Talk:Circumcision/Archive 78

Use of foreskins cut off by circumcisions
'''Foreskin-based medical and consumer products[edit]

'''Foreskins obtained from circumcision procedures are frequently used by biochemical and micro-anatomical researchers to study the structure and proteins of human skin. In particular, foreskins obtained from newborns have been found to be useful in the manufacturing of more human skin.[55] Human growth factors derived from newborns' foreskins are used to make a commercial anti-wrinkle skin cream, TNS Recovery Complex.[56](subscription required) Foreskins of babies are also used for skin graft tissue,[57][58][59] and for β-interferon-based drugs.[60] Foreskin fibroblasts have been used in biomedical research.[61]''' '''

This section above,currently in the foreskin article really belongs here in the circumcision article, as these uses of foreskins arise from circumcision and not from the simple existence of foreskins. (Also the long section in the foreskin article that at least references the arguments about sexual pleasure for men and women with and without a foreskin attached belongs here too. !)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 07:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tumadoireacht, by my count this is at least the eighth time in less than a year you have advocated for this, previous attempts by you were 12/2012, 12/2012, 02/2013, 02/2013, 02/2013, 06/2013, and most recently 09/2013, just last month. In particular, the importance of quality sourcing and encyclopedic themes was pointed out to you here, and the lack of quality sourcing was explained to you here. Why would things be any different now?  Have you identified new, high-quality sourcing that was not available previously, or no?  Or are you actually simply re-proposing the exact same edit based on the exact same sources?  If you're simply re-proposing the same edit based on the same sources for the eighth time in less than a year, can you please explain how this can be anything other than tendentious editing, a form of disruptive editing?   13:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your use of the passive form of the inferred first person plural is fascinating Zad, as is the zealouusness with which you document oppositions to the particular flavour of article you garden here. But if you are capable of putting down the wikilawyering baton (bludgeon overkill) the simple facts remain that all of this research and medicine and commercial sale and use  of circumcised foreskins still occurs, whether we wikilawyer our way to continuing to exclude it from the article or not.
 * In your comment counts have you kept a similar tally of how many dozen times you have advanced the "oh but it is not a secondary medical source tsk tsk"  for so many editors who have proposed making the article more real ?  As you well know, or ought to, common sense trumps the rules in Wikipedia. Pointing this out is not disruptive editing.  Labelling it as such shows a profound misapprehension of our purpose here. Try to address the issue not the messenger. Are you denying that these activities occur?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 20:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tumadoireacht, all sorts of activities "occur" in the real world that are of absolutely no interest to Wikipedia; the only thing that Wikipedia considers to be relevant to "making [an] article more real" are what reliable secondary sources say on a topic. As I've said to other editors here, rather than starting with one's own personal views of what is important to discuss on a topic, to write a good article one must instead start by reading high-quality secondary sources on the subject (in this case WP:MEDRS-compliant), then summarize what they say, whatever that happens to be. That is the relevant issue here which must be addressed. Continually suggesting identical edits that ignore WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE (supported by appeals to "common sense" and claims of "wikilawyering"), is, in fact, disruptive editing. Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take this response to mean that once again there will be no satisfactory sources forthcoming.  02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Zad :you can't get no satisfaction and the article suffers--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 05:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Jayjig - Of course all sorts of things happen in the real world that have no relevance to particular wikipedia articles. But that fact is a red herring here. You are also  quite mistaken in saying that the only thing WP considers relevant are secondary sources. Please re-read carefully  the reference text that you have cited above. And read  the fundamental references elsewhere to common sense trumping narrow rule interpretation. You are also quite wrong in ascribing a personal view motive in this case ( another oily red fish) I hope that you are not doing these things to avoid attempting to gainsay the reasonable logic of including  in an article about cutting something off the body, the information details about what the cutters do with the cut off  stuff. It is really a no-brainer.  The concerted resistance to including it with due weight (and calling that  resistance  consensus !) is a most interesting development.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A persistent and oft-repeated argument has been made on this talk page that material should be included in the article because it it is a "fact" or "real". It is no "red herring" to point out that being "factual" or "real" is not nearly enough to qualify material for article inclusion. For example, it is a fact that this individual was killed in a car accident last week - and it's also supported by reliable sources. It's also quite important, certainly for the individual and his loved ones, friends and acquaintances. And, without doubt, it is "relevant" to Wikipedia's traffic collision article. That does not mean, however, that the material should be added to the traffic collision article. Reliable secondary sources are the arbiters of what belongs in Wikipedia articles, and in what proportion. Appeals to any other authority, particularly the highly subjective ones being used here (e.g. "common sense", "more real", "reasonable logic", "narrow rule interpretation") will never succeed, because they are not consonant with Wikipedia's purpose and goals. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is truly remarkable Jayjig, that instead of addressing  the points raised you embark on establishing what all accept. Unrelated material is, de facto/by definition/ of course, unrelated - yet you give another lengthy  example of unrelated material for what purpose I cannot see. I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand the point that what happens to foreskins after the cutters cut them off their baby boy children is relevant to an article about cutting off foreskins. Is it possible that you could confine your mind  and response to addressing just  that point ?  Have you read the policy stuff in WP on common sense.  I do not think I have to give an editor of your vast seniority the refs.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tumadoireacht, you may not have read my previous response; I gave an example of related material that didn't belong in an article, not unrelated. Please review my previous comment. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A particular RTA is of course not pertinent to an article on RTAs unless it had some unique pertinent feature. That is,however, no parallel to including information on the disposal and sale of cut off foreskins in the cutting off foreskins article.All foreskins get disposed of in some way BY THE CUTTERS and this article is about what the cutters do. Some cut off foreskins and frenulums are buried after being cut off, some are sold for research or skin grafts or cosmetics. The information is pertinent  and related.
