Talk:Circumcision/Archive 44

AMA and WHO information from the lead
We rapidly went from this (09:33, August 3, 2008 version by Beejaypii):

In 1999, the American Medical Association stated that virtually all medical organizations and specialty societies do not recommend routine neotantal circumcision,[13] while in 2006 the World Health Organization and UNAIDS recommended promotion of male circumcision as an additional strategy in the prevention of female to male HIV transmission, stipulating, amongst other things, that it should be carried out in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner.[14]

To this (22:41, August 3, 2008 by Atomaton):

''In 1999, the American Medical Association stated that they supported the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics[13] that existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. They stated that the low incidence of penile cancer and urinary tract infections mitigates the potential medical benefits compared with the risks of circumcision, and that behavioral factors are far more important than circumcision in preventing HIV transmission.[14] They also state that virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice. Conversely, in 2006 WHO and UNAIDS, after reviewing the results of controlled trials and other data on the efficacy, safety and acceptability of male circumcision for HIV prevention, recommended promotion of male circumcision, including neonatal circumcision, as an additional strategy in the prevention of HIV transmission to males. They stipulated that correct communication and messages on male circumcision are critical, and that the procedure should be carried out in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner.[15]''

Needless to say, we have some substantial differences of opinion. Because the changes have been so dramatic and rapid, we should work this out on the talk page before re-introducing it to the main page. Otherwise, an edit war will ensue. AlphaEta 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And why can't we leave all of that out to be discussed below as opposed to the lead? The AMA/WHO/etc. recommendations, be they pro or con, belong in the section regarding Policies of various national medical associations, do they not? -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with working it out first. I do not see it as essential in the lede.  The previous para discussion scientific evidence pro and con.  Having the next para giving a couple of organizaitons that are pro and con is interest, but not essential. Atom (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion that it would be better not to have this in the lead. Similar paragraphs in the lead in previous versions of the article provoked thousands of words of debate, occupied the time of various editors, and never achieved concensus. Beejaypii (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The AMA is a source for a summary of medical organizations' positions on circumcision. The AMA's position on circumcision was NOT in the lead.  That paragraph has been there for months and there is no consensus to remove it.  Blackworm (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article, and give reasons why the topic is notable (WP:LEAD). Just deleting the info may not be ideal. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow been a busy weekend. I agree Coppertwig.  I feel we are doing the reader a disservice by removing AMA summary from lead.  The statement is simple and true by itself and an informative summary of most medical organization's circumcision policies like it claims.  Most medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision.  Trying to bring the WHO/HIV into it because they do not is not necessary and will only make the lead too cumbersome because of everything attached to it.Garycompugeek (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * HI gary: The issue that causes the problem, I think, is that the AMA's statement is unclear.  Some (perhaps correctly) perceive it to mean all US sub specialties and agencies (as that is the "jurisdiction" of the AMA.)  Others point out that not all countries' medical associations have that view, and so looking at the AMA wording in that context is necessarily wrong.  The AMA speaks for American doctors, and has no standing speaking for other countries, nor do they claim to.  For people who view it in that context, there is no good reason to put in a global article the view of one countries medical association, and not the others.


 * If one were to do that, to offer broader coverage by mentioning the WHO makes a more global perspective. If one reads the AMA as truely speaking for the medical associations of other countries as well, that still leaves the necessity for keeping the article neutral by expressing the range of views on the topic, which is what brings in the WHO policy on the matter.  We need not agree with either, or both views to recognize that to keep NPOV balance of competing views needs to be expressed, and expressing only one, or the predominant view will not gain consensus.


