only with an "over-specific" description of an event related to the HIV prevention issue - an issue which I would describe as "not central to the article as a whole" (wp:lead).
 * And how might the changes you suggest in option c) be made in such a way that the issues associated with an "over-specific" description which is "not central to the article as a whole" would be resolved? And how would such changes resolve the problems associated with compromising or losing the concision of the existing reference to the HIV prevention issue in para 4?
 * In keeping with my suggestion at the beginning of this debate, I'm going to suggest a fourth option, d): we remove paragraph 5 from the lead. I believe that we would then be left (in accordance with wp:lead) with a lead which is more consistently a "concise overview of the article", which would not, to a greater extent at least, include "over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole" and in which the "relative emphasis given to information" would be more consistently "reflected in the rest of the text".
 * It seems to me that complying with the suggestion, in wp:lead, that the lead should "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" is proving to be problematic due to the contentious nature of aspects of the topic of this article. Therefore, might I suggest that we keep the lead simple and try to ensure that it can at least "stand alone as a concise overview of the article" and that the article is at least "well-constructed" in the respect that, amongst other things, "the relative emphasis given to information in the lead" is "reflected in the rest of the text." Beejaypii (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Beejaypii, thank you for summarising your arguments. With respect to your point 2, I disagree with your application of WP:LEAD, which states "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole." I think that this would discourage, for example, needless detail such as specific odds ratios or the finer points of arguments, but a simple statement about what the WHO recommended is not over-specific. On the contrary, it is just specific enough to establish notability and interest, and no more.
 * Regarding your third point, I again disagree with your interpretation, for two reasons. Firstly, I don't see "concise" as a concrete limit on the word count (and how on earth would it be measured anyway?), but rather that we should avoid saying more than necessary. Secondly, as I've explained above, I think that paras 4 and 5 are separate issues. Sure, they both mention HIV, but from different angles.
 * On your first point, I agree with you to some extent. However, this needs to be balanced against what should be included. WP:LEAD lists four points that should be included: "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." Of these, para 5 covers requirements (2) and (3). As such, it is clear to me that removing para 5 would do far more harm than good, and we need to think about alternatives. Jakew (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Re this edit by Blackworm which "Restored some of Mahasona's edits, removed anonIP's vandalism, rephrased some statements to better match sources": I would like "Several hypotheses have been suggested:" to be restored because it organizes the material to guide the reader; and I would like "statistically significant" and "significantly" to be restored as these have important mathematical meanings. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's incorrect to describe unrelated findings as hypotheses lending weight to a previous conclusion. This seems to fall under WP:SYN.  The information is already organized, the paragraph describes the relation between circumcision and other inflammations or infections from the ones previously described.
 * As far as "significantly," the word has an entirely different meaning in statistics (the language of these papers) versus general prose, such as an encyclopedia. Basically, in statistics, "significant" means "not insignificant," i.e., not explained by random chance in all but the most extreme cases.  This is definition 1 of [Merriam-Webster].  In general prose, it means, "very" or "much" -- definition 2 of same.  In the sentence in question the word is used in a misleading way, once as "statistically significant" (weakening the finding, implying that there was a difference but it didn't meet some arbitrary threshold), and again only as "significant" (exaggerating the second finding).  The authors of the study did not say (as to a layman), "it was significantly higher."  They showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the case of HPV, and there was a statistically significant difference with urethritis.  As an exercise, swap the phrases "statistically significant" and "significant" in the previous form of the sentence, and see how the POV shifts.  I prefer a neutral POV, and a proper summary of the source. Blackworm (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jakew, you changed the sentence to reinsert "statistically significant," weakening the finding of no link between HPV and circumcision. Your edit summary said, "'no statistically significant difference' is not quite the same as 'no difference'."  That's true, it isn't quite the same, but I  ask you -- if the difference is not significant enough to be called significant by the researchers, from a scientific point of view, why is the difference significant enough to you?  In a scientific paper, a finding of no statistically significant difference is a finding of no difference.  Period.  That is science.  Are we to start putting "statistically significant" before every finding of no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in every study cited by the article, or just the ones where we want to imply there is a difference?  Blackworm (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * it's not our job to assume that our readers are morons... i say leave "statistically significant" in since it is accurate. Law/Disorder 10:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * The source states that "There was no significant difference in the incidence of HPV infection ... between uncircumcised and circumcised men", so we are simply reporting what it says. I am concerned by protests that this results in "weakening the finding": why would we want to present a stronger claim than that presented by the source? Jakew (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You tell me -- the previous summary indeed did, and I corrected it. It's unfortunate I don't have the time to check every source in the article, because 90% of the time that I do, the Wikipedia summary takes a more pro-circumcision stance than the source by misrepresenting its position in some way.  But fine, I have no objection to this change -- I just think it's silly to insert "statistically significant" every time we report on a scientific paper finding no difference between two groups -- and it's POV to do it selectively since it injects doubt as to the finding.  I will "correct" other instances of this elsewhere, I guess.  Blackworm (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * we can't deal with vague accusations of selective bias.... 67.164.220.177 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing vague about this. Quite the contrary.  I'd say it was very detailed. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sexual pleasure
This article has a section for external links. One of the sections under external links is called "Circumcision opposition". I added a link to Sex as Nature Intended It. A couple of hours later, Avraham reverted to the previous version, calling this a "minor" edit.

