Talk:Circumcision/Archive 62

Wilson
Please leave this as a new discussion.

Here's Blackworms prior comments (cited by Jakew below, so pasted here) :

You're right, you didn't introduce the cite. You did move it though, which implies agreement that it is a reliable source. It is a reliable source, and not "blatant POV" to be banned from this article because it uses the word mutilation. Correct? In any case, there is potentially another big, big problem. You changed the article text from saying that it persisted from an evolutionary standpoint due to it having reduced adultery (de facto), to it having begun that way as a means to reduce adultery. I'm not sure that's a proper reflection of the source. First, it seems that MGM and circumcision are not used synonymously by this source. That poses a problem for us. It describes circumcision as a form of MGM:[6] Male genital mutilation (MGM) is any permanent modification of the external genitalia that involves the ablation of tissue and is normative for all males within a society (Murdock, 1967). MGM is present in a substantial minority of pre-industrial human societies and predates recorded history (Dunsmuir & Gordon, 1999). The form of the prescribed mutilation varies among societies. The least extreme is superincision: a longitudinal bisection of the dorsal foreskin. Superincision occurs in Southeast Asia and the insular Pacific (e.g., Shapiro, 1930). The most widespread is circumcision: the ablation of the entire foreskin. Thus unless they're specifically discussing circumcision and adultery, and as a proposed origin, not something that made it persist, your edit is not accurate. The word "adultery" doesn't appear in the source at all. They discuss polygyny, though: Although MGM is indeed predicted to reduce the frequency of EPCs ["extra-pair copulations" -BW] by reducing their payoff and desirability, it is also predicted to arise disproportionately in societies with an inherently high underlying expectation of EPCs due to frequent polygyny and distantly residing co-wives. Thus the talk of "adultery" seems like free added POV, which you apparently didn't add, but copied without reading the source, and well, I can't any talk about reducing adultery being proposed as an origin for male circumcision; the reliable source discusses Male Genital Mutilation, one form of which is male circumcision. Where did you read that reducing adultery was proposed in the article? Do you have a quote?


 * Blackworm, Here's a good quote for the word adultery: "Wilson, who works with Paul Sherman, Cornell professor of neurobiology and behavior, says that genital cutting may limit extramarital sex."[]Zinbarg (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that wasn't what I removed when I mentioned Blackworm's objection. This was my actual edit.  See Blackworm's comment in this section, dated 07:26, 4 February 2010, in which he stated:
 * In any case, there is potentially another big, big problem. You changed the article text from saying that it persisted from an evolutionary standpoint due to it having reduced adultery (de facto), to it having begun that way as a means to reduce adultery. I'm not sure that's a proper reflection of the source.
 * Since the section of the article is entitled "origins", it is clear that material discussing persistence, rather than origins, does not belong. Jakew (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I read Wilson again, and new articles about the research. It's about BOTH origins and persistance.  Signal theory, and "compliance with social assignment for reproduction" speak to origins.  Here are two relevant quotes:

The signaling theory of ritual (Irons, 2001; Rappaport, 1999; Sosis, 2004) was developed as an evolutionary explanation for ritual behavior that is physically or financially costly. Irons (2001) noted that the considerable costs incurred by many ritual behaviors may allow them to function as honest signals of commitment to a social group. Only truly committed individuals are prepared to pay the costs, which can be recouped through the increased willingness of group members to trust and cooperate with the signaler. Cheating is prevented because the benefits of trust and cooperation extend only to those who have conformed with the costly ritual. Sosis and colleagues have provided empirical support for this view (Sosis, 2000; Sosis, Kress & Boster, 2007; Sosis & Ruffle, 2003). I propose a hypothesis that integrates the signaling theory of ritual with principles of sexual selection. (page 3, [])


 * And in the Conclusion,

..."function as hard-to fake signals of compliance with the social assignment of reproduction. Genital mutilations may impair the evolved capacity for extra-pair fertilizations, decreasing paternity uncertainty and reproductive conflict, and garnering trust and social investment from powerful married men."


 * And a new proposed sentence for Origins, please comment:
 * Wilson states that circumcision arose and persisted because it serves evolutionary purpose by reducing the incidence of extramarital sex. Zinbarg (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything about origins in there. Can you show me where you mean? Jakew (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't support the inclusion of this comment, I don't know who this wilson guy is but this comment seems to be a fringe position and unless there is some support from other experts in the field the comment should not be inserted. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look into the "signaling theory of ritual" Jakew; It's origins. And in the conclusion, "compliance with social assignment" likewise is active and speaks to origins.  I've keep from adding controversy (not using MGM, for example).
 * Off2riorob, please read the Wilson article so you can comment accurately. Wilson hails from a great university, the research is peer reviewed and published in a great periodical.  Easily meets Wiki standards.  As for "support from other experts," that's easy; please see news articles about the study:[][][]
 * Here's the actual study: []Zinbarg (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show me where Wilson discusses origins, Zinbarg. Jakew (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. I already did above. See the qoutes from Wilson. Signaling theory of ritual is active. Circumcision began as a ritual that signals "social assignment" in a group. Circ then persisted because it provided evolutionary benefit. I really can't see why you object to Wilson. I've made sure the sentence is neutral.Zinbarg (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is he respected and supported by other experts or is his a fringe minority opinion? In one of the reports above is the claim you are wanting to insert that circumcision is beneficial to men having less extra marital affairs but wilson's comments are broader than that and talk of genital mutilation as resulting in this and not simply circumcision. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. Neither of the quotes refer to the origins of circumcision, nor how it began.  Does Wilson refer to either explicitly? Jakew (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Off2riobob, I'm sorry, I may not understand your second sentence. I think the answer is that there are other behaviors that originated and persisted because they have the same anti adultery effects.  The fact that he finds analogous rituals helps confirm his hypothesis.  Wilson is respected by other experts, as you see in the news articles.
 * Jakew, please see the last sentence in Wilson's Hypothesis section "I propose a hypothesis that integrates the signaling theory of ritual with principles of sexual selection." Signaling behavior was the origin, then integrated with the idea of evolutionary benefit.Zinbarg (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, I have read that sentence, and it says nothing about origins. It doesn't even mention origins.  Now, let me repeat my earlier question: does Wilson refer to the origins of circumcision explicitly? Jakew (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wilson refers to origins explicitly by using the signaling theory of ritual.Zinbarg (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know I see a point you're making, because the sentence should include that term to fit "Origins". Or, we could change Origins back to just History.  How's this sentence?

Wilson states that circumcision arose as a signal of commitment to a group, and persisted because it serves evolutionary purpose by reducing the incidence of extramarital sex. Zinbarg (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Wilson does not make any specific reference to how circumcision arose, so I think that would be a misrepresentation of the source. Removing the "Origins" subheading would probably help, and would address my primary objection to citing Wilson, but it would still be necessary to accurately represent his hypothesis. Jakew (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. Wilson makes specific reference to how circumcision arose in 2. Hypothesis:

"The signaling theory of ritual (Irons, 2001; Rappaport, 1999; Sosis, 2004) was developed as an evolutionary explanation for ritual behavior that is physically or financially costly. Irons (2001) noted that the considerable costs incurred by many ritual behaviors may allow them to function as honest signals of commitment to a social group. Only truly committed individuals are prepared to pay the costs, which can be recouped through the increased willingness of group members to trust and cooperate with the signaler. Cheating is prevented because the benefits of trust and cooperation extend only to those who have conformed with the costly ritual. Sosis and colleagues have provided empirical support for this view (Sosis, 2000; Sosis, Kress & Boster, 2007; Sosis & Ruffle, 2003). I propose a hypothesis that integrates the signaling theory of ritual with principles of sexual selection."