 * Lastly, I agree that inclusion of this information is desirable. However, the previous paragraph covers the essential and important information ("Scientific evidence as to the benefits of circumcision is inconclusive...") in a balanced(NPOV) manner. Exclusion of the AMA/WHO paragraph from the lede does not significantly impair a basic understanding of the article content.  Of course coverage of those topics within the article itself is important and necessary.  If we really felt the importance of discussing this, we would have to agree on a descriptive and vague statement like "Although many[most] world medical associations currently do not recommend neo-natal circumcision, there are medical associations and organizations that do recommend neo-natal circumcision."  Or wording to that effect.  Another editor had said something earlier to the effect that the PITA of working out that wording, and then maintaining the wording as people keep wanting to change it to slant more towards their perspective was not worth the marginal information that it offers in the lede.  I am not sure I agree, but it is a valid point.  Atom (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are we with this? Can we come to a consensus on what the paragraph should say? I though we had agreed to remove the paragraph until we worked it out? Atom (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above dated 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC). In fact, see the comments of the two editors following that comment as well.  I honestly have no clue where you get your ideas on what editors "agreed" on.  Blackworm (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was not for you, it was for the people who agreed to temporarily pull the statement out. I am aware of your position on the issue, it is right there in black and white.
 * This started with AlphEta proposing removing the section (temporarily) so that we could hammer out wording. AlphaEta says: "Because the changes have been so dramatic and rapid, we should work this out on the talk page before re-introducing it to the main page" His edit summary was "let's hammer this thing out on the talk page)".
 * Following that proposal, Avi agrees, Atom agrees, Beejaypii agrees.
 * You then say that is should be there becasue the AMA gives their opinion about how other medical orgzanitions feel about it. Apparently thinking that someone wants to permanently remove the section.
 * Coppertwig discusses it and says that it should not be deleted. (the proposal by AlphaEta was to remove it pending getting wording ("to hammer it out", not a proposal to remove it enirely.)
 * Gary agrees with Coppertwig
 * I say that I think the AMA statement is unclear. (which I have re-evaluated since).
 * It seems like we are working out some kind of censensus, discussing the issue, per AlphaEta's proposal, everyone seems to implicitly agree to leave it out while we work out the wording, which we are doing.
 * Discussion stops -- why? See [diff] You place an old version of the text (not the version that had been the most recent working version we had been discussing[Diff here] back into the article -- disrupting the attempt to hammer out wording.  The conversation above did not reach consensus, even though we seemed to be heading in the same direction.  Atom (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Netdoctor Source
Copied from my talk page

Hey Gary. I removed the quote from Dr. Dean that you added to the circumcision article. I don't think it is notable enough to balance the section effectively. I'm going to dig up some peer-reviewed research articles that found little or no protective effect of male circumcision on HIV transmission. Give me a day or two to find the refs. Is this okay with you? Kindest regards, AlphaEta 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind note and help with my HIV concern. Your addition is welcome but does not address most of the points I feel important to relate. Mainly that circumcision not be recommended to combat HIV because there are other much more effective measures that are less harmful. Dr. Dean is simply a Dr. editor for Netdotor. Basicly the UKs version of Web MD. Both are peered reviewed and strive to maintain an air of neutrality. It's true Dr. Dean is not famous but fame is not a requirement of ours. Perhaps more background leading to quote... Dr. Dean of Netdoctor writes... or Netdoctor say this about... ?
 * Sorry Gary, but I reverted this addition with the following edit summary: Rv - We can't add a quote from every expert on the subject. It's outside the scope of this article. Also, "About NetDoctor" makes no mention of peer-review. I agree that the section needed balance, and I tried to do this by adding contrary research findings. The reliability of NetDoctor is questionable. It may not be a good idea to add quotes from individual experts in this context. It sets a precedent that will lead to repeated edit wars as people try to add quotes which support their position, and it will be difficult to argue that some expert opinions are more notable than others. Thanks, AlphaEta 15:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a direct quote from 'about netdoctor' -

Over 250 of the UK's and Europe's leading doctors and health professionals write, edit and update the contents of NetDoctor.co.uk. In addition to creating written content for the patient these same health professionals respond to users questions and concerns regarding general health concerns.

Our editorial independence and reliance on professional advice is our single most important asset. There is a clear distinction between the editorial and business staff. As a matter of policy our doctors, writers and editors are not allowed to be influenced or answerable to our sponsors or advertisers.  We follow the same standards of practice as the leading medical journals.

Sounds like its peer reviewed to me. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of thoughts:
 * 1.  When the re-addition was made, the source was identified as having been peer-reviewed.  There is a world of difference between something that has been peer-reviewed versus something that sounds like it has been peer-reviewed.  We can't judge a source's reliability based on assumptions.  The only reason this is an issue is because peer-review was used to support the addition of this material.
 * 2. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.  To present the viewpoint/opinion of a single expert (not an organization) in such detail is disproportionate to its prominence.
 * I, obviously, don't oppose the addition of more material to balance the section, but this reads more like an advice column than an encyclopedic article. Thanks,  AlphaEta  02:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the quotation with the following sentence:
 * The joint WHO/UNAIDS recommendation on male circumcision notes that it only provides partial protection from HIV and should never be used to replace known methods of HIV prevention, such as the delayed onset of sexual relations, abstinence from penetrative sex, reduction in the number of sexual partners, increased male and female condom distribution and compliance, access to HIV testing and counselling, and promotion of treatment for sexually transmitted disease.[WHO ref]