As the article currently stands, there is a section for external links that represent "Circumcision opposition". One of the main arguments to be made against male circumcision is that it reduces pleasure for both circumcised males and their female partners. None of the links under "Circumcision opposition" points this out; that's why I added the link to Sex as Nature Intended It. Thus, I think that the link I added is completely legitimate (especially given that it was in an advocacy category). If anyone disagrees, I'd like to hear reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views." WP:EL Jakew (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And Hyperion, being that there is no little black m next to the reversion, from where did you get the idea that I called it minor? -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Avi, there is a little black m next to your reversion. What are you smoking? -- Hyperion (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct. I did not realize that rollbacks automatically coded as minor. Sorry about that. -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are currently four links under "Circumcision opposition" and three links under "Circumcision promotion". Therefore, adding one more link to the former, to yield a 5:3 ratio, would hardly "overwhelm" the point of view promoting circumcision. Thus, it is clear that you are abusing this Wikipedia guideline in order to censor a point of view that makes you personally uncomfortable. And the view being represented hardly constitutes a "minority view". The only places where male circumcision is significantly practiced is America and the Muslim world. Therefore, it is the "circumcision promotion" category which is the minority view. Thus, a 5:3 ratio is entirely appropriate.


 * A comment on Amazon about the book that this Web site summarizes states: "After reading several books on circumcision, if I could recommend only one book on the "c" word, this would be the one." Thus, this link is essential for Wikipedia readers to be properly informed about the current stated of the male circumcision debate. If you don't like this, find another link to put in the "promotion" section.


 * Jakew, looking over earlier posts in the Talk page, I see you have been suppressing anti-circumcision points of view for some time time now. Give it up. -- Hyperion (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Having nearly twice the number of anti-circumcision links is a clear case of undue weight, Hyperion, and one cannot infer being opposed to something from not practicing it. If you feel it is important to add this link, I suggest that you propose a way of doing so that does not imbalance the links. Jakew (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see Avi has removed the 'circumstitions.com' link, which is a satisfactory solution. I've removed the POV description of O'Hara's site. Jakew (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What a big joke. There's an entire section of "circumcision techniques" links which are obviously from groups which support, if not encourage circumcision, that no one is counting under the "pro-" links -- meanwhile, Avi, a circumcision advocate, picks the most convincing and grisly "anti-" circumcision link to be deleted for someone else to add a mild, warm and fuzzy link that isn't convincing at all. What a farce. Blackworm (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

HIV
I've once again reverted an addition to the HIV section, which had several problems:


 * Currently, four sentences cover mainstream (WHO etc) views about circumcision and HIV. The addition dedicates an additional four sentences to minority viewpoints, effectively giving them undue weight.
 * The citing of Thomas (one of the ~40 or so observational studies to date) is bizarre. If we're to discuss observational studies at all, it makes more sense to cite a systematic review of observational studies rather than any individual study.