 * The triple objections given by those who have continued to block and revert ANY description or even mention of the disposals or sales of foreskins are-1/it is not real,2/ it is not relevant, or3/ it  is not real or relevant because some journals have not done overview studies on it. Those are patently absurd positions.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I don't know how true it is that what happens to healthy foreskins post-op is not relevant to Wikipedia. The article human penis, under the "Circumcision" section, includes the following:
 * "After hospital circumcision, the foreskin may be used in biomedical research,[14] consumer skin-care products,[15] skin grafts,[16][17][18] or β-interferon-based drugs.[19] In parts of Africa, the foreskin may be dipped in brandy and eaten by the patient, eaten by the circumciser, or fed to animals.[20] According to Jewish law, after a Brit milah, the foreskin should be buried.[21]"
 * I think the first sentence would be interesting to explore in detail, perhaps under the "Economic considerations" section of our article (or maybe it's just fine where it is, I don't know). The fact is that circumcision in the US is mostly non-therapeutic, and therefore presents an interesting and notable exception to all other hospital amputations, which are done in response to disease, trauma, or pain. The majority of body parts amputated in the instance of American circumcision are healthy, so one might very well wonder what happens to them as opposed to various other amputated non-healthy body parts which end up in biohazardous waste. I don't know where exactly this discussion belongs, but it is definitely not irrelevant to Wikipedia. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant to Wikipedia, it's already covered on Wikipedia at Foreskin, because that's what the sourcing provided supports. If you think there's sourcing to support it here, maybe you can locate the needed sourcing?  I have looked for such sourcing several times and didn't find it.  I had no idea that same text was not only already in Foreskin but also Human penis.  It clearly doesn't belong there.  Maybe some day somebody will fix that.  Regarding the rest of your response, once again, no original research please, and per Wikipedia policy, good-quality authoritative reliable secondary sourcing is the only thing we use to determine weight.   13:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Zad, again, I am not doing original research here. I didn't bother sourcing my statements because they're obvious. Circumcision is most often elected for cultural or religious reasons [source: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf], not medical ones. Amputations are most often performed for infection, disease, or injury reasons [source: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/definition-amputation], not religious or cultural ones. I was merely remarking that this is not irrelevant to Wikipedia. I know you've said that the foreskin article needs to be gutted re-written from scratch, but if/when it does, I do think this section should be kept, since the body part in question is a unique case of amputation. I further thought that because I saw this on the human penis article under the circumcision, it might possibly have some relevance. But again, other stuff exists, and I actually have no strong feelings about where this section belongs (I merely think it belongs somewhere), so I'd prefer to focus more on the other topics addressed below :) --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Moshe, we are on the same page here. I agree with you Wikipedia should carry the content.  What we have supports it at Foreskin and if/when I were ever to do significant work on that article I would keep the coverage of it there (although I would look for better sourcing).  Good we agree on this!   15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Zad68, respectfully, are you serious when you state that the selling of foreskins belongs in the foreskin article, and not in the circumcision article? When have you heard of the sale of a foreskin, when circumcision has not taken place? It belongs in circumcision, because it only takes place after circumcision.  It is a function of circumcision, not a property of a foreskin.Tftobin (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could this possibly be an instance of ignoring a discussion, not because it is invalid, but because editors find that it unpalatable? Tftobin (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom, no, I think it's more a case of WP:DEADHORSE, where it's not productive to keep responding to the same assertion raised yet once again after the response was already provided. The sourcing provided so far simply doesn't support it.  Do you have new sourcing you're providing and would like to discuss?  If not...   15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Zad68, you (and I) may find it not to our liking, but use of foreskins from circumcision is here to stay. Countries have been making interferon from it for 20+ years.  There are pieces of skin the size of a football field, used for skin grafting, which were originally foreskin.  A treatment for baldness. http://www.medicaldaily.com/circumcised-foreskin-aids-baldness-cure-scientists-discover-new-path-hair-regeneration-260462
 * This is not going away. Tftobin (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If reliable secondary sources ever discuss this in the context of circumcision, then we'll have something to talk about. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's replies like that which, I note with more than a trace of irony, make me long for the relative open-mindedness of the past editing of Jakew Tftobin (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Any editor, even a recently appointed admin-editor should not attempt to end a discussion by saying "the response was already provided" - rather say that his or a  response was provided, or better still that his opinion was offered.


