Talk:Circumcision/Archive 60

Medical propaganda
I think it's propaganda to have medical advocacy in the pro/con paragraph, because almost all circumcisions are for religious purpose. Or, in US hospitals it's a cultural ritual (says the AMA). Medical advocacy is a tiny fringe group in the medical community, but it's given equal billing in the paragraph? It's propaganda, because it suggests equal strength of argument where there is actually very little. We should replace the "medical" (DR schoen) advocacy for religious purpose advocacy. The emphasis on medical interferes and detracts from the communication of the primary religious purpose of circumcision.Zinbarg (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph isn't about the reasons why circumcision is performed (if it were, then it wouldn't make sense to include the arguments of opponents at all). It's about the controversy surrounding circumcision, and therefore includes the arguments of those arguing for or against the practice.  Jakew (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Opponents fall away.  You no longer sell medical "benefits," thus ignoring medical conclusions, which prompts a response from opponents.  The valid arguments for are religious and cosmetic (be clean and look like Dad and everyone else) and the valid argument against is?  Can't think of any.  Again, primary advocacy by numbers (the majority of those who seeks circumcision) is religious.  But that's completely missing, and needs to be added.Zinbarg (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. However, the balance of subtopics is determined by the writers and publishers of the reliable sources, not by opinions or logical arguments by us Wikipedians as to what ought to be considered important.  If you want more prominence given to religion, please find reliable secondary sources and show that religion is a large enough subtopic in such sources to support giving it more weight in the article; also please suggest specific wording to be added.  The weight on subtopics in the lead should be the same proportions as in the article, which in turn should be the same proportions as in reliable sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far I'm just going by the numbers. No medical association recommends routine.  Almost all circumcisions are done for religious purpose.  Most circumcisions not done for religious purpose are done for cosmetic reasons.  A tiny percentage are done for medical reasons, so why are medical issues 2/3 of the article?Zinbarg (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose medical issues take up a lot of the article because there's been a lot written about medical issues in the reliable published sources the article is based on. I don't know what percentage of circumcisions are done for religious purposes, (you might provide a citation to support your statement), but it seems to me that when a circumcision is done for religious purposes, that medical issues may usually or often be part of the decision:  that is, if circumcision is believed to be medically harmful, someone might decide not to circumcise even though their religion tends towards circumcising, and on the other hand, if circumcision is believed to be medically neutral or beneficial or to have benefits outweighing some harms, then someone might decide to go along with their religion's circumcision ritual. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I used the WHO estimate of 68% Muslim in the lead, with a high birth rate. That gets me to most. Then you add the US, which is mostly cosmetic. But, you're right about medical benefits possibly being part of the decision. The article is long and spends lots of time on medical issues that are not (as most sections acknowledge) significant to longevity or medical costs. Reliable but not relevant. It becomes misleading spending so much space on it. But, I'll drop it, or be specific about changes I'd like to see.Zinbarg (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Circumcision Opposition Link
My name is Ted King, and I am the webmaster for the website of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC), http://arclaw.org/. I am writing in behalf of J. Steven Svoboda to ask that our website be added to your list of Circumcision Opposition links. J. Steven Svoboda is founder and Executive Director of ARC, a federally and state-certified non-profit corporation Steven founded in early 1997. ARC has become a leading voice in the movement to stop genital mutilation. As an attorney, Svoboda is involved in educating and litigating on behalf of genital integrity issues. He is a strong opponent of male circumcision. See his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Steven_Svoboda. The ARC website offers considerable documentation, articles, links, book reviews, news items, and descriptions of ARC activities and publications, including presentations at the UN and other world conferences, media appearances, letters to national publications and other resources of great value to others in this community. ARC has worked closely with Dan Bollinger, Marilyn Milos (NOCIRC) and other leaders in the movement. Thank you for your consideration. Arcing (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In principle, I'm not opposed to linking to ARC. However, in order to maintain neutrality, we're trying to keep the numbers of links representing each point of view balanced.  As such, we're not so much interested in adding new links, but rather in replacing existing links with more deserving ones.  Per Wikipedia's external links policy, I am not convinced that arclaw.org has much merit, I'm afraid, but am happy to be persuaded.  Looking at point 1, we might include organisations, but the subject of the article is circumcision, not organisations formed for or against it, so there isn't a compelling argument there.  There might be a weak case under point 3, but that covers "neutral and accurate material", and an activist website is unlikely to be neutral. Jakew (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jakew, for your prompt and helpful response. It seems to me that "trying to keep the numbers of links representing each point of view balanced" distorts neutrality by misrepresenting the degree of interest in a given position. In the interest of complete coverage every sincere point of view should be allowed that does not disrupt or abuse the process. Any who are left out remain at odds when the rest have come to a resolution. I understand the conundrum of trying to protect free speech by silencing its abusers, in this case by authorizing a censor (you) to decide if the ARC website violates your criteria. You may be as fair and impartial as you know how, but the position of censor always attracts successors with biased agendas. I submit that the essence of free speech is to maximize understanding by hearing all sincere contributions to an issue which also maximizes the potential for resolving conflicts. We are also confused about the "activist" prohibition; you are listing sites for and against so how could they not be activist sites, and anyway, why is that a bad thing?

Discussion of principle aside, we believe that the ARC site has as much merit as any of those listed, and provides extensive resources of value to BOTH sides of the issue. The maximizing understanding thing again. The process of resolving the issues will be greatly aided if each side can study the other's values and concerns. I believe you recognize this in providing external links for both sides. Given the extensive citations and sources provided it is not credible to question the offering of "neutral and accurate material." If we were deliberately distorting information we would quickly be called to account by the well informed target audience of this effort. In fact much of the content is in response to opposing points of view, which are fairly presented and given careful consideration in the kind of dialog that marks productive civil discourse. We avoid personal attacks or other attempts to sidetrack the path to understanding and resolution. We are not out to win at any cost, but to improve the quality of life for those being tortured. The ARC site offers a perspective from a legal and legislative point of view that no other source adequately provides. To reject it would be to deprive both sides. With respect, Arcing (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The ARC site offers a different perspective on circumcision, namely legal, which is neutral by definition. This brings up my earlier suggestion that Circumcision Decision-Maker (CDM) be put in a new category, something like "Resources." Here's why. With circumcision being such a hot issue, there is never going to be agreement here that a certain website is neutral or has a NPOV. However, there are many sites that are Near-NPOV. I think a section for these middle-of-the-road resources would be useful, while keeping the pro and con lists as they are with identical number of links. Then, the Near-NPOV sites could be listed as needed. Since neither ARC and CDM are activist organizations, or are adamant about circumcision (pro or con), then they would be candidates for a new "Resources" section. Trapping the article into only two, polarized categories with a limited number of links does not do our readers a service. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly blunt, the effect of that would be to circumvent NPOV's requirement for balance by pretending that various sites did not have a POV. Jakew (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. All websites and organizations have a POV (otherwise they wouldn't exist). We need to consider this like a gray-scale. Some at the far ends (pro and con) and some near the middle (neutral). Most of the Wikipedia articles have Resources pages with a wide range of POV, and very few have linkd divided into pro and con. I see no reason to not add a Resources section for websites that are in the middle of the gray-scale. We do our readers a diservice by insisting that all websites are either adamantly for or against circumcision, especially when that isn't true. Frank Koehler (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A problem with your proposal, Frank, is that placing a site in a "resources" section as opposed to, say, the "opponents" section would imply that the site was not opposed to circumcision. If ever we find a site that is truly neutral, that might be justified, but for all the sites discussed so far, that would be misleading.  And, of course, we'd still have to conform to NPOV by keeping the numbers of sites representing each point of view balanced, so it is difficult to see what would be the point. Jakew (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Male genital mutilation
Male circumcision has been referred to as male genital mutilation as well for years. Propose adding "male genital mutilation" and "male genital cutting" as other names for "male circumcision".Jayhammers (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this previously. The problem is that these terms are used too infrequently in reliable sources.  For example, there are only approx 400 Google Scholar results for "male genital mutilation", and 4 of the 10 on the first page are actually matches for "fe- male genital mutilation" (suggesting that the true figure is somewhat lower).  The situation with "male genital cutting" is even more extreme: only 62 results, and 6 of the first 10 match "fe- male genital cutting".  In contrast, there are 87,600 matches for "circumcision".  Consequently your proposal would give undue weight to what is actually obscure terminology.  Jakew (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And stating the many overhyped medical benefits doesn't give the extremely miniscule medical benefits of mutilating a child's genitals "undue weight" to the pro-mutilation crowd? Your term "undue weight" is incredibly unwarranted. As despite female genitalia being referred to as a cunt on this website many times it doesn't seem to effect that most "reliable sources" don't refer to them as such.