It is from a document that already has established reliability and is a cautionary note from the very organization that is promoting male circumcision as a method to reduce HIV transmission. It also does a better job of noting that male circumcision provides only partial protection and gives a more comprehensive list of methods that should be used concurrently with male circumcision to prevent HIV infection. AlphaEta 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Style for naming authors
I noticed User:Atomaton has begun replacing names like "Denniston" with "Dr. George Denniston." I don't like this, it breaks a long-standing convention in this article of using only the author's last name. The reasoning behind that is to avoid conflicts over the presentation of credentials and attributes of the authors. It is easy to subtly give an author more or less "weight" by manipulating these "introductions," so I'd prefer to just use the author name. Someone wanting to know more about the author can view the source, or research more, and if the author has their own WP article it should be linked. Otherwise, let's please just stick to last names. Opinions? Blackworm (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The MoS states that the first instance of a persons name should include any title and first name, and subsequent references are surname only (except where individuals share the same name, when first names are also used). However, titles are generally used in context in articles; President Jones awarding an honour indicates higher prestige than if it were Mayor Jones, therefore a medical opinion expressed by Dr Jones indicates more expertise than "Jones". The bit about credentials is directed at the editors, so that appeals to authority are not seen to influence discussions rather than the strength of the arguments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't find that part of the MoS (not in Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29 either). Could you please point me to it?  Also, I found this, which seems to contradict your statement: Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name.Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29  I'd like to understand this completely.  Here, we are discussing a title like "Dr." as well as an attribute such as "Medical Ethicist Professor," both being recently added. Blackworm (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blackworm. The status quo here has been to omit academic titles, and given the volatility of this article, any modifiers attached to a particular opinion or finding can potentially disrupt its balance in relation to others.  For the record, I'm certain that Atom had good intentions when making this change.   AlphaEta  18:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I should note that I'm working from the apparently standard academic way of citing authors of papers, namely, to only use the last name of the primary author, optionally followed by et al. if there is more than one author. It's a different case than, for example, referring to someone outside the context of a citation.  For example, I would write, "Smith stated (200x) that Robert Brown, a Timbuktu horse saddler, once did ..."  (I too have no reason to doubt this was good-faith editing.) Blackworm (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll defer to your judgment, I am trying to copyedit the article. If the MOS suggests not giving titles, such as Doctor, I am fine with that.  However, my concern is that when something like "Deniston says this and that" I feel that it makes the article less readable for the average person.  It is more like an academic style, and in such papers the readers (often other academics) know who the people in their field are.  For the average Wikipedia reader, This will not be the case.  Of course, I do not argue the notability of the people, or that an interested reader can click on the reference.  It is a very minor readabilty issue that I was trying to clean up.  I am open to Suggestions.  What do you think about omitting the title and putting first and last name.  I know it makes very little difference, but just seem more approachable to me.  Atom (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the readability. I'm just more concerned about the neutrality.  This is a volatile topic, and I guess I see the colder, academic wording to be less prone to arguments over it.  Blackworm (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't need to put the title, and risk giving someone credibility. Using there full name is more readable and avoids that.Atom (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

AMA/WHO 2
It seems that one editor insists on the AMA quote being in the lede, so we should continue hammering out what it should say, and then repair it. I don't see that any great harm can come from the existing non-consensus text remaining in the article until we work it out.

This is what I have for the latest/last version:

In 1999, the American Medical Association stated that they supported the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics that existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. They stated that the low incidence of penile cancer and urinary tract infections mitigates the potential medical benefits compared with the risks of circumcision, and that behavioral factors are far more important than circumcision in preventing HIV transmission. They also state that virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice. Conversely, in 2006 WHO and UNAIDS, after reviewing the results of controlled trials and other data on the efficacy, safety and acceptability of male circumcision for HIV prevention, recommended promotion of male circumcision, including neonatal circumcision, as an additional strategy in the prevention of HIV transmission to males. They stipulated that correct communication and messages on male circumcision are critical, and that the procedure should be carried out in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner.

The key elements, for me are 1) AMA position accurately expressed (not slanted) 2) Who position accurately expressed to give balance. 3) In the AMA section, they take their recommendations from the AAP, and this should say som as this is their official recommendaiton in the cited paper. 4) Some people want the qualifier from the AMA comments section that "They also state that virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." I can live without #4, but I think others are adamant about inclusion. The above paragraph does include it, and in the proper context, not unfairly weighting it more than the official recommendation.

Clearly the AMA does not speak for other countries' medical societies, and so when they say "virtually all"...they mean speciality societies (American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Radiological Society of North America, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pedatrics, American Pediatric Society, etc... ) and medical organizations (American College of Physicians, American Hospital Society, Association of American Medical Colleges, etc...)

This is supported by the fact that a number of medical organizations and medical societies outside of the AMA context do not share the same views that the AAP espouses.

So, I would be fine with leaving that part out. It might create less controversy if we leave it in though, which is the full version at the top of the section.