 * The "dead horse" here is the small coterie of editors who doggedly block inclusion of entirely relevant information like re-use of foreskins from the circumcision article. It is heartening to see other editors agreeing with this assertion of mine.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 09:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The assertions that one would need reliable secondary sources to talk about the cutting edge of research made possible by circumcision, is, of course, absurd. I agree, it seems like a case of, 'I don't want to, and you can't make me'. Not exactly in line with the founding principles, and rather constricting of information.Tftobin (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tumad, Tftobin, if you want to get policy changed, I recommend you start discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly...  21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying the content shouldn't be carried anywhere. The content is currently at Foreskin, which is where the sourcing provided supports it.  (It should probably also be at Skin graft but isn't there right now, feel free to add it.)  Of the four sources cited at Foreskin only two actually mention circumcision, and both of those only briefly in passing.  Adding it here isn't supported by the sourcing provided.  If there were a high-quality reliable source that covered how skin grafts were an important and noteworthy aspect of circumcision, and discussed that connection in sufficient depth so that we could build content based on it, it'd be worth adding a mention here.  Do you have such a source?    21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. This is a power trip by the current ruling editors, plain and simple.
 * I already explained why it isn't a feature of a foreskin. No one processes a foreskin when it is still attached to someone, only when it has been removed in circumcision.  It does not belong in the Foreskin article.  It belongs here.  If the foreskin has been removed in circumcision, it is no longer a medical procedure, it is the aftereffects of a medical procedure.  As such, it does not need a secondary study, since, temporarily, it is no longer a part of a human body. Like it or not, this is a valid aspect of circumcision, because it would not be possible without circumcision.  Truth is lower on the agenda, than control, that much is obvious. You guys have been fantastic.
 * Not inclusive, impartial, fair, or even reasonable, as any of 1000 people can tell you, but fantastic. Good humor, for a future generation. Cheers. Tftobin (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Council of Europe 78/13/15- resolution/condemnation of male infant circumcision ? -is this already referenced in article ?
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/10/04/circoncision-religieuse-israel-condamne-une-resolution-du-conseil-de-l-europe_3490410_3224.html--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A broken link to an article in French is the best you could provide, really? Anyway, this was brought up six weeks ago, and you were involved in that discussion.  Did you forget about that?  Or has the sourcing materially changed?    03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Google News search on search term "Council of Europe circumcision".    ←   ZScarpia  09:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * PACE report, resolution and recommendation on "Children's Right to Physical Integrity". Some context from the Economist. PACE's resolutions are not legally binding but it is generally seen as somewhat influential in the framing of Eurpean human rights law. There's zero chance of an EU ban on ritual circumcision in the short to medium term, of course (it would be politically disastrous). I'm not sure how to evaluate the significance of the resolution, though. It's only two months old and I'd be inclined to let 12 months or so pass before evaluating whether it merits inclusion. On the other hand, there's little doubt that, in a European context at least, the campaign to regard to non-medical circumcision as a human rights violation is gaining momentum and significance. Ultimately, I guess, the question of inclusion rests upon one's analysis of the relevance, representativeness and influence of PACE. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly so... The fact that this is not a resolution passed by the Council of Europe but rather the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), which has no power, was discussed here about six weeks ago, and it looks we're coming to the same conclusion again.  The primary sources provided from PACE of course cannot establish their own context or noteworthiness.  As PACE is only advisory, their resolutions have no force of law, so it's not obvious that anything they produce is necessarily noteworthy-- independent secondary sources are needed to do that.  The Econonmist article does provide some interesting perspective.  I also found this article, and more like it, quoting Thorbjorn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council (the actual Council, not PACE) as saying he wanted to make it "absolutely clear... that in no way does the Council of Europe want to ban the circumcision of boys. It is a very important part of Judaism and of Jewish life" and "we have an obligation to protect it" on behalf of freedom of religion.  So the sources are showing that the familiar clash of rights and freedoms are playing out here.  This is exactly why we have WP:NOTNEWS as policy and WP:RECENTISM as guidance.  As Fiachra points out it's adviseable to wait some time to see whether or not these recent events have any real lasting impact before considering including; Fiachra suggests seeing how things look in 12 months, that sounds reasonable (I was going to suggest six, but the point is the same).   14:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