Wilson explicitly states that circumcision arose as a signal of commitment to a group (when he integrates with signaling theory). We should remove Origins, and just leave it History. See the latest sentence under the new heading. If not, Please suggest a sentence you will accept.Zinbarg (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision on adult males
Why is there no information on circumcision being performed on adult males? The bulk of the information is about infant circumcision. Why is this? --84.26.78.183 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In brief, we have to follow the emphasis in the available sources, and the vast majority of the published literature is about circumcision of infants. Jakew (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Imbalu
I would like to include a mention of the Imbalu ritual practiced in Uganda, but I'm not sure where the best place for it would be. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article for Imbalu is extremely short and has only one reference. This article is generally a summary per WP:SUMMARY, including only a brief summary of a large amount of information.  Perhaps we need a subarticle on "circumcision and culture" or "circumcision and society" or "circumcision in various cultures" or something; then a link to Imbalu could fit in there.  If only the one reference can be found, then Imbalu doesn't seem to me to be notable enough to mention in this article.  Possibly in one of the other circumcision articles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this situation does indicate that we ought to have somewhere to put this kind of information. We used to have Circumcision in cultures and religions, but unfortunately that was renamed to Religious male circumcision, which leaves no place for information about cultural circumcision.  Personally, I think the right solution is to rename that article, but if that should fail I would support creating a new article as Coppertwig describes. Jakew (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Restraints
I would like to encourage editors to contribute suggestions for material on restraints to be added to Medical analysis of circumcision. See Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision. (Discussion about that article should take place there.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