 * The text also gives the impression that Thomas is an example of an author who disagrees "that male circumcision reduces female to male transmission", yet the source makes no such statement (the conclusion is limited only to one particular population).
 * Similarly, the citing of Talbott is inexplicable. There are several ecological studies, why this one in particular? Jakew (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The four sentences from the WHO (there is no "etc.") dominate the section (as they do the lead). There is room for opposing views without undue weight issues, and invoking WP:SUMMARY when someone is claiming violation of WP:NPOV seems misguided.
 * This is not a valid argument against the edit. If you have such a systematic review of relevant observational studies, present it.
 * I agree that the sentence that begins "Not all authorities..." is misplaced and should be removed.
 * Again, not an argument against the edit.
 * I support Nigelj's edit, with the exception that I believe the sentence "Not all authorities" should be deleted. Blackworm (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought maybe a single sentence could be inserted instead of the four sentences, and I read through the HIV section at Medical analysis of circumcision looking for material on which to base that single sentence. I wasn't able to come up with anything.  The major publications that express doubt that circumcision helps against HIV were published before the controlled trials and apparently said that we can't conclude it helps until we get the results of the controlled trials.  Now that we have those results, those views are no longer relevant or are difficult to interpret or to summarize in a sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No longer relevant? I dispute that strongly.  If I remember correctly, the controlled trials referenced by the WHO were halted.  They were presumably scientific studies, with strict, predefined methodology, that were not carried out to their conclusion.  To use "results" from incomplete trials is the prerogative of the WHO, or any group, and it certainly does not invalidate or render irrelevant studies on HIV and circumcision published previously or since.  Most certainly, it does not render criticisms of the WHO's view irrelevant.  What you are suggesting seem to be that we should exclude other studies from mention, because they contrast with the "mainstream" (i.e. WHO) view.  That seems to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV.  All of this WHO/UNAIDS stuff is recent scholarship at best; it is arguable that undue weight is given the WHO's current view given that it is a current event.  That is most evident in the lead section.  I suppose one could ask oneself, does the presentation of the WHO's view in the article read like a dry, factual description of their view, or does it read like an endorsement of that position?  Remember that "undue weight" doesn't mean the majority view is presented as the correct view (if indeed the WHO's view represents a majority, a claim yet to be proven).  Blackworm (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All three trials included one or more interim analysis stages in their protocols, in which the monitoring board assess the data and decide, among other things, whether to stop the trial. In the case of these particular trials, they were in fact stopped.
 * Systematic reviews of observational studies include Weiss et al (including 27 studies) and Siegfried et al (including 37 studies). To quote from the full text of the latter's 'conclusions' (accessible at the Lancet's site via free registration):
 * "The possibility exists that the observed results included in this review could be explained by confounding. Although the positive results of these observational studies suggest that circumcision is an intervention worth evaluating in randomised controlled trials, the current quality of evidence is insufficient to consider implementation of circumcision as a public-health intervention. Therefore, the results of the three randomised controlled trials underway will provide essential evidence about the effects of male circumcision as an intervention to prevent HIV infection." Jakew (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that the WHO did not themselves 'decide' to use these results, but 'convened an international expert consultation', and 'Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men'.
 * The systematic reviews of observational studies indicate that most observational studies found a protective effect, but that exceptions exist. Bearing this in mind, how can we justify citing only two such exceptions? How can this be anything other than undue weight? If we're to refer to observational studies at all in the limited space available (which seems questionable), then wouldn't it make more sense to refer to a systematic review which gives a broad overview? Jakew (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had another look and this for example may still be of some relevance: "We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men. " from the Cochrane thingamy.  Blackworm, no, I'm not suggesting what it seemed to you that I was suggesting.  I was talking about conclusions like the following, also from the same paragraph of the Cochrane whatchammy: "The results of [RCT's] will need to be carefully considered before circumcision is implemented as a public health intervention for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV."  Written before the RCT results were around.  Now that those results exist, it seems difficult to iterpret or summarize this statement.  I'm not aware of any published criticisms of the position the WHO has taken based on the RCT results.