daily fine for not cutting son's foreskin off
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/israel-court-fines-woman-refusing-circumcise-son

Is this worthy of inclusion in this circumcision article ? - I believe that it is. It is yet another indication that circumcision is cultural and political rather than medical.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 09:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * More detail: +972 - Dimi Reider - Woman fined $140 a day for refusing to circumcise son, 25 November 2013. An interesting aspect is that the rabinnical judges mentioned the debate about whether circumcision should be banned unless medically necessary: They also referred explicitly to the growing debate around ritual male circumcision elsewhere in the world, and voiced their fear of the precedent that could be created by a Jewish Israeli woman allowed not to circumcise her son.      ←   ZScarpia  12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the specific text for the article content change being proposed? Where is the authoritative reliable secondary source demonstrating that this is significant and noteworthy enough for inclusion in this general overview article so that its mention won't create a WP:DUEWEIGHT problem?  Surely if this is significant it will be found in multiple journal article or textbooks, where are those sources to support?   12:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * [ec] Also, a response to attempts to ban circumcision: The Guardian - Tanya Gold - A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic. How could it not be?, 11 October 2013.     ←   ZScarpia  12:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Zad/Zach - you are jumping the gun - we editors are now debating the advisability of including this information in this WP article  and how best to mentionit in the article. A wording will come later. Dozens of mainstream newspapers( which are secondary sources as you know) have carried the story  as it is noteworthy from a human rights perspective and from many other perspectives. As the ruling was just last week it is unlikely to have made it into any textbooks just yet.

Here are some newspapers and news agencies who have covered this landmark case for your perusal and that of other interested editors too. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/and-finally/woman-fined-over-noncircumcision-29793251.html

http://www.timesofisrael.com/woman-fined-nis-500day-for-failing-to-circumcise-son/

http://rt.com/news/israeli-woman-fined-circumcise-346/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.560245

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201311262130-0023216

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513892/Israeli-mother-ordered-pay-fine-140-day-refusing-circumcise-son.html

et cetera et cetera.