External Links - CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com
When did the external links change? I don't see any discussion about this. I object to CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com being removed. It has been replaced cirp.org. Like I mentioned months ago when we talked about external links, all of those articles on CIRP can be found elsewhere and the website doesn't contribute anything new to the discussion. Also, and more importantly, CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com has since received HONcode certification for quality of healthcare information on the Internet. None of the Circumcision Opposition or Circumcision Proponent websites have this coveted rating. Finally, unlike activist websites, it strives for neutrality based on ethics. While we can argue (and I know some will) about the degree of neutrality, let's keep in mind that striving toward NPOV is what WP is all about. I would like to see CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com put back up. If we need to add a sixth link, so be it. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't share your view of "circumcisiondecisionmaker.com", Frank. It doesn't seem more worthy of inclusion than many of the other anti-circumcision sites.  Anyway, to answer your question, it was removed in this edit, as part of a process of re-balancing the numbers of links in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:EL.  To be specific, the rebalancing was necessary in response to the addition of "circumcision.org" in this edit.  In my view, "circumcision.org" is not particularly encyclopaedic either, but it seems marginally more suitable for inclusion than "circumcisiondecisionmaker.com", hence the present state of affairs. Jakew (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be "anti-circumcision" at all. They recommend circumcision in many cases. It seems to be neutral, which I thought you were in favor of.--Studiodan (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Studiodan, there's really nothing to argue about. The following is fundamentally an anti-circumcision position: "The panel’s consensus is that the foreskin is a vital, functional part of the male genital anatomy—is not a birth defect—and, if there is not a strong, valid, and immediate medical reason for removing it, for ethical reasons, it should remain intact."  There's nothing wrong, as such, with holding such a viewpoint, but it would be disingenuous to claim that such a site is neutral. Jakew (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They recommend circumcision for newborns of Jewish parents... completely omitting the right of the child. I'd say that's clearly pro-circumcision. i.e., You can't say they are anti-circumcision when they recommend it where those against it would not. Still seems neutral to me.--Studiodan (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean this page, it seems a rather grudging recommendation at best: "discuss an alternate ritual like brit shalom or brit ben ... by circumcising him, you are denying his freedom of religion ... [some Conservative Jews believe] that circumcision is inconsistent with the Jewish ethical imperative to not harm another human being." Jakew (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The page in question is clearly trying to present reasons why an Orthodox Jew should reject circumcision, or find an alternative to it - 90% of the page is devoted to that. It's quite obvious this is an anti-circumcision website, and it's really not appropriate to waste editors' time pretending anything else. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and same goes for the vast majority of all medical websites being pro-circumcision websites because they see it as acceptable. That includes all of the "Circumcision techniques and videos."  As such, I suggest we place all of those sites under "circumcision promotion" along with Jakew's website.  Blackworm (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the statement isn’t anti-circumcision but rather a human rights statement of ethics. Just change the gender and that becomes evident. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling it a "a human rights statement of ethics" isn't very helpful, Frank. It might make sense if only one ethical viewpoint existed, but that is not the case.  Authors have published analyses in which it is concluded that circumcision is ethically acceptable or desirable.  See, for example, Clark PA, Eisenman J, Szapor S. Mandatory neonatal male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa: medical and ethical analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2007 Dec;13(12):RA205-13 or Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48. Jakew (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If its just a numbers game, then let’s revisit that instead of throwing out a perfectly good parental resource on the topic. We all have agreed that the information is good, we only disagree on their perspective and how many links there should be.From the discussion I have read here it seems to me that Jakew is more interested in the issue than the topic. But for most people, circumcision isn’t an issue, it is a decision or an event. They don’t view it with the same pro- or anti- polarized spectacles that activists do. Some room needs to be made for efforts that assist parents in making decisions for their children. The website has value as a resource. HONcode, is a more rigourous validation process than the consensus discussion here at WP, and its been around longer, too. Even the American Family Physicians’ website in the techniques list doesn’t’ have HONcode certification. That alone merits inclusions over and above how many links there are or if something thinks it is pro- or anti- on the issue. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Frank, I don't think we have agreed that the information is good, and I have yet to see a compelling argument for its inclusion. Rather than proposing to effectively bypass WP:NPOV by claiming that a blatantly anti-circumcision site is not anti-circumcision, it might be marginally more persuasive to propose what site should be deleted to make space for it. Jakew (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jakew, You agreed to add it once. In fact, you added the link yourself after our discussion. Circumcision Resource Center (the work on one man) has been around for years. If it was so valuable, why wasn't it added years ago? The website shows that Circumcision Decision Maker is the work of a group. The only thing that has changed since it was originally added in December was that it received HONcode certification. NONE of the other links have this certificationi for quality of health information on the Internet. That alone merits inclusion. So, editors, let's settle this once and for all. Let's add a link to both the pro- and anti- lists. If that doesn't maintain NPOV, then let's revert to what we agreed to in December. Frank Koehler (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that "circumcision.org" is "so valuable", Frank. In fact, as I stated above, I don't think it is particularly encyclopaedic.  In contrast to what you say, both websites claim to have multiple responsible persons (note that circumcision.org states "Our Directors (majority is Jewish*) and Professional Advisory Board members (one-third is Jewish*)", however the number of authors seem a poor basis for choosing external links anyway.  Also, you're making a big deal of this HONcode certification, but you haven't shown that HONcode certification necessarily makes a site more suitable for inclusion as a WP:EL.  Finally, we already have too many external links (I eventually plan to trim the lists to 3 for each point of view), and adding more is not a solution.  We ought to have fewer than five; let's not increase the numbers. Jakew (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, we're getting into a WP:LINKFARM situation here. The article is already extremely comprehensive, with almost 200 footnotes, hundreds of links, Further readings, See alsos, etc. Cutting down on the External links makes more sense. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not making a big deal of HONcode because it already is a big deal. It is third-party verification of healthcare information. Many parents come to this page for quality information and WP can't deliver it all, there is too much, so high quality links are the solution. Any website that has HONcode certification is bound to be much better than some of the others that are the work of just one or two activists. Frank Koehler (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What we should fix is the crazy insistance that the pro circ and anti circ websites have equal numeric representation. Note the junk already in the pro side; see jakew had to resort to Jakew's own website. There are many great information websites that are blocked from circumcision because the are labeled anti-circ. They are informational. Like an encyclopedia. What do we have here but propaganda by silly numbers.Zinbarg (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to overturn WP:NPOV then I guess WT:NPOV is probably the right place to make that proposal. But I should warn you: the chances of success are basically zero.  Jakew (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that having equal numbers makes no sense. Our goal is to provide good information, not be a battleground for an issue. I see no reason to reduce external links, especially since this WP article only touches upon the subject despite its length.Frank Koehler (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if you take issue with Wikipedia policy then the correct thing to do is to try to change that policy. Ignoring it is not an option. Jakew (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Frank Koehler (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Last year I originally proposed that Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (cirp.org) be removed for the sake of CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com. That was quickly accepted, but later reverted. I still feel that Cirp.org is not a good candidate since it does not have unique content, but rather republishes articles available elsewhere such as PubMed. And, this WP circumcision article cites many of the articles that are at CIRP.org, making it redundant. I move that we exchange CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com for Cirp.org. Frank Koehler (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) There has been no added discussion since my proposal ten days ago to exchange CIRP for CDM, let alone dissent. So, I will make that change now.Frank Koehler (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the change, and refer you to our earlier discussion, in which I opposed exactly the same proposal (see my comment dated 15:37, 26 November 2009). Jakew (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom Harrison, please advise on this topic. The discussion JakeW makes was in November, In December, following our continued discussion JakeW himself added CDM. Granted, it was in place of Circumcision Resource Center (CRC), not CIRP. Therefore, I submit that CDM, once again, be exchanged for CRC. Thanks, Frank Frank Koehler (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose that proposal. In my view, while neither link is particularly good, circumcision.org is marginally more suitable for inclusion than circumcisiondecisionmaker.com.  