Proposed change to 'sexual effects'
If nobody objects, I intend to remove the following paragraph from the 'sexual effects' paragraph. The reason is simple: in the full article we cover many different aspects of sexual function, including (but not limited to) ejaculatory function, sexual practice, sexual drive, and satisfaction. It doesn't make a lot of sense to summarise just one of these aspects, and in the absence of reliable secondary sources I think it is better if we avoid trying to summarise aspects ourselves.


 * Reports detailing the effect of circumcision on erectile dysfunction have been mixed. Studies have shown that circumcision can result in a statistically significant increase, or decrease, in erectile dysfunction among circumcised men, while other studies have shown little to no effect.

I also propose to delete the following material from the end of the preceding paragraph. The reason is that we're already citing secondary sources, and there's no particular reason to cite primary sources as well (see WP:MEDRS).


 * Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[119] In a 2007 study, Sorrells et al., using monofilament touch-test mapping, found that the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, noting that these parts are lost to circumcision. They also found that "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis."[120] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."[121]

Comments? Jakew (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I reject the proposed changes. Doing so (Jakew proposes) would effectively remove these facts from the article:


 * "In a 2007 study, Sorrells et al., using monofilament touch-test mapping, found that the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, noting that these parts are lost to circumcision. They also found that "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis." Note that this sentence or information is missing from Foreskin Sensitivity in full article.  Instead, you have a bunch of jumbled writing that's junk.Zinbarg (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course deleting material would remove certain statements - that's almost an inevitable result of deletion. It isn't a good reason for objecting.
 * Contrary to your claim that this information is absent from the full article, information about Sorrells et al. can be found in the third paragraph here] and the fourth paragraph [[sexual effects of circumcision#Glans sensitivity|here. Jakew (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The conclusion of the Sorrells study, and other relevant information in the main body is deleted by Jakew's proposal. I obviously read the third and forth paragraphs, which is why I wrote "a bunch of jumbled writing that's junk."
 * The paragraph in the main body is concensus, amd the Sorrells sentence is fully accurate to the source and informative. It's the only detailed and objective study of sensitivity, and very recent.  You propose deleting a critical (main body worthy) study.
 * I object to leaving the reader dependent on the sub, which is less subject to balanced review by editors. Most editors would find the sub pro-circ propaganda.
 * It's a religious rite. I've been told to avoid misleading the reader.  The behavior exhibited in this article will backfire badly, especially with Wiki loosing editors and clamping down on abuses.
 * Other editors, I think it's dangerous to sell circumcision with medical benefits propaganda. For example, it makes no sense to have an equal number of pro and anti circ links at the end of the body; the pro-circ camp is a relatively tiny fringe in the medical community.  That's even in the US.Zinbarg (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Zinbarg, I'm not just proposing to delete Sorrells (which is actually one of several sensitivity studies) from this article. I'm also proposing to delete nine other primary sources as well, three (including Sorrells) could be said to support the "circumcision is sexually harmful" position, three support the "circumcision is sexually beneficial" position, and four find no difference either way.
 * In a sense, the reader is and always will be dependent on the detailed article, because it is not possible to include every study in this article, so the information presented here has to be incomplete. So your argument is less than persuasive.  If you believe that the detailed article is, as you say, "pro-circ propaganda", then I suggest you raise the issues in the appropriate place. Jakew (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I read your proposal. Sorrells is the only recent objective (not a subjective patient survey) sensitivity study. The current text is OK, as you say, it touches all the "positions." Details can be found in the sub. You can not delete any of the current text. You remove critical information. If recent experience in the body is indicative, progress in the sub will be blocked anyway. The sexual effects sub is so bad it should be simply deleted.Zinbarg (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Zinbarg, you're incorrect. Bleustein 2003, Bleustein 2005, and Payne (2007) were all conducted in the last decade, and are equally objective as Sorrells.
 * As I noted above, the current text is problematic for several reasons. First, the choice of subject matter seems very arbitrary &mdash; as I noted above we dedicate a paragraph to studies of erectile dysfunction, but we don't even mention many of the other aspects covered at length in the full article.  Second, a few primary sources are selected (again, on a seemingly arbitrary basis) for inclusion; what we ought to do when confronted with limited space is to rely on secondary sources.
 * If you believe that the full article should be deleted, the correct procedure is to nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia's articles for deletion process. Jakew (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about erogenous zones because we're in the sexual effects section.
 * Payne "assessed on the penile shaft, the glans penis, and the volar surface of the forearm," not the foreskin.
 * Bleustein "tested on the dorsal midline glans of the penis," not the foreskin.
 * The corona of the glans (not the glans), and the ventral mucosal tissue of the penis are considered erogenous.
 * Only Sorrells tested the foreskin, specifically the mucosal tissue.Zinbarg (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that claiming that the glans is not erogenous is a novel argument, to say the least. [[Image:Smile.png]]
 * Incidentally, if you trouble yourself to read the sources I cited, you'll find that Bleustein 2005 also tested the foreskin. Jakew (talk)

Show me a text or study that finds the glans to be erogenous. No, Bleu 2005 did not test the foreskin (see, it's retracted to reach the glans). See the conclusion: "circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis."[].Zinbarg (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any studies have actually proved that the glans or indeed any other part of the penis is erogenous. However, it is generally regarded as erogenous.  For example, Winkelmann dedicates a section of his paper "The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance" to the glans.
 * To quote from Bleustein 2005, page 774, section "Material and methods", 4th para: "In uncircumcised men, an additional measurement was taken at the dorsal midline "foreskin,"..." As I stated above, you would have realised this if you read the source.  It is extremely tedious to have to correct you multiple times. Jakew (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected re glans and winkelmann. He speculates.
 * I read the PubMed for bleu 2005, not having access to the whole. I wonder, just what did they compare to (they had no measurement for circ'd guys)?  Note, it wasn't part of their conclusions, so it wasn't worthy.  My point stands (Sorrells is necessary in the body of the article).Zinbarg (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It remains unclear to me what, precisely, your point stands on. It doesn't seem to have much of a basis, as far as I can tell.  Jakew (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the table in the sexual effects main. There needs to be a column stating the percentage of patients that responded to the questionares. In most cases, the very low participation rate makes the conclusions low quality (low statistical relelvance).Zinbarg (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So identify what needs to be changed and discuss at the appropriate place. Jakew (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, Wiki would be best with that whole sub deleted. I just pointed out a serious flaw.  It's your section Jakew (looks like you wrote most); why wasnn't it done correctly, or isn't it being corrected now?Zinbarg (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the correct place to discuss the content of another article. Jakew (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal would relegate the reader to that sub to find critical information burried in jumbled writing and misleading tables, so it is quite relevant here. My point has been stated above. Here again, leave the current text unchanged because the paragraph in the main body is concensus; lots of discussion with many editors made it thus. The Sorrells sentences are fully accurate to the source and informative. It's the only detailed and objective (foreskin) study of sensitivity, and very recent. You propose deleting a critical (main body worthy) study. I object to leaving the reader dependent on the sub, which is less subject to balanced review by editors. Most editors would find the sub pro-circ propaganda.Zinbarg (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find repetition rather tedious, so if you don't mind I won't respond in detail. Jakew (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jake says "what we ought to do when confronted with limited space is to rely on secondary sources." I'm not sure what you mean. The Sorrells sentence in question, as I calculate it, uses less than 1/3 percent of the article. Also, I'm concerned that Jake's reasons for deleting this primary source aren't really concrete - they change throughout this discussion. There may also be a conflict of interest here, because Jake has published at least one article contesting Sorrells. It's passing strange that he wants to delete this one part - sounds like original research by deletion to me. Wandooi (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mildly support keeping the text as it is. It attempts to summarize the subarticle and does a reasonable job.  I attempted just now to write a summary of the ejaculatory function section, but found it practically impossible since almost all, but not quite all, the studies listed fail to find any statistically significant result.  At least we summarize what we can. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help but note that you seem to have just presented a not-unreasonable summary of that section, Coppertwig. [[Image:Smile.png]]  This seems to indicate, at least to me, that it could be done.  What troubles me, as I have said above, is the selectivity of the section: of all the primary sources cited in the full article, why cite these particular ten sources?  And why cite only one aspect of the results of seven of those?  It doesn't make much sense.  Re sexual sensitivity, we cite in this section Payne, Sorrells, and Krieger, but we don't cite Masood, Fink, Cortés-González, Masters and Johnson, Bleustein, Waskett and Morris, or Young.  Why?  It doesn't make much sense; it seems to be arbitrary.  Re erectile function, we summarise seven of eleven sources, the reasons for this particular selection being unfathomable.  And re the other aspects, we maintain a stern silence, which is again incomprehensible.  So what I wonder is, is the intent to say that, of the 40+ studies cited in the full article, only these are important?  If so, can we justify that?  Jakew (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those were agreed upon for the topic. They were considered worthy.  If you want to bring a specific study up for discussion and possible inclusion, please lets see.  Then we'll juggle things around so it's made "equal."
 * The sexual effects (main? article) is grossly biased, so we need to be careful to be at least "equal" balance in the topic.Zinbarg (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be kind enough to link to the discussion(s) in which they were discussed? Thanks in advance. Jakew (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going by the very careful wording, assuming. It is typically forced equal.  It is concensus, or it wouldn't be there.  Regardless, I don't know how to link to prior discussion.  I reiterate the critical importance of Sorrell's.  It's the only objective study, and one of few studies of specifically the foreskin.  It clearly belongs in the topic.Zinbarg (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument doesn't seem very compelling, Zinbarg. To paraphrase: "The selection of papers was agreed upon and these papers were considered worthy of inclusion, therefore we should not reconsider their presence in the article.  I can offer no evidence whatsoever for this agreement and admit that I have only an assumption that discussion ever took place."  I've already corrected your claim that Sorrells is the only objective study; it seems a waste of time to do so twice. Jakew (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find the discussions. You have clear editor objections to your proposed change. Why are you beating a dead horse? I said don't relagate to the "main" article, because it's so lousy. The article text is OK, and serves as a good intro to the lousy main. You didn't correct anything, save find an questionable objective measurement burried in the text of a study with no findings or comp. benchmark. Another dead horse waste of time.Zinbarg (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've identified several problems with the section, and those problems need to be addressed. I'm quite happy to discuss alternative solutions, but simply ignoring the problems seems irresponsible. Jakew (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Applying the "controversy" format set in the lead, why doesn't Jakew write the ~pro circ perspective on sexual effects, and I'll write the ~con side. Four paragraphs each.  Or,
 * The current summary is OK in circumcision. It provides a summary of studies.  Lets see if we can come up with better before changing OK stuff.
 * Again, the "full" article is so lousy that I don't want to relegate info to those pages.Zinbarg (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I do not regard that as a good idea. My experience of editing this article is such that I do not believe that NPOV would be served by individual editors rewriting large sections of the article by themselves.  Jakew (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins
I first read this in the Economist (see their Search), but here's a broadly usable link []. Here's an origin that makes sense from an DNA imperative perspective; there must be a divine reason circ persists. I'd like to change Origins:


 * It has been variously proposed that circumcision began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility, as a means of suppressing sexual pleasure or to increase a man's attractiveness to women, as a means of reducing adultery, or as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, among other possibilities. Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practicing circumcision, leading to its spread regardless of whether the people understood this. It is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons.Zinbarg (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A respected place of academia like Cornell University wouldn't publish a story on "male genital mutilation" saying that "one-third of men have endured the painful procedure." It must be a fake, or a hacker has hacked into their computers.  Jakew says no one calls it that, and we can't ever call it that here.  Jakew knows everything, just ask his supporters.  Blackworm (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll guess you're kidding. I've seen you as extremely pro circ, so don't pick on Jakew.  At least he's honest.  Not saying your not.  Please, easily find the published study[].  Here's the Economist article[].  The Wilson study points are "sperm-competition theory," and reducing "mischievous matings" and "adultery," not mutilation.  There is a strong health reason for circumcision, and it's genetically based.  I think that's divine intervention.  Regardless, it's a recent, relevant, and detailed reference.


 * Jakew avoids the word mutilation, and I doubt it would remain for long anyway, so we're not using that word. Above he and I talk of FGC versus FGM as though FGM is NPOV; hogwash because FGM is THE commonly used term.  I hadn't even heard of FGC until Wiki circ.  Can we have two POV tags?Zinbarg (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Zinbarg, what is Jakew honest about, specifically, when you say "at least he's honest?" I'm sad to find you here, another enabler of Jakew's vision of the article, this time working a supposed "I'm anti-circumcision!  I'm so anti-circumcision" side while sullying and distorting the anti-circumcision arguments in the article.  Sad, farcical, and absolutely normal around here.  Blackworm (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets judge our motivations by our actions. Yours seem to have been pro, not neutral factual. I'm looking for encyclopedic results. I'll back you up.Zinbarg (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, gentlemen! If you want to argue about what position each other holds, could you do so on your user talk pages, please? Jakew (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The POV template
I see no progress has been made on this issue. Can I suggest part of the problem is that we are comparing apples and oranges. There are two separate issues:
 * 1) Does male circumcision reduce or at least retard male acquisition of HIV during unprotected penile-vaginal sex. The answer to this is probably yes, based on current evidence.
 * 2) Is male circumcision an effective public health measure to slow the spread of HIV, and if so in what populations. The answer to this is unknown and untested, but clearly UNAIDS/WHO have decided that it would at least be efficacious in countries with high heterosexual prevalence.

Now the current position of Western medical societies is that circumcision is not an effective public health measure in their populations, ie answering point 2. We are trying to balance this with a UNAIDS statement that goes to point 1. This makes no sense. If we want to balance the AMA statement, then we should do so by contrasting it with what UNAIDS is recommending/doing, which is that high prevalence countries in Africa institute mass male circumcision programs (they sure as hell aren't doing this for say Sweden or Australia or ... you get the idea). That way we would at least be comparing like entities. It shouldn't be to hard to concoct such a formulation, should it? --Johncoz (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there are separate issues. However, it may be a mistake to think that we must "compare" the same issue.  I see no pressing reason why the lead should be changed: if anything, it has been one of the more stable parts of the article. Jakew (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point of departure was to find a resolution that would allow the POV-section template to go, which led me to the line of reasoning above. I do think it's unfortunate that we don't really distinguish the two issues, and if I get a spare moment I might renew my acquaintance with this aspect of the literature and float a draft.Johncoz (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The POV tag is there because the current paragraph in the lead is misleading. The key qualification for health benefit is not properly noted, a condition nearly always missing from populations.  I think Coppertwig discovered So Africa as the only relevant (where public benefit might accrue from circumcision) Wiki reader.  At a min, we should "add public health benefits are minimal where infection prevalence in the heterosexual population is below 3%" to the paragraph.
 * The paragraph should be deleted, because it's not relevant (enough to be in the lead). It's not a current or proposed reason to circ, save in very limited areas and very limited populations in regions of Africa (almost none speaking English).  Neither the WHO/UN nor CDC are recommending circ, but that's the impression.Zinbarg (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Anglophone prevalence table
I have deleted this addition for several reasons: Addition of the table will require a consensus through the Talk page. --Johncoz (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The data is already mentioned and discussed in the body of the article. The table adds nothing.
 * 2) It is untrue, or at best misleading. For instance, the Australian percentage is based on Richters, but that figure includes Jews and Muslims.