Perhaps this case belongs in a new "legal ramifications" section for the article, or a new "forced circumcision " section. What do other editors think ? Anybody care/dare to propose a wording -or care/dare be bold (as we are enjoined to do  by  WP) and go ahead and edit it in ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This story was originally an AP item. ie.com is presenting this as an "And Finally" news-of-the-weird kind of story, and is simply reprinting the original AP item, as is Haaretz and other sources.  The Russian Times article doesn't add any depth.  The Al Jazeera item isn't a reliable source, it's a streaming blog.  The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source.  All this points to so far is a single item in the news, see WP:NOTNEWS.  What hasn't been provided is an authoritative reliable secondary source that puts this news item in context.  This is some sort of religious ruling, so if anything this may be worth a mention at Religious male circumcision.  If sourcing can be provided that shows this has some effect on civil law, it may be worth a mention under the country-by-country entries at Circumcision and law.  There's nothing here to show what lasting impact this may have, if any, on the overall topic and so the WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns aren't covered.  Pieces of these stories point to something that might be developed a bit further in this article regarding anti-circumcision activism, but this one news item isn't the foundation for that.   16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nah, based on the material presented above, I don't see how such a section is needed in the Circumcision article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE cover this. An overview article can't cover every bit of "slow news day" trivia that comes up. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This stupid woman obviously didn't read the Wikipedia article on circumcision, or she'd know that she's robbing her son of virtual immortality. I'm surprised they didn't hang her. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Zad/Zach - perhaps it should not form part of the new section on anti-circumcision activism as you suggest it might- but rather part of a new section on pro-circumcision enforcement and coercion. Must I list every eminent national newspaper worldwide whose editors chose to carry the story to have the reductionist editor group here even consider mentioning this new chapter in the human rights debate on male infant genital cutting and excision -popularly known as circumcision?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A recent religious court ruling under appeal? Too recent and the implications are not yet known. Is this typical for Israeli religious courts; a unique ruling? This particular case should not be added, I would argue. If you want to make a proposal for content change detailing this kind of issue I'd suggest researching the law and circumcision in Israel, the role of the religious courts there, etc, in academic sources. If that kind of material was to be included it should probably go in the law and ethics section; if enough relevant legal material could be found of encyclopedic quality a "Law and circumcision" (or some such entitled) section could be created. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution discussion moved from Tumadoireacht talk page (discussion above has moved on a little since this)
It may be necessary to take our concerns over at the circumcision talk page to Dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't think those arguing with us are willing to budge. Most of the remarks made by supporters of the current state of the article say things along the lines of, "it's fine as it is" or "I agree with Zad". Obviously we won't be making much headway with editors posting nothing but countenance for the existing revision without any arguments regarding our concerns. Let me know your feelings on this. ScienceApe (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with, we should try making use of DRN. Suggest that we do it in small pieces, take one particular edit phrased as "Propose changing article content from X to Y".  Be aware that DRN won't take a case if there isn't evidence of a significant attempt to resolve the issue through discussion on the article Talk page first, but if you think we've discussed it enough there and we're stuck, we can try DRN.  Sure would love to get closure one way or another on several of these perennial discussion points so we can move on to editing other things.    15:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we are stuck. We've already presented the case, but no progress is being made. ScienceApe (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK can you clarify: from the looks of it there were three suggestions being discussed, 1) Remove all the content from the lead regarding medical effects (HIV, HPVs, complications, etc.); 2) Copyedit to tighten the wording on that; 3) Specify what is meant in the lead by "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." (what you've been describing as having a "weasel word" problem).  Which one was the one you'd like to pursue at DRN first?   17:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not really appropriate to this page. With ScienceApe's permission I would like to move it to the talk page of the article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

--DID MOVE
 * Yes that's all correct, the issues can be presented in the order you listed them here. ScienceApe (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The circumcision article, as it stands, has to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. While it may seem neutral to some, it actually reflects the pro-circumcision culture of its editors.