Jakew (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Still a stalemate on this topic. This is important, we've been discussing this for 5 months, so, I will return to my original proposal.Frank Koehler (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When I first found Circumcision Decision-Maker (CDM) back in 2009, I came here and suggested it be added as an external link, but in a new section. I still think that is the best solution. Here's why. The websites listed in the Circ-Opposition and Circ-Promotion sections are people and organizations involved in an issue. We all know that this wiki page has become one of the battle grounds for that issue. But, parents who want more information on circumcision so they can make an informed choice for their son are not activists or part of issue. They just want answers, not debate or polemics. I would guess that many of the visitors to this wiki page are parents looking for information. We should be writing with those readers in mind. Regardless of whether you think CDM is pro-, anti-, or neutral is moot. The important thing is that it address head-on the difficult task parents have in making an informed decision regarding a surgery for their child. No other external link does that; it is in a class by itself. Leaving out CDM does our readers a disservice. Therefore, I say make a new section, say "Parental Resources" and put CDM in it. Perhaps there are other such resources, like some of the fine magazine articles that have been writing for parents?Frank Koehler (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly oppose that, as I did when you first made that proposal. To avoid repeating ourselves, I refer to my earlier comments. Jakew (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that others will weigh in on this, and in time this will be implemented. In the meantime, this might be a palatable solution for even the issue-oriented editors: I've always wondered why the Circumcision Promotion links have so many personal pages, but only one from a nonprofit organization. So, what I suggest is putting 6 links in each section. CDM in the anti- and Gilgal Society (http://www.gilgalsoc.org/) in the pro-. Gilgal Society is a not-for-profit and has literature available for readers. I don't see how anyone can complain about this solution. If your objection is that the web page is long, then obvious solution to a long page is reducing the bloated reference section holding almost 200 items. Frank Koehler (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * circumcisiondecisionmaker.com is an anti-circumcision website masquerading as a neutral resource for parents; thus, it's a very poor choice as an external link, since it will mislead readers. If it is "in a class by itself", it would only be in the deceptiveness that its authors use to feign neutrality while promoting a one-sided agenda. In that light, it's very unhelpful of you to continue to pretend that it is merely a neutral resource for parents, that it simply provides "answers, not debate or polemics", and that the fact that it is an anti-circumcision site is "moot". In addition, it's difficult to understand what you mean by a "bloated reference section". The goal of Wikipedia articles is to have complete reference sections, and as few external links as possible, since external links represent sites that do not have material that is appropriate for Wikipedia (typically because they are unreliable). We should be making the external links section shorter, not longer. In that vein, I recommend we bring the "pro" and "anti" each down to four. Now, you started by suggesting we remove circumcision.org. I'm fine with that, if others will agree. I suggest we also remove the Shraga Simmons link to balance that. That way we'll be down to 13 external links: still too many, but a good start. Jayjg (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support that proposal, but I agree that that's still too many links. I'd therefore propose that we also delete nocirc.org (from the opposition section) and medicirc.org (from the proponents section), leaving 3 in each. Jakew (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be even better. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We all have our opinions Jakew, and no one opinion is any better than another. In my opinion, CDM is the most neutral of any of the current pro- anti- links. Or, putting it another way, which of the 10 links there is more neutral than CDM? Speaking of opinion. Why didn't you weigh in on the Gilgal Society link? I would think that you would jump at the chance to add a pro-circ nonprofit organization. I'm curious why you haven't suggested adding it? Speaking of links, I've added links to circs.org and cirp.org in the header of the Notes and References section. Since they are linked there, and of course dozens of times in the reference section, I see no reason for either of them to be in the External Links section. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Frank, I think you meant to address your comments to Jayjg, not me. Secondly, as both Jayjg and I have noted, there are too many links, so why would either of us "jump at the chance" to exacerbate that problem?  It wouldn't make sense.  It might possibly make sense to propose replacing an existing link with the Gilgal Society, but frankly I don't think it is significantly more worthy than any of the currently-existing links.  Finally, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to include external links in other sections; the reason for standardising on layouts in Wikipedia is to make it easier for the reader to find external links, since they are always in a predictable place and with a predictable heading.  I suppose it's probably fairly harmless to include the extra links that you've added, but this would be poor justification for removing them from the EL section. Jakew (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank, in addition to Jakew's comments, Wikipedia is not a guide for new parents, it is an encyclopedia. The goal of Wikipedia is not to direct people to other websites, but rather to contain all relevant material on Wikipedia. That is why external links should be reduced, not increased. In addition, we're not playing games here. As is both obvious and has been conclusively shown, circumcisiondecisionmaker.com is anti-circumcision. It's bad enough that circumcisiondecisionmaker.com deceptively pretends to be neutral; but for you to bald-facedly abet that deception is even worse. Any statements predicated on dissembling about this will be ignored as being obviously in bad faith. If you want to make a case for your anti-circumcision website, please make it honestly. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying WP being an encyclopedia and that point is well taken. I disagree that CDM is as "anti" as NOCIRC or Intact America. I would agree that it is pro-baby, but then that's not the same thing as anti-circumcision. It does not oppose the practice of circumcision, but rather advises against it under many, but not all circumstances. The polar divisions that Jakew and Jayjg insist upon making here are not helpful to the reader, and would be more persuasive if this was the "Circumcision Issue" Wikipedia page, but it isn't. This page is not about the issue. It is about the topic. And I think these discussions would be easier if this perspective was adopted. Frank Koehler (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank, Jayjg and I aren't making this classification for the fun of it. Circumcision is a controversial subject, making it especially important for Wikipedia to maintain neutral and balanced coverage, and that includes external links.  Applicable policy requires us to maintain balance between external links representing different points of view, and we cannot do that unless we identify the point of view of a site.  That's not because we're trying to focus on the "issue" rather than the "topic" (to use your terminology).  It's because we don't have the luxury of ignoring either; one has to be sensitive to the "issue" in order to maintain neutrality.
 * Now, it doesn't matter whether CDM is less "anti" or more "anti" than other sites; what matters is that it is an anti-circumcision site. That much is obvious: it is authored by people who are unanimous in their belief that "if there is not a strong, valid, and immediate medical reason for removing [the foreskin], for ethical reasons, it should remain intact".  Obviously they're entitled to that position, but if you ask such a group of people, you'll get an anti-circumcision site.  (If they wanted a neutral site they would doubtless have recruited authors with a more balanced set of beliefs.)  And, as you acknowledge, they advise against circumcision in most situations.  That's characteristic of anti-circumcision sites.
 * It is becoming very tedious to argue this point. Jakew (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * JakeW, Your polarized perspective is clear; it is an issue you believe strongly about, and others are either with you or against you. And yes, this is tedious. You can always retire. ;)  I'll grant that CDM is pro-intact, but not anti-circ.  This might help our dilemma. I tried to contact the webmaster of cirp.org regarding a bibliographic question only to find that he had walked away from that project. Cirp.org is not being maintained, and the last updates to the content were in November, 2008 and February, 2009. I propose that we substituted CDM for Cirp. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank, don't discuss other editors here. Regarding your claim that "CDM is pro-intact, but not anti-circ", that is a classic distinction without a difference. Again, we're not playing games here, and that includes semantic games. cirp.org has the advantage of being vastly more comprehensive than circumcisiondecisionmaker.com, and in any event, its advantages over circumcisiondecisionmaker.com have been explained before. Rather than repeating old statements, please make new, more compelling arguments. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirp.org is defunct. It is not being maintained. It has been over a year since new content was added. Therefore, it should be removed. WP is linking to a poor source. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. I just heard, following my previous inquiry, that there are plans to update cirp.org and keep the information current. My apologies. Frank Koehler (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The distinction is real. Anti-circ means you are oppossed to circumcision for any and all purposes. CDM does not make that claim. Instead, it states there are times when not circumcising is better than circumcising. That makes it pro-intact. We both know that some people promote circumcision for a variety of reasons. Some of them would be better called anti-foreskin. These distinctions are important since the issue is not cut and dried, but, like most of life, continuous shades of gray. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank, please read the previous comments, and try again, ensuring that your statement this time includes no semantic games. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read your comments and I am not playing games. I am making an important distinction. I do not accept that a website or organization is either/or, pro/con. I'm saying responses to this topic run the gamut.Frank Koehler (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the previous comments, which were very clear. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank Koehler, I agree with you that there are distinctions that can be made among points of view; it's more complicated than just pro-circ and anti-circ; there can be large numbers of points of view. I'm sorry that I missed how this applies to this discussion.  I also agree with Jayjg further above that circumcisiondecisionmaker.org is essentially an anti-circ (or pro-intact, if you prefer; or anti-circ in most situations, etc.) website which presents itself as if it's neutral.  I don't think it's the type of site Wikipedia should link to.  Wikipedia normally links to sites that provide information, not to sites that primarily tell people what to do.  I tried circumcisiondecisionmaker.org.  I clicked on "his general wellbeing" and got "Leaving your son intact is an overall better choice than circumcision for a number of important reasons: ...", and nothing about reduction of risk of sexually transmitted infections, UTIs etc. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, There is a much, or more, information on CDM than is on, say, Circumcision Resource Pages. See the general information pages on the main navigation bar. Also, the "decisions" they provide in their troublshooting-type format combine to create an overview of the topic. It appears that you clicked on the first link provided (well-being), but didn't explore the rest of the website. If you want to read about STDs or UTIs, then you should navigate to those pages. Here is the link: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/decide/infant-circumcision/health/prevention/ Check it out. There is more here than meets the eye. The portal style theme is misleading. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if they also provide extensive information, I don't support linking to them for the reason I stated above, based on what one tends to find when one looks there. Providing information on health benefits somewhere on the site is no substitute for providing balance within prominently displayed advice. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've just reverted some highly dubious changes. To explain:


 * 1) The POV-section tag was inappropriate. It is intended to be used when there is an NPOV issue with that particular section (the lead section), and directs readers to a corresponding discussion on the talk page.  No such discussion exists &mdash; it refers to an old discussion that has long since been archived.
 * 2) Inclusion of File:Picture_of_circumcision_operation_on_child.gif was entirely inappropriate, partly because of the apparent usage as a "shock tactic", but also because it is a copyright violation. According to this press release, the same image is copyrighted by the Saturday Evening Post.
 * 3) Inclusion of an additional external link in the opposition section was made without discussion and without attempting to maintain the numerical balance of links.
 * 4) Inclusion of a video was also inappropriate, because this video is not encyclopaedic. Careful watching reveals that the sound and picture appear to be unrelated to each other; the screaming appears to have been added after the picture was filmed.
 * 5) Creation of a new external links subsection entitled "Circumcision studies and polls", containing a news article about an unnamed study, though presumably that of Lander et al., our 119th ref. This is utterly incomprehensible: the body of the article is the correct place to cite studies, not the external links section, and in this particular case it seems that we already cite the study anyway. Jakew (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I request that this picture be put back for three reasons. First, it was removed without discussion. Second, any 'shock' is a byproduct of the truth; that is how babies look being circucmised. Third, because the SEP has given permission for that set of images to be used.Frank Koehler (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mildly curious, where did the Post do so? Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Years ago I was given a duplicate set of all the images the SEP photographer took during that photo session in order to convert it to digital. I corrected the images for color cast at that time, the Ektachromes had shifted color with age. The image that was posted here looked to be one of those I had converted. At that time I contacted the SEP (now owned by Curtis in Indianapolis) and they gave permission to use that image without restriction or attribution. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would not qualify as permission for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia would need direct conformation from the Saturday Evening Post, which is no doubt why the image was deleted. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trinu: I've removed the quote from the American Academy of Family Physicians which stated "No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." Evidence (although it is somewhat conflicting) can be found in numerous journals and is cited in the article. This makes the quote misleading at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinu (talk • contribs) 06:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you dispute that the AAFP made this statement? Jakew (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they made the statement (which they did) is not the issue. The issue is whether its inclusion in the article is POV.  It's outdated as there have been new studies released (unless of course they have since reissued that statement), and it seems to imply that studies finding differences penile sensitivity in circumcised and uncircumcised men are either nonexistent or have all been discredited.  Trinu (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that's precisely the issue. If we included only sources with which we agreed, it would be impossible to achieve a neutral point of view.  Furthermore, Wikipedia's policy against original research prohibits us from using our own personal assessment of sources in such a way.  There are plenty of sources in this article making statements that I regard as misleading or even false, but it would be just as inappropriate for me to remove them. Jakew (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You should also know about wikipedia's policy on Undue Weight. That statement creates the impression that studies indicating a decrease in sensitivity have been widely discredited, which it has not.  Wikipedia's policy on undue weight prohibits us from writing an article that does not accurately represent the scientific consensus or lack thereof, even if all of the evidence comes from experts.  If the consensus is that there is very little evidence or inconclusive or conflicting evidence, then the article should reflect that.  Whether you or I agree with the statement is irrelevant.  Furthermore I am not conducting my own research, I am using other people's peer-reviewed research, hardly my own opinion.  Trinu (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Citing reliable secondary sources helps to ensure due weight through fairly representing scientific opinion. We cite three: a review by Boyle et al., and policy statements from two medical associations, of which the AAFP is one.  Jakew (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the value of citing secondary sources. The main issue is that the statement is phrased in a way that creates the illusion of a consensus that the studies indicative of decreased penile sensitivity have been completely discredited.  There is nothing wrong with statements that say "there is no conclusive evidence of decreased sensitivity," or "there is no general consensus," or even "it is not generally believed to decrease sensitivity."  I propose we either note that several new studies regarding circumcision came out following the paper, or find a similar statement from another medical association that is less likely to give undue weight.  Trinu (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not create the "illusion of a consensus". In fact, it is quite apparent from reading the three secondary sources that there is a difference of opinion regarding what the evidence shows.  It does, however, create the impression that the AAFP believes that no valid evidence supports the notion that circumcision affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.  Since that is precisely what the source states, it is not misleading.  If you would like to propose alternative phrases, I suggest that you write to the AAFP.  If, as a result, they use those phrases in a revised statement, you can be sure that we will update our text to reflect that.  However, in the meantime, we must honestly and accurately reflect what they say.  Once again, the fact that you disagree with them is irrelevant.  For what it's worth, I also disagree with their statement (in my view it is misleading to say "Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified" since evidence suggests otherwise), but that does not change the fact that this is the position of a prominent, reliable, secondary source. Jakew (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The first and most important bit of reasoning behind including Yang and not Bleustein is that the Yang was released after the AAP and AAFP released their statements (even the AAFP statement included the operative phrase "to date"). Because Yang was released over a year later, I'm including it. Secondly, it is also because the replication of results is very important to the scientific community. If some studies have replicated the results but not others it says something completely different, than if no studies have managed to replicate the results of Sorrells paper. You don't need to worry about me flooding that section with peer-reviewed sources. I'll save those for the main article. Trinu (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To address your first point, I understand your reasoning, but WP:NPOV must come first, and it is vital to consider whether the selection of studies is representative. Unless the text explicitly states that studies prior to a certain date are excluded, the reader will naturally assume that the list is complete or at least a representative selection, hence it would be misleading.  Also, it is not just Yang that is excluded &mdash; other sources re sensitivity/sensation that post-date the AAFP statement include Waskett &amp; Morris and Cortez-Gonzalez et al.
 * To address your second point, replication of results is indeed important, but not more so than failure to replicate results. To use a hypothetical example, if 5 of 5 studies found result X, then that would constitute very strong evidence for X.  But if 5 of 100 studies found result X, then that is a very different situation.  In this situation, if we just consider studies of glans sensation, Sorrells and Yang report differences, but Masters &amp; Johnson, Bleustein 2003, Bleustein 2005, Payne, and Waskett &amp; Morris all report no statistically significant differences.  Jakew (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
Zinbarg said "You are bound by Wiki rules to leave the POV tag in place.". Zinbarg: what rules specifically are you referring to, and how do they apply to this particular situation? The last time I looked, as far as I remember, I didn't find rules that seemed to clearly support keeping tags. I agree with Jakew that the tag should be removed if it doesn't refer to any currently active discussion. This has been discussed previously at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 53. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an old poll, though I found several issues there that are still problematic. Seems like the poll decided to leave the tag in place.  I'm referring to Wiki rules on the how and why of POV tags.