Atom (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Atomaton, I think that's very, very good; very neutral. I haven't checked that the source verifies the claims in detail, and I think an additional sentence on HIV-related mass circumcision in Africa is probably warranted, but unless I find issues with the sources and the claims, I think that's an excellent paragraph.  I'll try to look at it in more detail in the coming days.
 * I'd like to see sources for your claim that a number of medical organizations and medical societies outside of the AMA context do not share the same views that the AAP espouses -- more specifically that a reasonable reading of their recommendations clearly contradicts the AMA's assessment. Blackworm (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look for more beyond the ones I provided earlier in a previous section. I did not make a claim that anything contradicted the AMA's assessment, I said the AMA's assessment was unclear.  Then, as it is a talk page, I gave the opinion that based on the context of the AMA's role (and reading the cited article carefully), it is unlikely they were discussing medical organizations outside of their realm of control/influence/jurisdiction.


 * I don't support either view within the circumcision article. The focus of my edits has been to try to keep the quotes as accurate as possible according the reliable cites.  The primary objection stated to the use of the AMA article was based on an editors perception that the AMA was speaking only of a U.S. view, and that could not be clarified within the context of the source document says something.  A few other editors alo agreed with that view (that is was unclear).  I am concerned about the perception that it gives, as it is in the lede, and needs to maintain NPOV. If it were possible to clearly identify the scope of context, that would help.  I am looking for other AMA documents from that time period that may clarify for certain. The most important thing is that the paragraph quotes the position stated accurately, and that it is not slanted in one direction or the other merely by editing.  The ambiguity of meaning is an area where the slant could be applied, or that one "side" or the other could claim that.  If we can't find definite context, then the next best thing would be to get consensus of editors as to their perceptions bsed on reading the full citation.  At the moment I lean towards it (the AMA statement) being a world view, rather than an U.S. only view based on reading the full text of the cite, and looking on the net.  Regardless, I will go with the consensus of opinions if it is not possible to clarify it further.


 * One other thing too, speaking of context. If you read the AMA document, it summarizes at the end of the document with three recommendations.  One of those recommendations is the premise of the proposed paragraph.  "The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. "  The other two recommendations, although important, do not seem to pertinent to the article, or at least, not to the lede.  The context of the statement currently in the article " I feel that some edited version of this should be what we represent as the AMA position.  Their statement that it demonstates potential medical benefits can't be ignored, or left out without slighting one of the perspectives, and damaging the neutrality of the article.


 * The other statement, the one currently in the article, "is in the summary and comments section, and not in the recommendation. It does indicate an opinion by the AMA on other peoples views.  I think it its notable and verifiable, but one part of many other comments, and not in the recommendations, but explains part of their reasoning process for reaching the recommendations given.  As supplementary material, it should not dominate the recommendations themselves.  My opinion is that either just the recommendations only, or the recommendations followed by the supplementary explanation for the recommendations should be given (as per my example at the top of the section).


 * At least one editor has said that the point of the AMA section is to indicate the predominance of medical opinion on the matter. "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision..." and not, in fact, the opinion of the AMA itself.  Well, thinking about that carefully a bit.  If the AMA is notable, and they have a policy, and they base their policy on their reasoning that many/most other medical organizations policies leans one way, then it seems rather strange to cite their reasoning, based on their notability, but not cite their own policy/recommendations.  Perhaps, if the real goal is to make the statement that recommendations against neonatal circumcision currently predominate (in the world context?) and use the AMA's opinion as justification for saying that, then we should leave out the AMA in the paragraph entirely, and just make the statement, pointing to the proper citation, which happens to be the AMA 1999 opinion.  But, if we are going to bring the opinion of the AMA into the picture, than it is fair that neonatal circumcision porponents position supported in the AMA's recommendation be presented to give proper balance.

Atom (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguing that the AMA statement on other societies is unclear seems futile without a reliable source stating an view that it is unclear. It is clear enough to me and presumably to a lot of people if they published the statement.  There is also nothing clearly US-centric about the statement; in fact the cited source goes on to mention the societies of several other countries specifically.  Again, if you have sources which are a contrast to the statement, by all means bring them.
 * The goal of the sentence in the lead is to establish the general view of medical societies on neonatal circumcision. The AMA statement seems to reflect that very well.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the neonatal circumcision proponents position supported in the AMA's recommendation but the part about parental choice in the paragraph I put in seems to balance the statement.  Otherwise, please quote directly what neonatal circumcision proponents position supported in the AMA's recommendation you wish to put in the article.  If it's appropriate, it should be added to the Positions of Medical Organizations section, as in that case we would presumably be discussing the AMA's position itself, not its assessment of other societies. Blackworm (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, the working paragraph above says "that existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In the paragraph you have in, you focus on the AMA's statement " virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations"  Your statement is convenient, but the structure of the paragraph is based on"  Primary/dominant medical position of regarding neonatal circumcision balanced with Alternate medical position on regarding neonatal circumcision.  The translates to: AMA/AAP position against neonatal circumcision balanced with WHO/UNAIDS position on neonatal circumcision.