 * (edit conflict) I propose the following edit. Insert "Earlier, meta-analyses of observational data differed as to whether there was evidence of a protective effect of circumcision against HIV." at the end of the first paragraph of "HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases".  At the same time, to avoid lengthening the article, shorten the material on balanitis and balanoposthitis as follows:  change this:
 * The usual treatment for balanoposthitis is to use topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams.

Circumcision is sometimes used to treat balanitis, although there are less invasive treatments than circumcision that have been shown to be effective in treating most mild cases. The less invasive procedures are not as successful in treating balanitis xerotica obliterans, or BXO, which is much less common but harder to treat. Circumcision is believed to reliably reduce the threat of BXO.


 * to this:
 * Circumcision is one treatment for balanitis. The usual treatment for balanoposthitis is to use topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams.


 * The deleted material is already present, I believe, in the Medical analysis of circumcision article.
 * The material I propose to insert can be supported by the following references, which will have to be formatted appropriately and possibly the first one replaced by a reference to the study it mentions: USAID Cochrane Cochrane. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jakew, you make good points re the foundation of the WHO position. Looking at Medical analysis of circumcision I get the impression that there were two major meta-analyses of the observational data, which in my edit above I suggest citing.  re WHO: are we (merely :-) citing WHO, or can we also (or do we already) cite the conference they base their recommendation on? --Coppertwig (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, I think that the essence of your edit is fine in principle, but I have a couple of concerns about the details.
 * My first concern is that while one meta-analysis may provide some background information to the RCTs, I think it may be excessive to discuss two reviews of observational data. Given that the available space is limited, how much of it should we dedicate to "quality of evidence [that] is insufficient", and how much to "essential evidence"?
 * My second concern is that I think it is inaccurate to say that "Earlier, meta-analyses of observational data differed as to whether there was evidence of a protective effect of circumcision against HIV". Both Siegfried et al and Weiss et al reported finding that this evidence existed ("Although most studies show an association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV" - Siegfried, "Male circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced risk of HIV infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those at high risk of HIV" - Weiss). However, Siegfried et al were concerned about whether the evidence was good enough to warrant implementing circumcision programmes: "these results may be limited by confounding, which is unlikely to be adjusted for ... the current quality of evidence is insufficient to consider implementation of circumcision as a public-health intervention."
 * Although the following is too long, I think it is probably the best way to summarise:
 * "In March 2005, Siegfried et al. reviewed 37 observational studies. Although most studies showed an association between circumcision and prevention of HIV, they found the quality of evidence available at the time insufficient to warrant implementation of circumcision as a public health intervention. They concluded that the results of the three randomised controlled trials then underway would therefore provide essential evidence about the effects of circumcision. The first of these trials..."
 * Incidentally, I'm a little confused because you seem to have given the same (www.psi.org) link for both USAID and Cochrane references. Could you clarify whether this was your intent, and if not, what the links ought to be? Jakew (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about the URL's.  OK, we're considering four references:
 * USAID 2002 Male Circumcision: Current epidemiological and field evidence, which says "A systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 published studies by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, published in the journal AIDS in 2000, found that circumcised men are less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men. A subanalysis of 10 African studies found a 71 percent reduction among higher-risk men.  A September 2002 update considered the results of these 28 studies plus an additional 10 studies and, after controlling for various potentially confoundnig religious, cultural, behavioral and other factors, had similarly robust findings.  Recent laboratory studies in Chicago found HIV uptake in the inner foreskin tissue to be up to nine times more efficient than in a control sample of cervical tissue."
 * Weiss et al. 2000, which says "Male circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced risk of HIV infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those at high risk of HIV. These results suggest that consideration should be given to the acceptability and feasibility of providing safe services for male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy in areas of Africa where men are not traditionally circumcised."
 * Cochrane = Siegfried et al. 2003 which says "We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men. The results from existing observational studies show a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, especially among high-risk groups. However, observational studies are inherently limited by confounding which is unlikely to be fully adjusted for. In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful. The results of these trials will need to be carefully considered before circumcision is implemented as a public health intervention for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV."