 * In the short time I've worked on Circumcision, Discussion has tried and failed to fix several POV (pro-circ) issues. Specific to just the introduction:  For example, HIV doesn't belong in the lead (this isn't a 'in the news' blog); HIV is a topic that's well covered in the body.  On and on we find that it's a single UNAIDS/WHO article, why is it listed as two (pro-circ) publications??  The dates on the AMA and CDC UNAIDS/WHO are unusual for the article, but Jakew insists on including them to suggest the AMA is an old conclusion.  Actually, I showed the medical assoc positions are unchanged and current, and the AMA statement is a current representation of the facts.  But, listing all the relevant dates is blocked.  Removing misleading dates is blocked.  Use of the common term (and specific to the cited reference) genital mutilation is blocked.  I could go on and on and on looking at prior Discussion pages.  We've got lots of (pro-circ) POV in just the lead.


 * Then there's the general problem of insistance on pro/con equal representation. Jakew enforces an equal number of pro and anti circ positions in the article, though often not factual in nature.  See Schoen's false claim for circ timing, for example.  Also, see the silly list of external links, where lousy dregs of pro circ is presented while quality informational circ websites are blocked because Jakew finds them anti circ, and insists on equal representation.  He's even got his own OLD personal lousy website listed as a pro circ link!  See the discussion on bringing in additional links (Jakew finds anti, and blocks).  Simply POV.


 * Please also look at Jakew's version of Sexual effects. I think he purposely makes it confusing frequently hogwash.  He blocks a normal introduction, prevents presentation of the Sorrell's sensitivity graph, and enforces a table full of confusing junk studies (not stastically relelvant).


 * I'd be glad to work on those issues, and the POV tag must remain (by the rules).Zinbarg (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the poll did not decide to leave the tag in place. Opinions were expressed on both sides.  You haven't cited any wiki "rules" about keeping tags.  In my opinion, the NPOV tag is to mark articles that need attention; not for cases like this, where we have a very high-polished, heavily-edited and frequently-viewed page, which has remained largely stable for a long time, with gradual changes and extensive discussion.  I understand that there are things you disagree with about the article, and I encourage you to continue discussing these issues.  In general the article won't be what any one editor considers optimal, but the result of hard work and interaction of multiple opinions.
 * I agree that HIV belongs in the lead for the reason Jakew gave, that a large proportion of reliable sources discuss it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize what the sources say, not what Wikipedians might wish to emphasize.
 * Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "Jakew's version of Sexual effects"; do you mean the Sexual effects of circumcision article, or a section of this article? Please give the date and time of the version you're referring to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The poll tally favored keeping one of the three tags Coppertwitg. The problems leading to that decision have not been fixed.  I've revisited some recently.  You know the tag rules; three known, discussed but not fixed issues of bias in content or presentation ie POV.  I've detailed, discussed and tried to fix.  Reverted by Jakew with often silly spurious comment.Zinbarg (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm changing the indentation of the following comments, for readability. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