 * We should then, give the AMA/AAP official policy, and then the WHO/UNAIDS official policy. What in fact is happening with the wording you placed is that it gives the AMA's opinion on what other medical organizations policies are about neonatal circumcision balanced with the WHO/UNAIDS opinions regarding neonatal circumcision.


 * What I am trying to do is change it so that it is faithful to both the premise of the article (balance of views, dominant view first) as well as the citations given for the AMA and for the WHO.


 * The AMA in the cited document gives their position in their recommendations. I quoted it accurately. It is more appropriate, accurate and follows the premise of the paragraph to state their official position, rather than completely omit their position, and then give their opinion of how other medical organizations feel instead. Atom (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you see; it doesn't translate to "AMA/AAP position [...] balanced with WHO/UNAIDS position" since the two positions are referring to different things. The first is a position on the general recommendations regarding male circumcision of "virtually all" medical societies, and the second is a position of one organization on the recommendation of circumcision for HIV-control related purposes.  There is no indication that the paragraphs as I have them are unfaithful to either premise you bring up.  Again, if you have more sources making a summary of medical authorities' views on circumcision, please bring them; but you cannot reasonably argue that there is anything with the paragraph as it is.  Blackworm (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "No, you see it doesn't translate to "AMA/AAP position [...] balanced with WHO/UNAIDS position" I know it does not now, that is my point. It should.  As is, it balances the opinion of the AMA on what most other medical organizations think, and balanced against that it the position of the WHO.  That is not my preference.  I think others have the view that it should be the policy of the AMA balanced with the policy of the WHO.  I know that is not your position.  Atom (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus
I have removed a See Also link to Holy Prepuce and an Image of Jesus in the rituals section. Reason why is Jesus has nothing to do with circumcision and it makes it seem as though circumcision is a Christian ritual, which it's not. The Holy Prepuce has even less to to with this article. Leaving so much reference to Jesus in the article removes neutrality from the article as it states Jesus in some way endorses circumcision. Signsolid (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict and lost everything!] As you can see from the edit histories, we were both editing at the same time in different places, so I couldn't have seen your comments here. The Holy Prepuce article is directly related to this subject and thus it is a perfectly natural part of the See also section. See more about this at See also. There is no need to delete things you don't like. The image is a nice illustration of a very famous historical circumcision and is a perfectly neutral part of the article. Of course Jesus had no opinion about circumcision at the time, since he was only eight days old. I don't recall that he even commented on circumcision. The early Christian church actually discouraged the circumcision of new Christians, so your odd comment about Jesus somehow endorsing circumcision reveals a lack of knowledge on several counts. There is no need to delete things you don't like. -- Fyslee / talk 06:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why have an image of Jesus at all? Why not have an image of a Muslim circumcision? After all some 80% of all circumcised men are Muslims. Jesus has very little indeed to do with circumcision. Other than the fact Jesus was born a Jew and so was circumcised the whole circucision thing ends there regarding Christianity. There really should be far more reference to Muslims in this article. It would seem strange and misleading that there's more information regarding a religion that doesn't circumcise than the relgion which is the biggest circumciser. Signsolid (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say Jesus endorsed Circumcision, I said the opposite. I said images and references to Jesus all over this article made it appear that Jesus is an endorsement for Christians to be circumcised. It's ridiculous really that such emphasis is given in this article to that fact Jesus was circumcised. I can only think that a pro-circumcision advocate added them to make it appear Christianity endorses circumcision. Signsolid (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's simply a part of history.  Let's present it neutrally, and Let the reader decide.  There is indeed a history of discussion of circumcision (mostly a rejection of it, and a forbidding of its practice) in Christianity.  Much of it does keep on getting deleted, such as the part about the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442 ordering against the practice.  Blackworm (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, as a majority of Christians in the US are circumcized. You seem to understand that background (something I am not familar with) why do you suppose that is?  Medical opinion counterveaning religious opinion?  I agree with presenting the material neutrally and letting the reader decide.  Atom (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More like myth contravening religious opinion with a down grade trend to not circumcise as time progresses. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So why have an Image of Jesus at all then? Why not an image of the largest group of circumcised people, which are Muslims, much more so than Americans or Jews. It's ridiculous that an image of someone who has almost no relation to the subject is the most featured individual in the article. It's obvious pro-circumcsion editors are trying to subtly mislead readers into making a connection between Jesus or Christianity with Circumcision, and so readers will believe that circumcision is related to Christianity, maybe even advocated by Christianity, therefore promoting circumcision. Signsolid (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Christianity doesn't really have anything to do with circumcision so any mention of it should be minimal in this article. The only 2 religions which advocate circumcision are Islam and Judaism. By far the most number of men circumcised are Muslims so the largest reference to any single group who circumcises should be Islam. Circumcision is 100% NOT a Christian ritual. Signsolid (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, descended from Judaism, so it is not unusual that it inherited most of its customs, including Circumcision, from Judaism. I am not familiar with that history, but it sounds like one of those things that happened long after Christ.  