 * I suppose, then, that the WHO document is incorrect? Do you have a better source for Australia? Anyway, I think that a summary table would beneficial to the reader; in particular, it would be interesting to juxtapose prevalence and incidence rates.--ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My first point was that the table is redundant because the information already exists in this article. If a tabular presentation is to be made of prevalence the appropriate place is the Prevalence of circumcision article, which has a number of such tables already. On Australia we directly cite Richters, which is the best source (and the only one since Wirth 30 years ago). There has been no subsequent prevalence data published, and WHO is effectively a tertiary source. BTW for your interest, I have combined Richters with known incidence data to produce this prevalence graph for Australia. It's unpublished, so no use to us here :-) Johncoz (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mohelim and anesthetic
I propose a compromise: Delete the material proposed for deletion in Talk:Circumcision on the grounds that it's based on primary sources, and also delete the statement in the pain section that most mohelim do not use anesthetic, also on the grounds that it's based on a primary source. Or add more or better sources, if they can be found. There are a few sources that make statements about whether mohelim use anesthetic, but, as in the case of the Glass quote, the ones I found seem to be just the opinions of the authors, not apparently based on a survey, and with no indication as to whether the statements apply only to particular countries or to particular subtypes of Jewish religious tradition. The Glass quote (1999) may also be going out of date. Since this is a summary article in which most statements are based on solid sources, the inclusion of a quote stating that most mohelim do not use anesthetic makes that look like a verified fact, and I don't think we have sufficient sources to verify it as a fact. I did a Google Scholar search and found these, but I'm not sure they're any use: ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "A mohel uses no anesthesia when performing the circumcision." (Just the opinion of the author? In what country?)
 * has Google books snippet "During the first two months of a baby's life, a mohel (a ritual Jewish circumciser, almost always a non- physician) may perform the operation but only with a doctor (or nurse) present to give the anesthesia, which is now obligatory"
 * "by a mohel, without anesthetic"


 * There is no "compromise," because the change Coppertwig wants is not part of the change Jakew proposed. The "Pain and pain relief" section contains the mohelim and anesthetic/pain paragraph.  You should deal with that section separately.  I have no problem with you removing that sentence.Zinbarg (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, how about just deleting the paragraph based on Glass, then? I contend that Glass is not a sufficiently reliable source to comment on whether most mohelim don't use anesthetic, nor to comment on whether infants don't feel much pain. (Doesn't seem to have carried out a survey, and not a neurologist, I think.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glass has been superseded in only one place - Sweden, where some years ago they made it mandatory for boys to be given anaesthetic prior to the bris by a medical professional. The hue and cry from the WJC (they compared the Swedish gov to Nazis) was ample proof that mohels (who are inevitably Orthodox) generally do not use pain relief. There are sources for the Swedish stuff, so we could add that to supplement Glass, but I see no reason not to regard him as a reliable source Johncoz (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're drawing a conclusion based on the assumption that because the act of circumcising males without anaesthetic is vigorously supported by someone, a majority of another group don't use anaesthetic. I can't support that reasoning, and must demand a better source for the conclusion.  WP:V: The threshold for inclusion [...] is [...] whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.  I'd also opine that whether "the first legal restriction on Jewish religious practice in Europe since the Nazi era" is a comparison or merely a random mention (reminiscent of conversations here) is also (apparently) your interpretation. Blackworm (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not drawing any conclusions. Glass is a urologist who published a peer-reviewed article on this in the BJU International and a subsequent letter in response. That's the epitome of a reliable secondary source. There may be other sources of similar reliability that say something different, but I am not aware of any. The comment about the Nazis is a direct quotation from the World Jewish Congress in response to the Swedish law, and is also sourced. If there's a problem here, I can't see it. Johncoz (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the question is: do you have any objection to the current text in the article? Johncoz (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't share Coppertwig's opinion that Glass (1999) "may be going out of date" and thus see no problem with it. I don't think Sweden's statement "supercedes" Glass.  They aren't saying the same thing or even commenting on the same aspect.  So no, I have no objection and I'm not really sure what the problem trying to be solved here is.  Blackworm (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems we all agree (at least as far as the article is concerned). However, I've now found a real problem -- the Glass citation points to the letter not the article, which is the source of the quotes. I will change the citation now Johncoz (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No wonder I had been confused earlier. But I was sure more recently it was linking to the article?  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish circumcision
A series of edits are being made in regard to circumcision that are problematic. One edit misrepresents the source (Glass), another has no content an is causing a citation error, a third is supported only by reference to a newspaper article. On these grounds alone, the material is challenged and will be removed until a consensus can be reached on this page. Johncoz (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The source (Glass) may be misrepresented by the qualified sentence, but the sentence nonetheless requires qualification as no one source (e.g. Glass) can speak on behalf of Jewish law, as there is no consensus interpretation of Jewish law in existence. The Glass article is essentially an opinion piece (please read its conclusion), from a very Orthodox perspective. Thousands of Rabbis (the whole Reform movement) would disagree with him. Quoting Glass in this manner is as if you said that Christianity ordains the Communion Rite or the payment of tithes, citing a source written by a Catholic monk. You might find a Catholic source stating this, but that source would require qualification nonetheless, since it wouldn't represent the Protestant view. Judaism is a religion that has split into multiple branches. Reform Judaism is just as much a part of the religion as any Orthodox movement. The Jerusalem Post is regarded as a highly reliable source on Wikipedia. It is far more reliable than the other sources quoted in the paragraph (for example, a Chabad website - are you serious? Chabad represents a tiny, ultra ultra-Orthodox minority section of the religion - it's the Jewish equivalent of Wahhabism). 86.26.0.25 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. The statement you are qualifying is sourced to Glass, and the qualification directly contradicts what the source says. Therefore, you will need another reliable (ie peer-reviewed) source for a separate sentence to include this qualification.


 * 2. The addition on Reform Judaism has a reference without content, which is creating an error message. This is interesting but requires a reliable source.


 * 3. I have left the sentence sourced to the Post, and I vaguely recall the article. But it would be good if the hotlink to the text could be retrieved. Johncoz (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. No the statement sourced to Glass may be qualified despite what the Glass says, as Glass is pushing a specific interpretation of the religion (e.g. the strongly Orthodox/Conservative interpretation). If you have a paragraph on Christian opinions on abortion, and quote a hardline Catholic source arguing that Christianity categorically opposes abortion, then that quotation would require the qualification that this is a specifically Catholic interpretation, despite the fact that such qualification would directly contradict the content of the quotation. Note that I have published reliably sourced disagreements with Glass's interpretation in the same paragraph.


 * The Glass source might seem misleadingly reliable, since it's published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. However, please note that he is pushing a religious article. Religious contributions to medical journals don't carry the same weight (they're evidently not vetted in the same way, if at all) as a paper on medicine published in a medical journal. I don't think we have specific wikipedia guidelines on this kind of source. The thing to remember is that a religious article in such a journal should be treated just the same as if it were an argument in a humanities journal - it's not science. Doubtless, most humanities journal would have vetted his article better.


 * 2. I fixed this.


 * 3. The Jerusalem Post source is directly quoting the chairman of the Humanistic Judaism movement. And that's what we're sourcing. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On Glass, you cannot misrepresent what he says. You can contrast his position with that of another reliable source. On the substantive question, it is not clear to me that your characterisation of Reform Judaism is correct. In the same issue of the BJU there is an article Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective which says:"The inconsistency is even more striking when considering Reform, Liberal, atheist and unabliated Jewish people. The Reform and Liberal movements select freely among commandments, modernizing the tradition and re-interpreting biblical texts in metaphorical, socially conscious ways. Atheist and unabliated Jewish people have often abandoned all contact with the tradition. Yet all these groups still circumcise their sons, indicating that they feel psychologically just as ‘bound’ as the strictest traditionalist."

Now clearly some individual Jewish parents are not circumcising their sons, but this seems to be a tiny peripheral movement. If it is more than that, and indeed if such a position is supported by Reform Judaism, then we need to properly source this. (Disclaimer: I am neither Jewish nor religious, and nothing would please me more than to see "religious circumcision" disappear.) Johncoz (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The point isn't that Reform Jews don't circumcise (of course they usually do - but I doubt there's been a huge amount of research on the subject); the point is, they don't interpret it as a religious commandment, or as something necessary to their children being Jewish. If they circumcise, it's for cultural, medical or aesthetic reasons - they don't believe it's a convenant with God, or that God cares about it. This is explicitly expressed by the Reform interpretation of Jewish Law. By the way movements based on the original German Reform Judaism are central to the religion now, with more adherents in UK/America than any orthodox movements.  The original Reform Rabbis of the 19th century were predominantly German intellectuals with very strict philosophical arguments against following irrational rituals. The current movements, derived from those reforms, are centred in America/UK/Israel, and are a lot "gentler" towards the traditional orthodox rituals. The important point for all the reform based movements is that an extraneous custom like circumcision is not something religiously binding that God would notice. Reform Jews in America circumcise their children for the same kind of reasons that American Catholics and Agnostics do.