It's very difficult to understand the above, but as far as I can tell the issues seem to be:
 * Inclusion of HIV in the lead. You state that "HIV is a topic that's well covered in the body", but this is not an argument against its inclusion in the lead.  Please see WP:LEAD, which clearly indicates that important aspects should be discussed in the lead: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.  ... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." (emph. added)
 * Unindent reply: Please review the purpose and substance of introductions. HIV is text material, and is already covered in the intro by discusssing pro medical reasons (Schoen).Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, please read what you are replying to. I've quoted passages from WP:LEAD that state what an introduction should include, and they clearly note that the lead should include the important points of the body of the article.  HIV is one of these points.  (Also, I've asked you before not to insert your replies in the middle of my comments.) Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When you reply in such length this is the only way to follow the discussion. Please be brief.  Medical issues including HIV are already in the lead pro con by Schoen and Milos.  HIV is a part of medical.  I was suggesting you refer to a writing manual to see the purpose of an introduction.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the text discussing Schoen and Milos does not mention HIV. Second, they are used as illustrative examples of extremes of opinion regarding circumcision, and their claims are not necessarily representative of scientific consensus.  Consequently, they would be insufficient as a summary even if they did discuss HIV explicitly.  HIV is not a notable aspect of circumcision because Schoen says that circumcision is protective; it is a notable aspect of circumcision because the World Health Organisation has stated that circumcision is protective and consequently many countries have initiated large-scale circumcision programmes. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HIV isn't particularly relevant to either Schoen or Milos et al or they would have included that medical issue. Having NOT chosen to treat HIV other than as another potential medical benefit, why does Jakew think it's so critically (lead) important?  Medical is covered properly in the lead.  Treating HIV seperate from medical in the lead is biased to undue weight.Zinbarg (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As already explained, "it is a notable aspect of circumcision because the World Health Organisation has stated that circumcision is protective and consequently many countries have initiated large-scale circumcision programmes." Furthermore, as has been shown in previous discussions, HIV is given considerable weight by sources: a considerable fraction of reliable sources discussing circumcision discuss HIV in that context. Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading the lead with and without the reference to HIV I think the level of inclusion when mentioned gives the issue undue weight. This seems to underpin the discussions below about the sources.  My feeling is that the relation to HIV prevention should be mentioned but in a softer form with the evidence being elaborated on in the text - having 1 full paragraph of 4 on what is really only section 6.4.1 is too much.  I will think about better wording to see if you agree. |→ Spaully τ 23:10, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
 * I've no objection to shortening the paragraph, but I think the reference to the WHO should be retained, as it helps to balance the AMA paragraph. The CDC reference is probably not needed.
 * However, regarding due weight, consider the weight given in reliable sources. For example, if you search PubMed for "circumcision" (using the "Limits" facility to examine those published in the past 5 years in accordance with WP:MEDRS) "circumcision" returns 1170 articles, of which 434 (37%) discuss HIV.  If you further use the "Limits" facility to select only meta-analyses and reviews (ie., secondary sources), 68 (49%) of 139 articles relating to circumcision discuss HIV in their abstracts.  For comparison, 11 (8%) of the reviews discuss phimosis, 13 (9%) discuss urinary tract infection, and 33 (24%) discuss complications.  One might argue that PubMed will over-represent medical issues, but using Google News for the period 2005-2010 returns 3,500 (29%) of 12,000.  Still, the method is not perfect, but even so, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that reliable sources give the HIV issue a great deal of weight, apparently more so than other medical aspects. Jakew (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a lot of material discussing HIV in the sources; I think HIV needs therefore to be mentioned in the lead. It's currently a single sentence, and I'm not sure it's possible to mention it any more briefly while remaining meaningful, accurate and NPOV.  Other solutions to balance things out are to increase the amount of material in the main body of the article about HIV (to more closely match the proportion in the lead), or to make the lead somewhat longer. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coppertwig and Jakew. If anything we should have more about HIV in the lead. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mention of the authorship of the WHO/UNAIDS ref. That is a joint statement, authored by both organisations.  If we only listed one organisation it would be misleading.
 * Wiki lists as publications. You have it listed as two publications for pro-circ purposes.  It's one joint statement and publication, and should be cited as such.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no objection in principle to re-phrasing the sentence. Please provide the text that you propose to use instead. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HIV does not belong in the intro. The single publication should be listed as such in the text.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My answer is that including HIV as a seperate paragraph in the lead voilates NPOV. The way it is now warrents the POV tag.Zinbarg (talk)
 * Zinbarg, your original complaint was that: "It's one joint statement and publication, and should be cited as such". That was why I asked you to propose an alternative wording.  Since you're now refusing to answer my question, I guess we have nothing further to discuss. Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, when you say "You have it listed as two publications ...", what exactly do you mean? I looked at the two footnotes, and they go to two different documents (one from WHO/UNAIDS, one from CDC). Maybe you mean the first part of the sentence, which lists the organizations supporting the statements?
 * How about changing "The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state" to "The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (in a joint statement: UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state ..."? (i.e. inserting "and" and "in a joint statement".) I see Zinbarg's point, I think:  listing some organizations and saying that they "state" makes it look as if there were as many statements as organizations. (Please discuss and get consensus before editing.)
 * No, wait, I see: It says "(WHO; 2007)" and "(UNAIDS; 2007)", making it look as if there were two separate documents.  Were these both the same document? Then I think it should be changed.  Why are those parenthetical thingies in there, anyway? Why not just remove them? The footnotes are good enough.  I propose "The World Health Organization, in a joint statement with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS state... . The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also made a similar statement." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of dates. This is necessary, at least for the AMA statement, because that statement refers explicitly to "all current policy statements".  The date is therefore necessary to allow the reader to know when that was written.  Dates for the other statements are probably less important, though it is helpful for the reader to know that they post-date the AMA statement.
 * No, the dates are not normal (its' very rare to see dates in text) for Wiki; You force the exception because they mislead. The reader is mislead to think the medical assoc postitions are post CDC UNAIDS/WHO.  Many are not (as I listed for you), and all include discovery about HIV.  You mislead.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated, it is necessary to date the statement since the reader needs to know what the publication date in order to process what "current" means. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, current relevant is not 1999, but the dates of the individual assoc statements. Many are post HIV (CDC WHO/UNAIDS)findings, and all include essential HIV findings.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "current" is used by the American Medical Association, in a statement dated 1999. You may believe that it is also true where current is defined as "2010", but we are not writing an article about what Zinbarg has said.  We're discussing what the AMA said, and in the context of their statement "current" means something like "as of 1999". Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I presented each medical association current statement and their respective dates, which shows that many are as current as the CDC WHO/UNAIDS publications. All assoc statements included HIV in their reviews and therefore conclusions.Zinbarg (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't make sense of that. Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1999 is misleading because many of the medical assoc statements are more current, and as current as the HIV findings. The article presentation makes the AMA seem dated, when it's not.  Even in slightly older statements, you find that HIV findings in the conclusions.  And we know assoc are aware of new findings and update accordingly.Zinbarg (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, it is a quote from a document that was written in 1999. Are you seriously suggesting that the AMA actually intended to discuss policy statements that had not yet (in 1999) been published?  (Do they have a time machine?) Or do you agree that the AMA referred to policies that were current as of 1999? Jakew (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Jakew. Unless the AMA had a time machine when it wrote that in 1999, it can only really comment on statements current as of 1999. The lead needs to clearly state exactly what the AMA was talking about. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Describing circumcision as "genital mutilation" would violate WP:NPOV.
 * That is THE common term, and it's what's employed by the cited reference; so it is not NPOV.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Zinbarg, the common term for circumcision is "circumcision". Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The term used by the cited reference is genital mutilation; so that term needs to be applied in the lead. Or find a better con representative (that doesn't use the term, good luck)  It is also commonly used, and understood.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires us to use exactly the same terminology as our sources. Sometimes, as in this situation (as noted) doing so would violate WP:NPOV.  Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki requires representative content. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the common term among anti-circ agents.Zinbarg (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but Wikipedia is not an "anti-circ agent". Instead, it is a neutral encyclopaedia, and that requires us to use neutral terminology. Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Genital mutilation" is not common or acceptible terminology to describe male circumcision in this article. It is certainly not neutral and would only be included in a direct quote illustrating the language used by anti-circumcision literature. |→ Spaully τ 23:10, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Note that I haven't tried to use that term in the article. But it IS the primary term for the reference, and reading that reference and anti-circ website presentations shows it's quite common (much more than FGM).  Not using the preferred term is POV.Zinbarg (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, we can't use non-neutral terminology, even if some sources (reliable or otherwise) do. Sources are allowed to express points of view, including through their choice of language.  Wikipedia does not have that luxury. Jakew (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jakew, I did not suggest that we use genital mutilation, and have removed same.Zinbarg (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to object to including equal numbers of pro- and anti-circumcision positions. Again, see WP:NPOV.
 * Facts are facts, and are not subject to counts. You evidently don't know what WP:NPOV means Jakew.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about facts, remember; we're talking about arguments. And to remain neutral we need to give equal weight to the various viewpoints.  This is absolutely fundamental to WP:NPOV: please review that policy. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're taking about verifiable facts. Well supported arguments.  You push viewpoints (opinions), which is different from presenting facts.Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about viewpoints. Note the language of the paragraph: "There is controversy regarding circumcision. ...", "Schoen argues that", "Milos and Macris argue that".  Some of the arguments contradict each other, but we're not saying that either is correct, we're just noting that they make (rightly or wrongly) arguments in support of their position. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NUMBER of valid points is rarely equal in a debate. The number is based on the factual basis of the claims.  Nothing else.  Forcing an equal number of points therefore usually introduces bias.Zinbarg (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing the number of valid points, Zinbarg. We're just listing some of the arguments that have been made, regardless of whether we think they are valid or not.  So by listing an equal number of points for each viewpoint, we avoid giving either excessive weight. Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Limiting the numbers of each side to the argument does not constitute a neutral point of view but there is no easy way to weigh the relative merits of sources to decide how many of each or which of each to have. This is not an ideal way to do it, but I can't think of a better one that doesn't involve endless polls and discussions for every new link proposed.  It is not POV to limit it to equality in itself either. |→ Spaully τ 23:10, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
 * It is when you limit critical information, thus preventing Wiki from having all the relevant facts.Zinbarg (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, are you referring here to your attempts to remove the critical information regarding HIV from the lead, and "thus preventing Wiki from having all the relevant facts"? Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You again object to including a claim of Schoen's, with which you disagree. As multiple editors have explained, it doesn't matter whether we think a claim is true or not.  Please see WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
 * I don't disagree. I presented a detailed study clearly finding Schoen statement wrong. Schoen is expressing his opinion, he cites no reference, and he's not based on fact as shown.  Wiki is about verfiable facts.  I've verifiabibly shown he's wrong.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Zinbarg, you haven't shown that Schoen is wrong, nor have you presented a study that finds his statement to be wrong. All you have done is presented a study giving a different conclusion, but that doesn't prove that Schoen is wrong.  Other studies (eg. Weiss et al) support Schoen's viewpoint.  In any case it isn't our place to prove sources right or wrong; it is verifiable that he makes this argument, and that's all that matters. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Peer reviewed double blind research is more factual than an unsupported personal opinions. Weiss compares neonate with children, not neonate with infant (as with the study I presented).Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: peer reviewed research is indeed more factual than mere opinion, but "more factual" is an inappropriate test. For the purpose of illustrating controversy, opinions are actually more relevant than facts.  (I fail to see why Weiss is irrelevant, since schoen compares the neonatal period with older ages, but as I noted it is not our place to prove sources right or wrong, so I decline to argue the point further.) Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The study I presented clearly found that 5 months (infant) was smuch afer than neonate. Weiss compares studies of children with studies of neonate.  Schoen opinion is that neonate is better than children.  Wrong and unsupported.Zinbarg (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Schoen explicitly compares neonatal circumcision with those at (unspecified) older ages: "The ideal time for circumcision—the window of opportunity—is when a child is first born. [...] At older ages circumcision is riskier, more complicated, and about 10 times more expensive." Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Schoen does give that personal opinion. Studies show otherwise.  Weiss missed the mark with his study.Zinbarg (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would your opinion regarding the accuracy of Schoen's view be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, re external links, you object to balanced coverage. See WP:NPOV.  (Incidentally, I do not endorse the inclusion of circs.org, which was done by editors other than myself.)
 * You and a few other editors evidently work as a team, so you get all credit. I object to suppressing facts and pushing false statements in the name of "equality."  Most of the websites you find anti circ are simply informational ie not pro or con.  You just want to push false pro info.  Your website has very limited fact, all pro propaganda material, for example.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, it is extremely tiresome to deal with these repeated and absurd accusations regarding my motives. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply point to your actions. Let others judge motivations.Zinbarg (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "You just want to push false pro info" is a direct claim about my motivation. So, for that matter, are: "You have it listed as two publications for pro-circ purposes",  "You just want to push false pro info", and "[you are] fearing presentation of clear facts".  Stop it. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your motivations are your business, I just point it out facts other editors.Zinbarg (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, my motivations are my business, so please stop making claims about them. Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any claims. I've shown actions.  To show more, all that's needed is a short burst of cut and paste from past discussions and votes, confirmed with your edits.Zinbarg (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, this page is for discussing the content of this article, nothing else. Discuss this article's content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You make vague accusations to the effect that I'm deliberately making another article "confusing frequently hogwash" (to quote your curiously nonsensical claim). I'm not going to bother to respond here, because it's completely irrelevant.
 * You block an introduction to Sexual effects, evidently (from your statement) fearing presentation of clear facts!!! Your inclusion of studies that did not find statistically relelvant info should not be presented as relevant.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of which is relevant to this article. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki has a similar problem (intro and biased content) in Sexual effects for the same reason (Jakew).Zinbarg (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to complain about me, do so in an appropriate forum. That is not an appropriate topic for discussion here. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I included problems in Sexual effects here because the POV tag has been improperly removed (by Jakew) from that topic discussion as well.Zinbarg (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Which is irrelevant to this discussion. Jakew (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated a few times by Jakew, this is clearly irrelevant here. |→ Spaully τ 23:10, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Spaully, it's good for perspectice on Jakew. Certainly, the graph is good information for Wiki on a detail level article.  Do you think it should be blocked by Jakew from inclusion in Sexual effects? File:Fine-Touch-Pressure-Thresholds-in-the-Adult-Penis-02.gifZinbarg (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zinbarg, this page is for discussing the content of this article, nothing else. Discuss this article's content, not other editors or other articles. Consider this your second warning. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, although it is clear that you're unhappy, you haven't shown any evidence of NPOV violations here. Jakew (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Zinbarg, tags aren't methods of defacing articles when one has come out on the losing end of a Talk: page discussion. And one certainly cannot slap a WP:NPOV tag on an article because one wishes to violate WP:NPOV, but have been unsuccessful in doing so. The purpose of the NPOV tag is to (ideally) help remove violations of NPOV from articles, not, as you are proposing, to introduce them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I seek to work to make the article neutral. I have shown good faith trying.  The article is currently propaganda, for the very specific reasons cited.  The reader needs to be aware of disagreement among editors on specific issues.  I have presented (and the poll agreed) several problems that I'm willing to work on.  If Jakew and Jayg refuse neutrality, the tag remains.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg I don't think you have made a case for there being significant POV in this article, and there is discussion over any substantive points you have raised. Just hold off for a bit to decide what you think are major problems and post them here. Having the tag in the article benefits neither editors or readers at present. |→ Spaully τ 16:07, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Spaully, do you think the current HIV paragraph belongs in the introduction?Zinbarg (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll find other reasons for the POV tag in the poll statements Talk:Circumcision/Archive 53. The vote came out in favor of the single tag.  Those reasons remain as well.Zinbarg (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice the tags were initially placed by User:ask123 as he thought the article too anti-circumcision, specifically on one sentence. This was resolved and then a poll was held, oddly, and there was no consensus either way with both openly pro- and anti- supporting removal and not.  I will try to read through the above discussion though it is fairly dense, but the original poll holds no sway over this. |→ Spaully τ 22:51, 14 April 2010 (GMT)
 * Zinbarg, your recent edits have, as I feared, moved the article away from WP:NPOV, in direct contradiction of that policy, so I've had to revert them. Do not remove from the lede the date of the AMA statement, nor the information about AIDS, without consensus, particularly as these edits have a deleterious effect on the article. And, as Spaully points out, a 15 month old discussion about tags holds no sway today; as has been stated before, tags are not weapons for permanently defacing articles. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag was maintained by several editors Spaully. Generally, it's been there for specific reasons, like the current introduction bias.  If you want, I'll get you a long list of ongoing (not fixed) complaints from discussion.  Jayg, you are mistaken.Zinbarg (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not mistaken at all, and a discussion 15 months ago regarding tags is not relevant to whether the article should currently be tagged. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right: tags are supposed to be temporary and indicate problems that can actually be fixed, not differences of opinion between editors. The "controversial" template is a talk page template; there is no equivalent for articles as far as I'm aware. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Length of references
This article initially appears pretty lengthy but I notice that is largely due to the huge references section, almost half the page. I see that there are significant quotes from sources including peer reviewed journal articles in the list. I have not seen this to nearly the same extent in other articles and I am concerned that it increases the length while potentially posing problems with misrepresenting the source and infringing on their copyright.