Blackworm describes policy against circumcision in the 1400's.  Just like Catholicism  allowed polygamy, priests marrying, and homosexuality for most of its early history (1000 years or more).  Circumcision may be another one of these changes where it had been fine, and then suddenly was not.  The previous Christian church was basically stolen by Rome as another way to control the populace in and around that timeframe.  Anyway, I suspect that the early Christian church included Circumcision just like the other Abrahamic religions, and that changed sometime later in the middle ages.  Atom (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's neutral to have a picture of a relgion which circumcision is not a part of, yet no picture of a religion which by far has the most number of circumcised men, which is Islam? Yeah seems really neutral to me. Signsolid (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not find an image and content regarding Muslim circumcision? No problem. -- Fyslee / talk 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Atom, what is the point of your constant WP:original research? Maybe Acts 21, versus 19-21 will convince you about Christianity's early opinion of circumcision; if not, and I don't care whether it does, find some sources backing your theories.  Blackworm (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And when was the new testament written/published/edited? And by whom? How much of it was removed and changed in the process of editing hundreds of years later?  I won't get in a biblical discussion, as it is a waste of time on both our parts.  I accept your faith that Acts says that Christians should not circumcize.  My view is that it describes Paul(of Tarsus -- not Paul the Disciple of Jesus) as having a reputation for teaching the Jews to leave the teachings of Moses, and for teaching jews to not circumsize.  It makes no statement about who Jesus viewed circumcision, or even how Christiantity of the time did.  And, as for your other comments.  The talk page is a place for comments, discussion and opinion.  The article is not.  I gave an opinion, I did not ask you whether you agreed with my opinion, or try to suggest that you should.  Generally people do not work to give sources for their opinions.  I am open to your opinions on the matter (such as yours that the criticism of Paul of Tarsus' teaching in Acts indicates that Early Christianity had an negative view of circumcision).  I have no doubt that your bible scholarship exceeds mine.  If you would desist in giving the rally cry of OR every time your opinion disagrees with my opinion on a discussion page, I would appreciate it.  Or, if you want to debate opinions, my talk page is always open to you.  Atom (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that my opinion disagrees with yours, the point is both our opinions are irrelevant; what is relevant is what the sources say. Sources in Christianity discuss circumcision, thus we should, to some extent to be determined.  (Signsolid is going on about "pro-circumcision" editors wanting to insert this material, and I am firmly opposed to his editorial view here.  Does that make me pro-circumcision?  You're the one casting this in terms of a political debate on circumcision, not I.)  Finally, note WP:TALK, which states, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views and The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies.  They are a platform for the sources views, and editors' opinions about how or how not to integrate them into the article.  You're wasting people's time with these theories you've come up with out of thin air -- if you can prove that someone holds these views, bring the source and we'll discuss how to integrate it.  Otherwise, please stop the original research. Blackworm (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your wasting our time. When you offer an opinion, it is fact, when someone differs with you, that OR.  When someone starts using a talk page as a platform for their opinion, go find an admin, offer your own opinion, or ignore it.  But -- repeatedly trying to discredit opinions you disagree with as OR is almost borderline uncivil.  In my case, my view may not be in alignment with Chritianity, but those views are widely held, and not some "theory" I have come up with.  I'll agree with you that they are friedly conversation and not relevant to the topic at hand.
 * Back to something more meaningful. I agree that sources in Christianity that discuss circumcision are on topic for the article.  It is debatable how notable, or pertinent that is to the article.  I don't think a case could be made that early Christianity was against circumcision, although maybe some Christians were.  In any event, I think Signsolid needs to calm down and back off, and we can work it all out.  A nice image for Islamic circumcision would be wonderful.  But, in its absence, or until one can be found, there is no problem with a Christian related image.  Alhotugh I don't really see why the image he objects to needs to be there, I understand that others have a different opinion and it doesn't really matter that much.  Atom (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you offer an example of an "opinion" I've given that I've touted as "fact" without any sources? Can you cite any sources stating that your "views are widely held?"  If it isn't some theory you've just come up with, presumably you have such a source.  Show it to me.
 * I am not currently arguing for the inclusion of a statement that early Christians were against circumcision. I think based on what you say above, we agree on the Circumcision of Jesus image, which is the topic of this discussion.  Blackworm (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision: from private talk page