 * The number of people of Jewish families not circumcising their children is therefore a separate and irrelevant question. But it's not a peripheral movement in Israel, since a third of the recent Russian Jewish immigrants to Israel refuse the operation (which means at least 150,000 men). http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017492211&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull 86.26.0.25 (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to a number of the points raised above:
 * Lubavitch is a minority movement, but it is a fairly well-known one. More importantly, its views on circumcision are completely standard, and differ in no way whatsoever from normative Jewish law, or the views of any other Orthodox group or movement.
 * Halakhah (Jewish law) is quite clear on circumcision, and the statements about it need not be qualified in any way e.g. "Orthodox, Traditional, Conservative, Norman Lamm, etc.". The Reform movement is a post/non-halakhic movement. It is not concerned with ritual law, because it has rejected it as non-binding. While it is reasonable to include its views on circumcision, it is not reasonable to claim that it has a view on halakha, since it (in its more extreme or "Classical") form rejected all Jewish ritual law.
 * While there are Reform Jews who do not circumcise, this viewpoint is, in fact, a "tiny, ultra-Reform minority", to parallel the phrasing used by 86.26.0.25 above. The Union for Reform Judaism has a special "Find a Reform mohel" section on its website, where it boasts "Today, there are more than three hundred practicing Reform mohalim - men and women - throughout the United States, Canada, and Argentina who have completed the program and received certification from the Berit Mila Board of Reform Judaism."
 * Hope that's helpful.Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not really correct. The Reforms were intended to interpret Halakha in rational way, which means that most Jewish Ritual law is rejected. This was modelled on the Kantian interpretation of Christian law. Kant didn't reject Christian laws, he re-interpreted them. The conflict is still one of interpretation, even for the Classical Germans. The reform interpretation of Halakha rejects a lot of Halakha. But the mere fact that there is a Reform interpretation that disagrees with "Orthodox, Traditional, Conservative" interpretations means that such interpretations should be qualified as "Orthodox, Traditional, Conservative". The reform interpretation of Halakha is followed by over a million Jews in America  alone. http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:WmONqB18ewkJ:www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics/Halakhah/Modern/Reform.shtml+Reform+Halakhic+Texts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk 86.26.0.25 (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is quite correct. The Reform movement rejected the halakhic framework. They didn't intend to interpret halahkah in "rational way", they intended to interpret the Bible in a "rational way". Those are not the same things at all. Reform Judaism is a post-halakhic movement; this paper explains it better:
 * Within the confines of Reform Judaism, halakhah possesses an authority one might call epistemic; in this way it has an advisory status and not a commanding status. Functioning from within a Reform purview means granting halakhah its due, but it does not and cannot mean eliminating independent criteria in making judgments. This does not mean avoiding the hard questions posed by halakhic reasoning. But it does mean that being confined to halakhic conclusions, or halakhic methodology, is constitutionally the diametric opposite of the Reform self-understanding. In that sense, Reform Judaism has been post-halakhic since its founding. (Philip M. Cohen, "Toward a Methodology of Reform Jewish Bioethics", CCAR Journal: A Reform Jewish Quarterly, Summer 2005.)
 * In the next paragraph the author goes on to note:
 * "Indeed, most Reform Jews, and many secular Jews, make few of their life’s decisions halakhically."
 * I think that's a reasonable summary. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a separate (and I think irrelevant) point. Just because ritual circumcision is no longer religiously binding for American Reform Jews, doesn't mean that it's not culturally practiced. It's a cultural/medical practice for 80%+ of Americans, despite being religiously binding for less than, say, 3% of the population.86.26.0.25 (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to me there are several issues:


 * What does Jewish law say? This is clear and unambiguous on circumcision, it seems to me, and does not require qualification.


 * How does the Reform tradition relate to Jewish law as regards circumcision? Though we don't yet have a source, it seems likely most denominations regard it as non-binding in line with their overall approach to halakha but are still strongly in favour. Equivalent to sunna in Islam.


 * What do Reform, liberal and atheist Jews actually do? The answer appears to be that overwhelmingly they circumcise their sons. A few do not, but I am not aware of any reliable sources that give us an estimate. Johncoz (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that summary Johncoz, I do think this discussion needs refocussing, and without a lot of original research and irrelevant information. As for the IP user's comment that "It's a cultural/medical practice for 80%+ of Americans" -- I think that number is highly inaccurate.  This source states "Circumcision rates increased significantly with time-48.3% of newborn males underwent circumcision in 1988 to 1991 vs 61.1% in 1997 to 2000 (p <0.0001)."  Blackworm (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some more info. This article has this interesting snippet: "This past May, he began circulating a petition calling on Reform rabbis and congregations to reconsider a 1982 rabbinic edict affirming the centrality of circumcision in Reform Judaism. As of now, the petition has drawn about 70 signatories", which clearly says, contrary to the assertions of the IP user, that Reform Judaism does have a position, ie pro-circ, though as I said above this is rather like Islamic sunnah. Johncoz (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoring previous opponents' lead statement
Edit summary for this edit:

The argument that "best performed during the neonatal period" is a "factual error"(see edit summary used to revert here) doesn't hold when the article discusses the sourced, cited arguments of one side. See WP:V.

On the other reversion, the "agreed on points from the anti side" is not a valid reason for reversion as it does not address the reason given in the edit summary for the edits. The version I restored was also agreed upon, and it has several major advantages:


 * It does not mention "female genital cutting," a phrase not used in the cited source at all. Further, that opponents "think it's the same as female genital mutilation" is a pro-circumcision argument, due to the simplification of this comparison; i.e., the general (incorrect) belief that all forms of female circumcision are more invasive than male circumcision.  That the opponents believe it is "effectively comparable" to FGC is a wholly arbitrary assessment made by a Wikipedia editor, not a neutral reflection of the source.


 * It does mention "human rights," which I'll note is a main point of the opposition, mentioned in the title of the cited source: Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue?


 * It mentions the opponents' argument that circumcision is "extremely painful," as this is the first point mentioned in the abstract of the source, after the "natural integrity of the male newborn's body." That is was softened from "excruciatingly painful" to "extreme pain" was a concession made. That discussion took place here.

Blackworm (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, please see the concluding paragraph in national orginazitions are formed (in the article):

"Representatives from nine nations attended the Second ISC in San Francisco in the Spring of 1991. Dr. Benjamin Spock, one of America's best-known pediatricians, was honored with and accepted the first Human Rights Award of the ISC for reversing his position on this issue: "My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone" (28). The practice of genital mutilation of females in Africa was addressed by Dr. Asha Mohamud, an African pediatrician. Today, 100 million females, including young girls and infants, suffer the effects of this debilitating surgery. And now, with increased African immigration, American health care providers are faced with clinically caring for infibulated women (29) and requests to infibulate their daughters. The ISC is an international forum, networking with Women's International Network News (WIN News) and the Inter-African Committee to abolish the myths of genital mutilation of both males and females in defense of body ownership rights of all the world's children. The greatest tool of the ISC and related international groups is truth because of the many myths which still prevail."


 * And please see In Conclusion:

"To overcome the American double standard of the acceptance of circumcision for men but not for women, consider this: If it could be unequivocally proven that women had a decreased incidence of UTIs, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, vulvitis, vulvar cancer, and/or increased sexual staying power as a result of performing neonatal labiectomy, would the American medical and nurse-midwifery communities approve routine, unanesthetized neonatal labial amputation as a prophylactic measure? Of course not! If we wouldn't do this to our newborn females, we must take a hard look at why we condone and perform "prophylactic" foreskin amputations upon our newborn males. Women have struggled to achieve rights to body ownership for themselves. It is imperative that mutual respect for these inalienable human rights be extended, not only to the women in Africa with whom we can identify, but also to men, male children, and male newborns.

Consider further: The foreskin is normal, healthy, functioning tissue. Circumcision has inherent risks, including hemorrhage, infection, mutilation, and death. Circumcision is painful, even when an anesthetic is used. Circumcision causes both physical and psychological scars. Most importantly, every human being has an inherent, inalienable right to his own body.

Lawsuits have been filed to challenge circumcision as a violation of the basic right of every person to his or her own body. Circumcision violates many constitutional rights of infants and children, including the right to religious freedom, which is denied when an infant or child's body is marked. Health care professionals do, in fact, have a legal basis for claiming conscientious objector status with regard to participation in newborn male circumcision (66).

While this human rights issue is being addressed within the American legal system, it becomes urgent for the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) to consider the legal and the ethical implications of performing newborn circumcision. The ACNM is faced with ethical dilemmas unique to midwifery 1) that of genitally intact women, CNMs, performing permanent surgical alteration o the intact sex organs of nonconsenting newborn boys, and 2) that of CNMs, who as a group philosophically claim to be "guardians of the normal," not protecting normal male genitalia while protecting the integrity of normal female genitalia.