 * Siegfried et al. 2005 which says "Study quality was very variable and no studies measured the same set of potential confounding variables. Therefore, conducting a meta-analysis was inappropriate. Detailed quality assessment of observational studies can provide a useful visual aid to interpreting findings. Although most studies show an association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, these results may be limited by confounding, which is unlikely to be adjusted for."
 * I suggest this edit (along with the balanitis changes): "Earlier, reviews of observational data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV" and using Weiss et al 2000 and Siegfried et al 2003 as the references.  I think Siegfried et al 2003 and Siegfried et al 2005 are saying essentially the same thing:  that there is evidence of correlation but insufficient evidence of causation. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, USAID 2002 is citing Weiss 2000. I think that Siegfried 2005 is an updated version of 2003, and as you say makes a similar conclusion: that observational studies aren't sufficient (because they are "inherently limited by confounding") and that RCTs (will) provide more definitive data. I think that, if we're to discuss the observational data, we need to distinguish between these data and those from RCTs. Jakew (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this? I think it makes the distinction clearer: "Before there were any results from randomized controlled trials, reviews of observational data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV."  --Coppertwig (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Jakew (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(<<outdent) OK, I did the edit, including shortening the balanitis section. One advantage is that the two edits led to a net reduction in number of footnote superscripts of four. (I believe it's the number of footnote superscripts that causes the page to render slowly, I presume also putting a load on Wikimedia's servers.) The deleted references are still present on the Medical analysis of circumcision subpage, so that's fine. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since WHO just published yet another report advocating circumcision for the prevention of heterosexual HIV transmission, I think the AMA reference from almost ten years ago should be removed from the summary at the top. Many new studies have come out since that time, and it is disingenuous to claim that the AMA would still express the same view today as it did in 1999. 75.3.239.32 (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Effects
It seems like the sexual effects article is biased by showing more studies against circumcision then for it. Obviously, there are numerous amounts of studies on both sides. I am trying to add 2007 payne study but i am sure that it wilil get reverted by anti-circ zealots. By the way, most pro-circumcisers that try to bias it is in response to the anti circ people. 67.35.83.97 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's amusing when people who support nonconsensual bodily amputations call others "zealots". 68.40.196.149 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree.
 * by Wild Mountain Thyme (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is when you use terms like "nonconsensual bodily amputations" that people think you are a zealot. Could you describe a consensual bodily amputation to me? Or a nonconsensual non-bodily amputation? Consensual non-bodily amputation? In one sentence, you added enough bluster to keep the rest of us shaking our heads for a good long while. The same is almost always present in your version of the "facts." No matter how many times doctors from around the world advocate circumcision to prevent transmition of HIV, the anti-circumcision zealots will never budge. I hope you understand why the rest of the world thinks you are a kook. It is because you present yourself as one. 75.3.239.32 (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Circumcision scars and hardens the glans of the penis which acts as a slight barrier against HIV infection. This is hardly a compelling reason in favour of circumcision.


 * Okay, I guess "nonconsensual amputations" would have sufficed. Examples of consensual amputations would be an adult male electing to be circumcised after being fully informed of all the risks, or a woman electing to have her breasts removed as a prophylaxis for breast cancer, also after having been fully informed of the risks. Cutting up babies is nonconsensual. Actually, as most of the world does NOT practice circumcision, they would probably consider you the "kook", but I doubt you've ever been outside the U.S. Learn how to spell "transmission" and we'll talk more then.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense, 75.3.239.32, and is a violation of Wikipedia's policies of no personal attacks and civility. If you continue to violate these policies you may be subject to administrative action, including blocking.  Gimmethoseshoes, please try not to respond to personal attacks with a discussion of the subject, as difficult as that may be.  This user, and other non-neutral users use terms like "zealot" to marginalize editors and create a kind of fake consensus.  The neutrality of "nonconsensual amputation" is in question because some people believe that parents have a right to give surrogate consent for non-medical, non-therapeutic, non-recommended, non-anaesthesized, gender-specific genital surgeries of their male infants and children (and a far fewer number, for their female infants and children).  Suggest you use "surrogate consent-baesd amputation" instead.  Of course that doesn't make you a kook, any more than people who claim that it's more humane not to use anaesthesia, or who compare circumcision to the cutting of hair or the trimming of fingernails.  Blackworm (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But the term you suggest is even more contrived than the one I used... at a certain point the language gets ridiculous in an effort to be Wiki-PC. "Amputation" is accurate and objective, though it is the "nonconsensual" which is lacking neutrality (supposedly). I wouldn't know what "surrogate consent-based amputation" meant if it were not already in the context of our discussion. And I consider myself pretty smart. Is "Female Genital Mutilation" neutral? Is anyone looking into the non-neutrality of that page with respect to the (male) circumcision page? If we truly are to remain neutral, perhaps it should be "Female Genital Modification" or something. I know this is the wrong forum for that specific question, but you get my point.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, but you clearly haven't read the last few archives of this Talk page, as seemingly contrived language is common in a milieu where the only civil discussions have a level of pedantry unseen anywhere else in Wikipedia. Neutral language does seem ridiculous upon first hearing.  Those who are sometimes accused of vigorously defending material pushing a pro-circumcision POV also seem to use such "so neutral it seems non-neutral" (paraphrasing) language.  Ultimately I believe that in Wikipedia the more neutral term should always be used over the more common term.  Apparently a few others here disagree.  If you want to label that Wiki-PC, so be it; but that doesn't sound to me like a valid argument.