 * [Copied from my talk page, since this discussion is relevant here. -- Fyslee / talk 13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)]

I have removed such heavy reference to Jesus in the article as Jesus has little to do with circimcision and it misleads people into believe circumcision is a Christian ritual, which it's not. As for having a picture of a famous person why not have a picture of Mohammed because circumcision is a ritual in Islam, unlike Christianity. Infact Muslims are by far the largest group of circumcised people. Also I removed reference to Jesus as it seemed to make it appear that Jesus in some way endorsed circumcision for Christians, therefore Christians should be circumcised, breaking NPOV. Signsolid (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Read my comment on the talk page. You are mistaken historically, and there is no way that the content you removed indicates anything about Christian beliefs or practices. It is historical material and documents that Jesus was a Hebrew, and they do practice circumcision. Christianity discouraged it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How dare you revert my edits and make it look like you're trying to be constructive when all you do is just revert my edits and not build any any further consensus because you're just happy to keep the article to your own pro-circumcision POV. I will not allow you to revert my edits even if I have to revert yours 100 times over. Signsolid (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * !!!! How old are you? What "pro-circumcision POV"??? That's nonsense. Since when do you own that article? Maybe I should ask "How dare you delete longstanding historical and neutral material added by other editors?" I think you should stop pointing fingers and start assuming good faith. I provided good reasons for keeping the material and you have only provided a personal POV based on ignorance of history. Let's take this to the article talk page. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have copied the above from my talk page after User:Signsolid decided to get nasty in his/her attempts to assert ownership of this article. Such gross personal attacks are unnecessary. I have nothing personal at stake in this issue since I didn't add the material in the first place. I saw these deletion attempts as improper, especially when accompanied by edit summaries like these:
 * "Little to do with the article" That one is obviously untrue, since the Holy prepuce subject deals with the circumcision of Jesus, and thus is about the subject, even if one were to consider it tangentially related, which is inclusion criteria for See also links.
 * "What's with all the Jesus stuff? Seems like someone's trying to make it look like Christian's should be circumcised"  That one reveals a POV agenda and ignorance of the subject.
 * "How dare you. Your edits are blatant POV" That's simple nonsense, a failure to AGF, and a personal attack.
 * I have presented neutral arguments, and User:Signsolid gets emotional, reveals a POV agenda, and starts attacking. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reported this matter at ANI. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon reading the ANI report and reviewing the matter here, I have undone the last of Signsolids reversions. I am satisfied that the disputed content is of long standing, and that therefore consensus is required before the removal of such text (or evidence provided that it is not a long established cited text, whereupon consensus will determine if it stays or not.)

By the very fact you have gone to such lengths to discredit me only reveals your own agenda and POV, and consequently invalidated your own argument. I gave plenty of reasons for the tiny edits I made to this article but you kept blatently reverting them without using the article talk page or my talk page through sheer ignorance to accept anyone else's contributions to the article. You say I try to make out I own this article yet it's you who are attempting to stop any changes to the article being made, very much needed changes as I stated on the talk page while you where off having a tantrum on the Administrators' notice board because someone made 2 small edits to your article. Signsolid (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As to the grounds of the complaint, I see no basis in Signsolids claims that the depiction of the circumcision of Christ (on a page on the subject of circumcision generally) is biased toward the Church's attitude or opinion on the subject of circumcision - it only records what is perhaps the most significant recorded (for those of a gnostic persuasion) circumcision in Western history. The fact as a Jewish child Christ would have had, as Fyslee? points out, no choice in the matter, and that Christianity is the religion based on the teachings of Christ and not the creation of Christ Himself it cannot be construed that the image of the infant being circumcised is any authority by Jesus; and importantly no such message is provided within the text.
 * However, the removal of [[Holy Prepuce from See Also is beyond irrational. A link within the circumcision article to another Wikipedia article that is specifically relating to the severed foreskin (i.e. the product of circumcision) of the defining icon of Western civilisation is deemed inappropriate? Whatever good faith concerns Signsolid may have regarding the cultural impact of the image of Christ's circumcision and its place within Christian celebrations of important days, removing that link is simply bad faith - and I shall warn him/her accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Signsolid; No, it is for you to establish consensus for change of established content, not for people to argue for keeping the status quo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuses for keeping to content that makes it look like circumcision is also a Christian ritual, and yet no mention of Islam which by far carries out more circumcisions than America or Jews or anyone else. Signsolid (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find examples of important people of Islamic, Hindu, or other well known religions - or cultures - where circumcision is recorded (and celebrated within that sphere) then they would be useful additions to the article. Removing a very well cited example within Christian (and therefore Western) culture because of lack of other cultures examples is inappropriate. It is not an excuse, it is how the encyclopedia works, and I would be grateful if you would not impugn my good faith and neutrality in such a manner again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence have you given me that you assume good faith and that I should respect that? Considering you just came here, instantly reverted my edits then disappeared until I posted a message criticising you changing the article to your version then disappearing.