These ethical dilemmas warrant an ACNM review of its advocacy role on behalf of newborns. Regarding the ACNM advocacy role, the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery's Associate Editor, Jeanne Raisler, CNM, MPH, wrote "...from time to time, national policy issues arise that challenge our deepest sense of what is important and necessary for maternal-child health. We need a mechanism to discuss and debate these topics" (67). In the case of circumcision, a task force committee would provide that mechanism. And, until ACNM policy is established, a moratorium on the performance of routine newborn circumcision would protect CNMs as well as newborns.

As the ACNM ponders its advocacy role, CNMs will find guidance in the words of human rights activists, Fran P. Hosken:

Human rights are indivisible, they apply to every society and culture, and every continent. We cannot differentiate between black and white, rich and poor, or between male and female, if the concept of human rights is to mean anything at all (68)."


 * FGM is OK per the source. As good as rights.  But the key word missing from the topic is mutilation, which is certainly central to the anti circ article.  That's what they consider a violation of rights.  How about saying "genital mutilation" instead of FGM?


 * Schoen is writing personal opinion when he talks of timing. He needs to have cited research for us to put that in the lead of the topic.  Plus, it's NOT TRUE!  There are conclusive research studies that find neonatal is not the best time.  For example[].  That pharse must go because it's not factual.  Which means we remove one of the anti points.  Which do you want to remove?  I suggest pain, because that can be easily mitigated.Zinbarg (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jakew, the common term is female genital mutilation, and that's what the anti circ's wording. I don't know how to change the FGC topic's title to FGM, but that should be done.  Note the (FGC topic) intro sentence emphasis on FGM, the common term.Zinbarg (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * There is controversy regarding circumcision. Advocates of circumcision argue, for example, that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician. Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that it adversely affects normal sexual pleasure and performance, is justified by medical myths, and is effectively comparable to female genital mutilation.


 * Blackworm, you should be satisfied with that, because rights issues are one of those effectively comparable.Zinbarg (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been several attempts to rename female genital cutting, Zinbarg. See, for example, here or here.  None f these attempts have gained consensus, as there are NPOV problems with "female circumcision" or "female genital mutilation".  If consensus to rename is ever achieved, we can do that, but in the meantime we should link to the correct title.  Jakew (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A biased (pro circ) reading of NPOV, but not worth fighting.Zinbarg (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is Zinbarg here responding to Jakew, but Jakew's comments aren't here, and why is Zinbarg not responding to the points I made in my reversion of his changes, changes that weaken the presentation of the anti-circumcision arguments, reduce the number of arguments, and invite an initial knee-jerk disagreement with anti-circumcision arguments? Why is Jakew seemingly supporting this action of Zinbarg, weakening it even further?  Please stop weakening the presentation of the anti-circumcision side in this article through original research Zinbarg and Jakew.  It does not conform to WP:NPOV.  Saying things like opponents "effectively compare" male circumcision to FGC are meaningless original research, and seem to be phrased specifically to turn the reader's point of view one way.  Fix it.  Put it back the way it was and everyone agreed on for months, or present a real argument as to why it should be changed.  But don't stray from the source by putting your own spin on it then try to convince editors your version is better. Blackworm (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I responded to your presentation with quotes from critical sections of the citation, which show that you're objections are inaccurate. Our purpose in fixing the paragraph in the lead was to make it factual; Schoen's recommended neonatal hospital circ right after birth is not factual.  Right after birth is a relatively poor time to circ, compared to 8 days, or 5 months, or 5 years.  For some, certainly not encyclopedic reason, we have to have the same number of points.
 * If you object to anything, object to the idea that there MUST be an equal number of points to both sides. Or, if you want it more accurate to the source, maintain my sentence "Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that it adversely affects normal sexual pleasure and performance, is justified by medical myths, and is genital mutilation, comparable to female genital cutting."
 * I think ~human rights is vague relative to FGC.
 * Finally, I respond to Jakew's comment about FGC versus FGM, where he notes it's basically impossible to change anyway.Zinbarg (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't respond adequately to my arguments. You're still not.  You are responding with non-sequiturs, original research, and misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy (again, see WP:V about stating the arguments of others without regard to whether they're factual -- that they hold that opinion is factual).  Go ahead, ignore the source and make up things about "sexual performance" and "FGM" if you absolutely want the reader to reject the arguments and therefore the anti-circumcision position.  But hopefully someone will eventually notice the enforced violations of Wikipedia policy that you and Jakew are committing.  Blackworm (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I don't have time at the moment to study all the details of this discussion, but I wonder whether you reverted too far back, Blackworm. Note this message from Garycompugeek on my talk page which supported this edit adding a mention of female circumcision (later edited to female genital cutting) to the opponents sentence after a discussion within one of the "requested move" discussions at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 57. The addition of a mention and link to the FGC page was intended to fix an overall problem that the article without such a link anywhere in it except in the hatnote was distancing itself too much from female circumcision. I also suggested in my reply to Gary that a similar mention and link be added in an appropriate place within the body of the article; I haven't had time to follow that up, nor has anyone else AFAIK. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion which led to the removal of "best performed during the neonatal period" was Talk:Circumcision/Archive 59. I agree with the point Zinbarg raised, which as I understand it was that this phrase can be taken to mean that it's better to circumcize on the day of birth than 8 days later, or that it's better to circumcize within a few days of birth than 3 months later, etc.  Apparently we don't have citations supporting the statement that "advocates" (plural) support such a statement, but only one "advocate", Schoen. This is why it was changed.  There may be other ways to word it that would be acceptable.  In the body of the article, it says "The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection." However, this does not in my opinion support the statement "best performed during the neonatal period", since it leaves open the possibility that, for example, circumcision at 3 months might be preferable.
 * The source might not mention "female genital cutting" by that name, but it mentions the concept represented by that Wikipedia article. It's my understanding that things are usually supposed to be referred to within Wikipedia articles by the same phrase as used in the title of the article about them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite policy for your last statement. I know you and Jakew and others wish to make all circumcision in Wikipedia male circumcision, and wish to dictate the terms used to express concepts everywhere, even when the sources cited use other terms, but I don't support that.
 * Your argument based on Schoen being a single advocate would apply to the entire paragraph. Why do you only use it to delete that argument?  Why do you not comment on the fast the that deletion is used as justification to delete the previously-contested phrase "extremely painful" -- in a climate of having to continually defend this article from constant whitewashing and ignoring of the issue of the pain given to the recipient of the genital cutting?
 * Why do you ignore the issue that stating that opponents say male circumcision is "effectively comparable" to FGC is an evaluation by a Wikipedia editor, and an interpretation and simplification of the view expressed in the source? Why do you add your support for the removal of the issue of "human rights" mentioned in the title of the source?  Do you not see that the opponents' position, as rewritten by Jakew and Zinbarg, is clearly intended to have the reader reject the position, besides not following the source at all?  Blackworm (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The source, in the body and conclusion, is focused on genital cutting. "The practice of genital mutilation of females" is the same as FGM. The "double standard" of treating males differently than females. Immediately (24 hours) after birth is absolutely NOT the best time. Pain can be minor, or mitigated; both easy to source, so that's what got axed. Argue with Jakew about silly equal coverage (pro con getting the same number of WORDS!!! Very strange). Or, why didn't you object to the deletion of the words genital mutilation?Zinbarg (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do object to the deletion of "genital mutilation," especially when used in the context of opponents' arguments, but I believe minor concessions to Jakew are appropriate when such huge violations remain and he opposes their correction. Your argument re: pain is a non sequitur.  Your "double standard" argument ignores the fact that "compares" is often used to mean "equates."  The opponents believe that is a double standard that some non-therapeutic male genital cutting is tolerated and even celebrated, while all forms of female genital cutting, including a mere pinprick, are vigorously opposed.  Does that mean that they believe that male circumcision is "effectively comparable" to FGC (which evokes the image of the common, more invasive forms)?  I don't think so.  Again, remove that incorrect and misleading statement from the article, please.
 * Also, is female genital cutting related enough to male genital cutting that a group "comparing" them is notable?  That is only relevant if one presupposes that they should not be compared.  The talk of human rights is closer to the source, and again, I object to your and Jakew's inappropriate interpretation of the opponents' statement being cited as fact.  It that's to be the case, it opens the door to other loose interpretations, such as the one I reluctantly added to the supporters' statement, but which I feel is necessary to mitigate the horrible damage done by your and Jakew's modifications to the opponents' paragraph.  Blackworm (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon, the opponents' sentence. Blackworm (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Charming as it is to be given credit for it, I don't really have strong views about the "violation of human rights" argument vs the "comparable to FGC" argument. I'm quite happy for either to be included.  My personal view is that an analogy is at best a weak form of argument, and arguing that it violates human rights is a much more direct and powerful argument (at least in principle).  However, as I argued here (I can't seem to find the discussion that led to Coppertwig's edit in the first place), including both arguments effectively gives more weight to the opponents, and that needs to be avoided.
 * I agree with you, Blackworm, regarding Schoen's claim that the neonatal period is the best time. The issue is whether the claim is made, not whether it is true, and deleting it because an editor believes it to be false is inappropriate (see discussion). Jakew (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They why didn't you oppose it? You repeatedly contradict your last paragraph by your actions, notably in this edit where, rather than re-add that exact point that gets deleted, you "restore" the new, lower number of points given each side by removing the "extremely painful" argument of opponents.  Please remedy the sitation.
 * Re: Human rights vs. weak, arbitrary interpretations of opponents considering male circumcision and female circumcision "comparable": No one is arguing for both "FGC" and "human rights" points to be made, thus the last sentence of your first paragraph is a straw man.
 * Re: This amazingly bad edit, User:Avraham again shows his complete lack of attention to the facts, and complete and automatic support of Jakew, by repeating the deletion of "extremely painful," claiming that the cited source does not mention female genital mutilation, deleting the very source which does indeed discuss it at length, and showing how in this article, for some, policy doesn't matter, Jakew matters.
 * There is no synthesis, and no original research there reverted there. It and Jakew's before it are purely arbitrary edits.  I posit that it was done in the zeal to advance Avraham and Jakew's demonstrated desire that the article minimize discussion of the controversy regarding male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Jakew, I would say that analogies can be the strongest arguments in the context of perceived or desired equality, for example between the sexes. Also, the extent to which analogies succeed or fail seems completely up to the reader's impression of the extent to which the analogy applies.  This increases the damage done when general ignorance prevails, and the reader's impression of one analogized concept, for example female genital cutting (evoking the excision of the clitoris), may generally exclude the specific cases discussed in the source (less invasive removal of labia).  In any case, our role is to present the most prominent arguments, not necessarily those we personally feel are the strongest.  Blackworm (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Though I'm not usually fussed about this, a few points:


 * The points should accurately represent the main arguments


 * The two sentences should be symmetrical in wording and number of points


 * Schoen and Milos can fairly be described as broadly representative


 * FGC is probably not useful in a lead summary, since everyone opposes it but there are differences about the validity of analogy that do not correspond to the dispute (over male circ) we are trying to characterise.Johncoz (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think symmetry trumps accuracy, but I agree that the arguments in the current version seem fairly representative, with one exception: the mention of sexual "performance," which I believe is actually there due to an editors' response to the arguments, rather than the actual argument, which is about sexual function.  Discussing sexual performance when it is barely addressed in the source is inappropriate, especially as it evokes an immediate negative emotional response from the vast majority of circumcised males who may find it absurd or be offended by the idea that intact men "perform" better.  The source does not make that claim.  Nowhere is sexual "performance" mentioned, but they do discuss perhaps a subset, "sexual staying power," where they only go as far as to say that contrary claims are dubious:


 * Nowhere do they argue in that source those males not circumcised "perform" better, in the usual sense of pleasing the partner. It is not a main argument of those opposed, and in fact if I remember well, they argue specifically that female pleasure should not enter into the infant circumcision debate, as they seem to consider it a given for everyone that it is wrong to cause physical pain to one person for someone's else's physical pleasure.  Evoking that aspect trivializes their main arguments.  If there's no objection, I will remove "performance" from that paragraph.  Blackworm (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on performance. There have been inconclusive claims made on both sides but nothing resembling a consensus has emerged from either advocates or opponents Johncoz (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I insist on factual info in the lead, thus schoen's ~"neonate is the best time" must go. Medical facts are clearly otherwise.  Note that most circ'd are Muslim (usually circ'd later than neonate), so if you insist on sticking to your "source says" tack, we have to get rid of that (schoen) advocate.  Find another that is actually representative, otherwise Wiki is  offensive.
 * Is your goal to include pain as a con? My circ wasn't particularly painful; it was real quick.  Sure looks like the gomco and plastibell techniques are extremely painful.  If you insist on including pain, we should address the whole premise of an "equal number" of pro/con words and points.  That forces POV.  Points should stand on their own; thus making it "equal" produces pro circ propaganda.  Yet another reason for the POV tag.


 * Normal functioning is better than "performance," and I'll make that change. From the text[]:

Following this study, Dr. Jacob Oster, a Danish medical officer who conducted a longitudinal study with nearly 10,000 observations, reported that the continuous, shared epithelium of the foreskin and glans penis separates spontaneously during childhood. He stressed that this natural process, should never be interfered with, and is usually complete by the age of 18 (19)....

A 1984 AAP pamphlet, "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis," shed new light on the subject. The section on the function of the foreskin read:

"The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision, this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening). Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life. (22)

MYTH: It didn't hurt me, my penis is fine.

FACT: When normal, healthy, sexually functioning tissue is removed, it interferes with normal sexual functioning. Although circumcised men have no way of personally knowing what they are missing, men circumcised as adults can articulately describe the difference. In a letter to NOCIRC, a 37 year old laments:

My newly naked, sensitive glans penis was protected from irritation with bandages. Slowly the area lost its sensitivity and as it did I realized I had lost something rather vital. Stimuli that had previously aroused ecstasy had relatively little effect. There was a short period of depression, but acceptance of the situation developed, as it had to. The acute sensitivity never returned... circumcision destroys a very joyful aspect of the human experience for both males and females. ... Others are willing to subject their penises to surgical reconstruction in order to repair their shattered body images and/or dysfunctional sex organs. Often, when a man recovers the glans penis, not only is his self-esteem restored, so is lost sexual sensitivity and/or function. The newly protected glans regains its smooth, glistening appearance, normal coloration, and heightened sensitivity. Zinbarg (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, everyone here including Jakew apparently says that is not a valid argument. Any yet, Jakew performs these edits on material he has no objection to, rather than re-include the material he says should be added.  Are there multiple people using Jakew's account?  Should we notify WP:ANI?  Blackworm (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a reminder, this talk page is for discussing edits, not editors. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you believe the above was a personal attack. I am genuinely worried that Jakew's account has been compromised.  If not, Jakew, you are behaving in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and guideline.  Please read my statement again.  Is any portion of it incorrect regarding your statements and actions being contradictory?  Please explain.  Blackworm (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jakew, you said to go to the talk page -- and argue against who? You have no current stated objection here, and it's been several edits since.  Are you in the process of coming up with an argument to support Zinbarg's removal of Schoen's claim, which by your last statement you oppose, and yet by your actions support?    Blackworm (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're essentially agreeing that there's a consensus on this (re-inclusion of Schoen's view: best performed during infancy), and yet opposing consensus by performing another edit (removing FGC argument from opponents) that would seemingly preclude the consensus edit.  The FGC argument from opponents is itself opposed by me on grounds that it was Zinbarg's bad interpretation of the source's main argument based on human rights.  You expressed no preference in the debate on that edit, yet did not address any of my arguments against, especially that the title of the source has "human rights" in it.  Blackworm (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that "human rights" is back, but "extremely painful" is gone. Perhaps Jakew has an argument for its removal?  My point about his inconsistent words and actions still stands. Blackworm (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) As I've stated previously, I disagree with Zinbarg's rationale for removal of the best performed in infancy claim, which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP policy. However, sometimes good (or at least neutral) edits are made for bad reasons, and it's important to evaluate the effect of removing that claim separately from the rationale for that edit.  As long as care is taken to rebalance the number of claims, I don't think that the consequences are too terrible, so I see little point in reverting.
 * As I've also stated previously, I do not have strong feelings over whether the article should discuss the FGC analogy or the human rights argument, and frankly I don't care which is included. I do, however, object to both points being made, and will take whatever steps are needed to maintain balance. Jakew (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight, Jakew; you claim that Zinbarg's edit is a "good (or at least neutral) edit made for bad reasons." What is YOUR reason for supporting his edit against the consensus here?  Why is it more important to remove "extremely painful" or at least change the human rights statement to "they compare it to FGM" -- considering all this time you have made NO ARGUMENT for either of those changes, which are opposed by me, at least, and possibly others?  Do you understand how this line of action, namely repeatedly reverting to your desired changes rather than address the arguments presented on the talk page, is completely inappropriate behaviour?  Blackworm (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * for what it's worth I support this version: it has the same number of points and accurately reflects the sources. it would be nice to just stabilise this, and stop the haggling Johncoz (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, you need to make an argument for removing these two points (Schoen/neonatal period) and (opponents/extremely painful). That it keeps the same number of points isn't an argument for the removal of those statements, as one could use that argument to remove the paragraph entirely.  That is remains accurate isn't an argument; what is the rationale for the removal of these two points?  Minimizing the controversy is better?   Blackworm (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that you may be stating your support for the current version, which reflects my edit. Is that the case?  If so, please ignore the comment just above.  Blackworm (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm supporting your edit :-) Johncoz (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you and sorry for the knee-jerk reaction. I've stricken and reduced my irrelevant comment above.  Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish to note that Jayjg's actions without content discussion in Talk, and User:Avraham's actions without content discussion in Talk are on the record. Jayjg's edit apparently created the problem Jakew keeps refers to (paraphrasing, "I object to both FGC and human rights being mentioned"), and Jakew "corrects" this by "[taking] whatever steps are needed to maintain balance" - namely removing the phrase "extremely painful" both he and Jayjg apparently object to, and neither actually discusses the others' edit, and in fact never express any objections to either of their edits. Something is definitely wrong there. Let's have eyes on it. I invite comment. Avraham's action is also notable since it I commented on his edit, charging it to be contradictory, as it deletes the valid source reference while claiming to delete unsourced material. Neither Jayjg nor Jakew addressed this, and I consider their silence to imply consent with Avraham's edit, as they all amount to the same thing: three contradictory arguments that don't pass muster, that together cause a reshuffling of the material and deletion of sourced material (removing the words "extremely painful") that all three of them happen to agree on. All this while never addressing each other in Talk, and using "see Talk" as an explanation of their reversions, the effect of which is opposed, and the opposition never addressed. It's worse than inappropriate, it's extremely incivil. Blackworm (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Schoen
The personal, non-factual, opinions of a single doctor cannot be called "advocates."Zinbarg (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is not representative of the pro-circ (medical) camp when he insults most of those circ'd!
 * He advocates neonatal circ, though that is clearly not (medically) the best time.
 * I read he objects to pain control as worse than the pain! Clearly not representative of the medical position.
 * He propagandizes the topic with research that has been dumped on (it's poorly constructed and highly suspect).
 * He cites dated and silly research.