 * It's not a question of your intelligence ("smart"), it's a question of your level of expertise on the subject of circumcision. If you're unsure what something means in discussion (e.g, surrogate consent), just ask.  Around here that definition isn't under debate.  But no, you say you did understand.  So what was the problem, exactly?  You had a gut feeling about something, perhaps?   I can't help you with that.
 * And no, I don't get your point, if your point was to make a reductio ad absurdum, as is apparently the case. If you were serious, and not being facetious, then I agree with you entirely that "female genital mutilation" isn't very neutral; in fact, there is a current majority of editors who believe that female genital cutting is the most neutral term, and thus that's the title of the article on that subject (perhaps a clear example of systemic bias).  This, despite the demonstration that both "female genital mutilation" and "female circumcision" are more common terms -- editors there specifically argue, as I do there, that the more neutral term is preferred over the more, or most common term.  Curiously, when we examine the male equivalent of the topic, then instead of a common, more neutral term ("male circumcision"), only the most common term ("circumcision"), with one sense of the term meaning one specific form of male genital cutting,  is considered.  This, by those very same editors making the argument for the title female genital cutting, due to its neutrality.  I disagree with those editors, and point to the apparent contradiction.  I believe the best solution is that (a) this article be called male genital cutting and made to correspond to the broader definitions used in female genital cutting, or, (b) this article be renamed male circumcision and an article created for female circumcision.  Female circumcision is a subset of female genital cutting, in the same way male circumcision is a subset of male genital cutting.  This ordered, neutral, logical perspective comes from my scientific training, and I'm unimpressed by those putting forth scientific credentials here, who brush off these contradictions with a wave -- often biting the heads off some editors who are perhaps less educated on the topic of circumcision for whom the non-neutrality of this article organization is also apparent.  Blackworm (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

7int tends to be geared towards infant circumcision. I believe this needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.33.190 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In Africa circumcision happens at adult age. Khayav made some video about it on youtube. He was circumcised as an adult. --Zslevi (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was circumcised as an adult and it would be very useful if Wikipedia adressed this topic. Sephiroth21 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures?
Not to be inappropriate at all, but would there be any way to have a side-by-side comparison of a circumsized and uncircumsized penis? For comparison? (And those of us who are chicks, and don't really know the difference...) 63.166.22.254 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We used to have comparison pictures, but the uncircumcised picture was deleted according to CSD criteria I9 and G7 (copyright infringement and author request).