In certain cases, such as reference 16, sections have been edited presumably to show what the author thinks are the salient points. This again raises problems with original research and synthesis.

The job in writing this article is, as far as is possible, to create a neutral summary of the information supported by sources but written as a summary. Using large quotes also brings the possibility of undue weight, especially where parts of the quotes are boldened.

I would suggest that people wanting to follow up on the sources should follow the links and have the opportunity to read the full paper and as such these quotes should be removed from the sources either altogether or used within the text if they are particularly informative. |→ Spaully τ 13:04, 14 April 2010 (GMT)


 * You will find Avi and Jakew responsible for creating the huge reference section. It serves their pro-circ propaganda purposes.  It's another reason for the POV tag.Zinbarg (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss article content, not other editors, or there will be repercussions. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that we can probably get rid of most of the quotations in the references section without causing any problems. Jakew (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All the quotations should be removed from the references section. Do not selectively remove quotes Jakew. Spully, I don't understand your paragraph regarding reference 16; since it has no quote or edit.Zinbarg (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref numbers tend to change as a result of edits to the article, Zinbarg. At the time of Spaully's comment, this appears to have been the current version of the article.  Ref 16 contains a long quote from the RACP. Jakew (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I mildly prefer keeping all the quotes rather than deleting all the quotes, as some of them provide useful information for the reader. However, I suggest deleting the following quotes:  All the dictionary definitions at the beginning (remove ref 1 completely); removing the quote about Coptic and other churches (but keeping the ref); and removing the quotes of medical association policies (but keeping the refs).  Generally the medical association policies are available online at a click anyway, so providing the reader with a long quote isn't much help. The dictionary definitions are more suitable for the talk page, as justification for the wording of the article content, than useful to the reader. I believe page load time is essentially a function of the number of ref tags, not the amount of text, so unless readers print it on paper, long refs do little harm. I don't feel strongly about which quotes are removed, so don't feel you need to wait for me to comment on any proposals; however, I urge editors to discuss fully and reach some sort of consensus before making any such changes; I don't want to see editwarring over the quotes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer leaving it unchanged.Zinbarg (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How about HIV after Schoen?
It wouldn't be as bad if it (Coppertwig's HIV sentence suggestion) was in a sentence after Schoen and Milos. I suggest this also as a way to introduce a currently missing (in the lead, not the body) common concern about circumcision. I'll trade adding a HIV sentence for adding a well sourced sentence about sexual effects.Zinbarg (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.Zinbarg (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem with the HIV sentence is that there's not enough about it. This isn't horse trading, and your constant removals of this sentence is a blatant violations of WP:NPOV, and rather disruptive. So, too, is your constant removal from the lead of the relevant year that the AMA made its statement. Let me be clear about this; the AMA statement is over 11 years old, and doesn't even belong in the lead. It is only there as a concession to activists, not because it actually informs in any way. As for the sexual effects, as the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated in 2007 "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown." There is no point in discussing a topic in the lead about which we effectively know nothing concrete. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid idea. Deleted.Zinbarg (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Zinbarg (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute
Please everyone, follow the rules. NPOV dispute The list of violators grows.Zinbarg (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First, WP:NPOV dispute is an essay, not a policy or guideline, hence it is not strictly accurate to refer to its content as "rules", nor does it make sense to refer to "violators". That said, what part of this essay do you think people are failing to follow? Jakew (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have followed the rules :


 * "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."


 * "To mark a dispute on a page, type POV, which expands into: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."


 * "Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which you see a bias about which there is no discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution."


 * So Jakew, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Follow the rules.Zinbarg (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Zinbarg, it is perfectly proper to require tags to remain when they have been appropriately placed. However, that is not the case when tags have been placed inappropriately.  Note that WP:NPOV dispute quite clearly states that "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."  In this situation, nobody agrees with you that the tag is appropriate.  Your attempts to add it have been reverted by multiple editors.  Tags are not intended to be used as a weapon for situations where one has failed to gain consensus for changes, and it would be quite absurd to suggest that an inappropriate tag should remain more-or-less forever. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jakew you're forgetting the vote on the tags (3 at the time), which concluded leaving the one (POV) tag. The underlying problems still exist.  Several editors more recently are in favor of changes I've listed.  Look at discussion, not at editors reverting who don't participate in discussion, but engage in edit wars.Zinbarg (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As others have pointed out to you previously, Zinbarg, a straw poll conducted more than a year ago, about a different tag, has no relevance to this situation. Jakew (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to take a stab at writing a short HIV sentence for the third (controversy) paragraph?Zinbarg (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss HIV in the third paragraph, since that is about controversial viewpoints expressed by those on either side of the debate. In contrast, the protective effect of circumcision against HIV is well-established and is no longer the subject of serious scholarly dispute.  As Jayjg has already explained to you, it would be improper to place the views of the WHO, UNAIDS, and the CDC alongside advocates of circumcision.  Jakew (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph is about medical pro/con, debate about which generates controversy. The point of the paragraph is not controversy; that's just a silly way of introducing the debate.  Schoen's arguments are all medical.  Adding a HIV sentence fits as another positive medical.  We have differing opinions about the importance of "benefits."  Start out with Schoen states blah blah.  Recently, HIV protection blah blah in the news.  Milos states blah blah.  Keep it short, because all that material is in the body.  Minor benefits and minor harms, so it all seems a waste of valuable space in Wiki's introduction.


 * As you know, the public benefit of circumcision to HIV incidence is quite limited in scope; limited to specific individuals (dating a woman with HIV and not using protection, for example) and youth in just a few African nations []. HIV really doesn't belong in the English version of Wiki's introduction at all, given it's lack of health relevance (unless you speak English and live in So Africa).  UTI benefits are more statistically relevant (still minor) than HIV, but you don't want that in the lead too?Zinbarg (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the third paragraph were truly about medical pros or cons, as you claim, it would need to be substantially rewritten. For example, does it have "important health advantages" or "is it justified by medical myths"?  Does it have "no substantial effects on sexual function" or does it "adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure"?  If the paragraph is understood as illustrating controversy about circumcision, then it makes sense to show these opposing viewpoints.  If, on the other hand, the paragraph is about medical pros and cons, as you claim, then it is atrocious, being self-contradictory and so vague about medical issues that it fails to perform its function.  Fortunately, the first sentence ("There is controversy regarding circumcision") makes it absolutely clear that it is, indeed, about controversy.
 * As I've previously noted, weighting needs to follow that in reliable sources, and sources put much more emphasis on HIV than UTI. It would be a waste of time to debate whether it is relevant to readers, since that is not even the issue.  Jakew (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was proposing that the third paragraph be rewritten. There is disagreement about the extent and nature of circumcisions medical benefits and harms.  Schoen states, WHO/UNAIDS states, Milos states, and AMA states.  Let the sources state their positions, which is not "self-contradictory."


 * You must be talking Google hits ect. Silly measure.  Sources recently emphasize HIV over UTI.  Sources? reliable sources, UTI studies are quite RS reliable.  HIV studies are no more or less reliable.  And both are equally cited by medical assoc.  Medical statistics show UTI benefit stronger than HIV benefit, in that more public benefit (in English speaking countries) is found from reduced UTI's than would be from potential HIV's.  Again, minor benefits and minor harms.Zinbarg (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Zinbarg, you're addressing the wrong issue. It doesn't matter which benefit is "stronger" in certain selected locations.  What matters is how much emphasis recent reliable sources give the issues.  I provided evidence in my earlier post (to which I provided a link above) showing that these sources place more emphasis on HIV, thus we should do likewise. Jakew (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV dispute serves as a guide to the interpretation of WP:NPOV, and it is a good guide, referenced by Wikipedia's New Admin School, for example. Judging from its high prominence, few edits made to it recently, the uncontested suggestion that it be made a guideline, and the lack of major disputes regarding its content and applicability, I suggest that it merely presents a logical application of NPOV policy toward the tagging of articles. In any case, regardless of whether you find WP:NPOV dispute of any worth, the fact is there is no consensus to remove the POV flag here, where clearly there is huge disagreement and lack of consensus among editors as to the neutrality of the article and the continued, seemingly neverending disagreements among editors here as to what constitutes a neutral point of view. Let's not present this article as being accepted as neutral according to a consensus of editors, when clearly it is not. The tag is an annoyance, but it points to a bigger annoyance: the inability of editors here to arrive at consensus on the major issues. Blackworm (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tags have consistently been used on this article as a way of defacing it when editors are unable to POV it, or otherwise make it not comply with policy. Tags are supposed to encourage new editors to provide fresh input; instead we have entrenched WP:SPA editors insisting that the article must carry a Scarlet Letter because it fails to consistently and unashamedly condemn circumcision as a gravely evil mutilation that permanently cripples millions each year and fundamentally violates human rights. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment about content, not editors. Your opinion has neither consensus, nor any basis in fact.  Blackworm (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)