 * I dunno, I guess it must be my X,000 edits to the encyclopedia, the granting of the responsibility of administrator by the community, and my knowledge of and the ability to understand the policies of the encyclopedia. I reverted your edits because they were contrary to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and I then posted a detailed explanation of my reasoning. All you have done is accuse me - with others - of bias and made unfounded (and untrue, but how were you to know?) allegations of conflict of interest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article does mention Islam. We can evaluate to make sure that it is fair.  This should follow a discussion and consensus process though, not by force.  I am no expert on the history of circumcision within Christianity.  However, Judaism requires circumcision of its adherents.  Islam does not require it.  Even so, a majority of men within Islam are circumcized and seem to give religious reasons for that.  Lets gently discuss how that can be represented in a balanced way.  Atom (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you only use the talk page when it's my version that's the current version and all go crazy, yet you all go silent and not give a damn when it's your version that's the current version so don't lecture me on trying to force my own version on the article. Signsolid (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If your looking for support you'll not get any this way. My views are well known and I do not view the Jesus picture as circumcision promotion.  No one owns anything once they hit the save page button it becomes Wikipedias.  Follow the rules and policies and you will be fine.  If you have a problem follow dispute resolution procedures and please assume good faith with other editors. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No! Signsolid is obviously part of an anti-circumcision conspiracy to make us "anti-circumcision zealots" in this article appear neutral by opposing him!  Or, no!  Wait!  He's part of a pro-circumcision conspiracy to make it look like the anti-circumcision zealots are conspiring to make themselves appear neutral!  Aha! Blackworm (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody stay cool... it's going to be okay!  AlphaEta  16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why have you cluttered up this page, it is cluttered enough as it is. if you wanted people from this page to go over to your page all that was needed was a short notice. Tremello22 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've wondered what this comment was about, and have finally figured it must be directed at me. This is pretty standard practice when a relevant discussion is occurring elsewhere. I didn't start the thread on my talk page, and since this involves what was happening here, it needs to be open to everyone's input, which is most easily done here. Just AGF and be CIVIL. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 00:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of circumcision by early Christians
This topic should be mentioned. It is mentioned in the New Testament and was a very controversial decision. Including this content would help to prevent such misunderstandings as revealed in the previous section above. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We need a source for that other than citing the Bible directly. Here are some refs from Google Books:
 * "Thus the debate between Paul and the circumcision party from Jerusalem in the forties and fifties was not altogether without precedent." p. 282 Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity By Paul Barnett Published by InterVarsity Press, 2002 ISBN 0830826998, 9780830826995 448 pages
 * "In its New Testament usage, then, [hoi ek peritomes] represents something of a puzzle." (p. 117) (Sorry, I can't easily type Greek letters so I've transliterated. The phrase is translated "those of the circumcision.) Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity By Edward Earle Ellis Published by Mohr Siebeck, 1978ISBN 3161387422, 9783161387425. 289 pages
 * "Circumcision was the central issue at the Jerusalem meeting, as was explicitly stated by Paul in Gal 2:3: "Not even Titus who was with me and who was a Greek was compelled to be circumcised." The same problem was at the centre of the Galatian conflict, as seen from Gal 5:2 where Paul writes"... If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no value to you at all."" (p. 254)  Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism By Peder Borgen Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996 ISBN 0567086267, 9780567086266, 376 pages
 * "Other Christians gave to circumcision only a figurative meaning" p. 261. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity By Everett Ferguson, Michael P. McHugh, Frederick W. Norris Contributor Everett Ferguson, Michael P. McHugh, Frederick W. Norris Published by Taylor & Francis, 1998 ISBN 0815333196, 9780815333197. 1213 pages
 * I didn't find anything to support a statement that circumcision was rejected by Christians at the Jerusalem meeting. What I found does seem to support that circumcision was the central issue at the meeting. It seems clear to me that Paul rejected the idea that Christians should be required to be circumcised; it's not clear to me whether early Christianity as a whole embraced that policy at that time. Note that some of these books seem to be published by University presses; I don't know anything about whether the others are reliable or not. This is just what I found with a quick Google Books search; perhaps others can find better sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We should naturally follow the sources and make our statements fit them, proper attribution and all. We can properly document that the New Testament records Paul as opposing the circumcision of new converts. Early Christian history shows that it became the dominant POV, but there are documented exceptions. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)