 * Here's an image of an uncircumcised penis from Commons: Image:Uncircpn.jpg.  Would it be a good idea to add it to the article?  I found two other pictures at Commons which at first glance seem to be labelled "uncircumcised", but apparently are actually of circumcised penises.  --Coppertwig (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two images at Erection, both of which are public domain. We could use these, or combine them into a suitable image illustrating the differences. I'd be happy to do this myself if there was consensus to do so... Jakew (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we perhaps wait until we can find a suitable image of a circumcised penis that doesn't have a skin bridge, or any other sign of a botched circumcision? Blackworm (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't even see the skin bridge on that picture, so I'd suggest going ahead and including both pictures, but am happy to wait if Blackworm prefers. (Congratulations for showing neutrality there, Blackworm.) (I don't dare put up a request at Commons for such a picture.  Maybe someone else is braver than me about that.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree you can't see it in the thumbnail, but I definitely see it if I click on it. I'm fine with it, just thought I'd note that.  Blackworm (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we're talking about Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg. OK, maybe I see the skin bridge now.  In the erect picture, I think the skin bridge is something that if you follow it down towards the body, it seems to meld into a vein that sticks out.  Is that right?
 * I'm not sure how much work it would be for Jakew to combine the images. Ideally I guess the skin bridge one would be replaced when a more suitable image is found.  Actually, two images.  I suggest one of a circumcised penis without skin bridge or other problems, and also (in another section of the article perhaps) a clearer, more obvious image of a skin bridge.  --Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I've seen the difference in both pics (good Lord, what IS that thing on the end?!)(rhetorical, don't worry), I strongly think a comparison pic would be a good idea. Pictures say a thousand words, and what better way to describe the procedure than by showing the, if you will, "before" and "after" pics. No?
 * 63.166.22.254 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re survey
This material was removed from the article by Jakew: "However, in the 2007-08 global Durex sexual activity study, the United States (in which the majority of males are circumcised) ranked 25th for sexual activity, while all of the European nations surveyed (which have a majority of uncircumcised men) were in the top ten. One of the reasons for this can be attributed to the fact that circumcision was formed in religious circles as a way to prevent masturbation, as more religious societies have proven to be less sexually active than secular cultures. Also, modern polls of men show that uncircumcised males tend to masturbate more compared to their circumcised counterparts, due to the self-lubricating properties of the foreskin" with edit summary "rv original research". OK, there does seem to be some OR there -- but the last sentence looks merely unsourced, not OR. However, we might as well leave it out until somebody finds an actual source. I did some web searches and didn't find anything much. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I can think of two studies that have assessed masturbation frequency by circumcision status. Neither support the claim. Laumann (JAMA 1997;277:1052-7) found that circumcised men masturbated more frequently, while Richters (Int J STD AIDS 2006;17:547-54) found no statistically significant difference. So even if some sources exist that support the claim, the sentence would be problematic. The "due to" claim in that sentence also looks rather OR-ish to me. Jakew (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jakew presents solid reasoning for removing this material - definitely looks like OR. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or circumcision discourages masturbation (that's difficult to reliably proove) there are many quotes by religious or moral leaders who advocated it for that reason.

Campaigns, etc
Recently, the BBC carried a story headlined Rwanda in mass circumcision drive, in which it is explained that "Rwanda has launched a campaign to encourage all men to be circumcised, to reduce the risk of catching HIV/Aids." I'm not certain of the best article for this information. It seems likely to affect the prevalence of circumcision, but technically that's OR and a little crystal ball-ish. I suppose it could go into circumcision advocacy, though it would change the focus of that article. Previous reports indicated that several countries have similar plans, so it's probably worth giving this some careful thought. Does anyone have any ideas? Jakew (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Male circumcision and law or perhaps reproductive rights or human rights since it seems like a case of forcing teenage and adult males to be circumcised against their free will (the article described it as "nominally voluntary" and states that "many in the armed forces will regard it as an order"). It's also definitely circumcision advocacy since the campaign will be started, among others, "with the new born."  Blackworm (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead, perhaps we should start a Campaigns for semi-voluntary mass male circumcision article? I'm sure it will get filled out in the coming years, if the WHO has their way.  Blackworm (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Such silence on this momentous development...? Maybe it should just go in the main Circumcision article next to the information about the WHO's push for mass circumcision in Africa.  I wonder if Wikipedia senior administrator Jayjg, a former member of ARBCOM, would now reverse his comments in the "Articles For Deletion" proposal Jakew initiated for the circumcision advocacy article:


 * Blackworm (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And Kenya. (Filing here for convenient access at a later date.) Jakew (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)