Jakew, if you can find a better advocate, please do. It's not encyclopedic to convey the impression that he's representative or accurate. Giving that impression is POV.Zinbarg (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with citing Schoen, Zinbarg. I understand that you personally disagree with some of his statements, but similarly I see many problems with what Milos and Macris claim.  As myself and others have explained to you previously, however, the issue is not whether the claims are accurate, but whether they have been made, so it really doesn't matter what you or I think about them.
 * As a possible alternative, we could cite Morris, who makes the same claims as Schoen, stating: "The benefits vastly outweigh risks. [...] It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal. [...] In experienced hands, risk can be close to zero.[...] For optimum health benefit, cosmetic result (no stitches), simplicity, speed, convenience and cost, infancy is the ideal time to perform a circumcision." Jakew (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, Jakew is correct; Schoen is a notable proponent of Circumcision, and our own feelings about the accuracy or inaccuracy of his claims aren't particularly relevant. Jakew, why not cite both, especially since they make many of the same arguments? Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea, Jayjg. Zinbarg, would that be a satisfactory resolution? Jakew (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not my personal opinion, but scientific fact. Scientific fact that Schoen and Morris ignore.  Scientific fact generally accepted by the pro-circ camp.  Our problem isn't finding a pro circ advocate, but one that's representative of the camp and factual.  Factual means including the main participants (Muslims)!  Morris is as bad (neither representative of the camp, nor factual) as Schoen.
 * Remember that we have two pro circ camps, religious and ~medical. Both must be respected.  Medical says "do not recommend," except for a few nuts like Schoen and Morris.  You should find a religious leader as the advocate.
 * As it is, religious is stepped on, and medical facts lied about. I say remove the "neonatal time best" as well as the "extremely painful" lines.  The former isn't true, and the latter easily mitagated.Zinbarg (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV and WP:V, Zinbarg. There doesn't seem to be much else that we can discuss until you do. Jakew (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. Jakew, if you abide by WP:NPOV and WP:V, we can move forward.Zinbarg (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jakew is abiding by those policies. Schoen and Morris are significant and noted circumcision advocates; they can (and will) be cited, regardless of whether or not pseudonymous Wikipedia editors agree with their conclusions. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Morris is noted as a circumcision advocate by whom, incidentally? Jakew has co-written articles with Morris.  Would you say this places him in any form of conflict of interest regarding your and his desire to cite Morris' views as representative of circumcision advocates?  Also, why not cite Jake's reliably sourced letters to the editor of journals as an advocate rather than merely an expert as they are now, for that matter?  Is is because Jakew denies being a circumcision advocate?  Is the fact Jakew edits a website that's linked under "Circumcision Promotion" in the article in any way relevant?
 * Zinbarg, your "easily mitigated" refers to things that might happen, rather than do happen in practice. It's not a rational line of argument.  It's also more of the same misunderstanding of WP:V that you have (e.g., regarding "best done [...] neonatal period").  Blackworm (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Morris, this July 16 2008 article in New Scientist describes him as a "a leading supporter of circumcision". Regarding the rest, you're straying into discussing other editors, and Jakew in particular. You know where that will lead. Discuss only article content here. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Morris, we should instead use the WHO's statements as examples of the statements of advocates, as they are a major international health organization described as advocating circumcision in secondary sources. Regarding Jakew, I believe my pointing out his co-authorship with the author you and he are proposing we cite as an advocate is entirely appropriate.  But considering your objection, I'll consider posting to the COI noticeboard again instead.  Blackworm (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WHO is known for being the coordinating authority on international public health, not for circumcision advocacy. Its views on circumcision are just a tiny part of what it says and does, and only cover a small portion of the areas circumcision advocates cover. Regardless, Morris has been shown by a reliable source to be a circumcision advocate, as requested. Both Schoen and Morris can (and will) be cited. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to favour Morris since other more prominent advocates exist. The WHO is a better source.  Blackworm (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The WHO is a coordination authority on international public heath, not a circumcision advocacy group. As has been shown, Morris is a leading circumcision advocate. But we can certainly add others to Schoen and Morris; who are the other "prominent advocates" you were referring to? Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Morris is not a leading circumcision advocate, in the sense of his prominence; and we must give precedence to the most prominent advocates. Who leads more, the WHO, or Brian Morris?  What is more the prominent entity, the WHO, or Morris?  Who is read more, the WHO publications, or Morris and Waskett promoting circumcision in journals?  Well never mind Waskett, he may actually be read more than the WHO on the topic of circumcision, indirectly through Wikipedia as User:Jakew.  Morris is described by the new Scientist as "a leading supporter of circumcision."  Okay.  The WHO advocate the mass circumcision of males in Africa.  The reliable source I brought states that the WHO advocate circumcision.  They advocate circumcision -- and yet you retort with "not a circumcision advocacy group."  I have no response to that kind of non-sequitur.  Blackworm (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Morris is a leading circumcision advocate, as attested to by reliable sources. Which additional leading circumcision advocates did you wish to use? Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That question is loaded because it assumes that only advocates described as "leading circumcision advocates" in one or more sources may be cited, or cited as advocates, a premise clearly held in dispute here. Please respond to the arguments presented instead.
 * Also, If Jake were still active in this thread, and I were you, he might say this for me, but since we are ourselves, allow me to be as pedantic: No Jayjg; that is not attested to by reliable sources. For your statement to be correct, there would have to be more than one source describing him as such, and you have only brought one such source.  Please revise your statement.  Blackworm (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be helpful, Blackworm, if you illustrated exactly what edit you're proposing. Jakew (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Jake; what edit are you proposing regarding your suggestion to further cite your associate Brian Morris, this time in his role as circumcision advocate rather than circumcision expert? Also, are you implying that you softened your steadfast position that the word "mutilation" not be used in this article to describe anyone's view of circumcision?  Blackworm (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, the text over which we've had long-term agreement seems fine to me. I'm quite happy to cite Morris instead of (or, I suppose, as well as) Schoen, but I do not have strong views about that.  If you're not actually proposing to make an edit, then what is the purpose of this lengthy debate? Jakew (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your response, Jayjg. Blackworm (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the text refers to advocates, it's better to have multiple sources. So far we have Schoen and Morris; are there any others you would like to add? Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)