The requirements that medical articles references be no more than five years old and be secondary sources eliminates many fine articles. It seems to be that the solution might be to have two articles - a pro-circumcision article and a pro-genital integrity article.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles need to reflect the best-quality reliable sourcing available. If the sources don't say what you like, your issue is with the sources, it shouldn't be with the editors. This topic area is well-studied and receives regular updates in the medical literature, there is no reason to use old sources and primary sources that would be in line with Wikipedia's purpose or content policies. You're welcome to pursue changing the content guidelines at WT:MEDRS, be sure to notify WP:MEDICINE. As for the suggestion of two competing articles, that's not allowed, see WP:POVFORK.   20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite its many faults this article in its present state received a  Wikipedia commendation ("Good") some months ago when one editor applied for this commendation. My main beef is that i would like to see the article mention and reference the aspects so far missing from it - like forced(adult) circumcisions, tribaL practices, and commercial  sale and re-use  of cut off foreskins from circumcision alongside the current  heavy emphasis on medical aspects and medical sources. The WP guidelines on secondary sources and use of  old articles make sense in general but are ONLY THAT -that is GUIDELINES and a case could be made that cutting of foreskins is for many reasons  different from other " medical" behaviours or acts --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, the beef you need to have is over whether the article represents what's found in the best-quality reliable sources in proportion to the emphasis expressed in them. That is the only beef that matters.  Bring sources; content will follow.    03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Applying that worthy principle excessively (at the expense of including the obvious aspects I have just listed in commonsense and other exclusions) is what has led the article to its current poor state. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tumad, it appears that you are equating "obvious aspects" with "anything that is anti-circumcision" and "poor state" with "doesn't focus on the things that are important to me". Wikipedia articles cannot reflect the preferences of individual editors, particularly editors who view the subject with a specific and quite narrow agenda/focus. Wikipedia articles have to reflect what is important to reliable secondary sources. This article does exactly that; that is one of the reasons it clearly deserves its "Good Article" designation. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The opposite could also said to be true. It appears that anything published in the last couple of years that is pro circumcision is considered to be the general concensus of the scientific community. The HIV trials are a case in point. Most scientists would question the results, question the efficacy, the selection process, the duration, and the overall significance of the studies. Nobody can question the fact that the highest rates of HIV infection in the Western world occur in a country with a high incidence of circumcision, so even if the results are representative, this can only be seen as relevant to a small population in sub-saharan Africa and does not warrant detailed inclusion (with a higher billing than even the figures for global circumcision numbers!). If it warrants inclusion anywhere in the article, then studies which more closely match world HIV to circumcision ratios should also warrant inclusion. Undue prominence is rife within the article, and it should be recognised that there is a world of difference between "does not reccomend" or "does not justify" and "does not agree with". 109.150.200.145 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason why the opposite isn't true is because the editors of this article are basing its content solely on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS - recent, reliable, secondary sources. If there is any "pro-circumcision" bias in the article (and there's no evidence of this), it would simply be a reflection of what the best sources on the topic say. On the other hand, those objecting to this article's contents (who, oddly enough, mostly appear to edit almost exclusively on this topic, and exclusively from an anti-circumcision position), base their objections on personal opinion, feelings, and various other entirely subjective measures. They have been consistently challenged to find reliable MEDRS-compliant secondary sources that present some other view, and have consistently failed to do so. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Plot Spoiler - there are several dangers in attempting to characterize the motivations of other editors as you have just done -

1/ you may be in contravention of guidelines

2/ you may damage your own line of argument by reductionist contempt for the arguments made by other editors or what articles or subjects they choose to work on.

3/you invite such consideration of your own edit history.

On this latter point Plot Spoiler - your editing history interest in Pogroms, Arab Nuclear Power and the Middle East might lead an editor ( your own line of thought/attack) to form conclusions about  links between you,fellow travellers, and a blanket pro circumcision stance. I largely try to avoid drawing  conclusions even when observing patterns of individual editing or patterns of groups of editors who each pile into article talk pages  to defend each others gate keeping of article content. Lets try instead to answer the points raised by each other instead. Forced circumcisions of non compliant adults(sometimes resulting in death), sale (or ritual disposal) of cut off foreskins (which are procured only through circumcision), and deaths or lifelong compromised health of children from oral genital contact with agents of a  genital cutting religion in NYC are lacking any mention in the article, and  yet a questionable  halted study about adult circumcision and HIV in a region of one african country features in the lead of the article.

No one is denying that all four of these things happen. To quote Editor/Admin Zad/Zach "The presence of something in an article is a message to the reader that it is somehow connected and relevant." These deaths and activities ARE connected strongly to the practice of circumcision and relevant to consideration of it.

What we need to decide is how best to mention them in the article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Plot Spoiler - Firstly, I notice that you choose to ignore the specific points I raise. Secondly, has it occurred to you that the number of people who feel compelled to begin their Wikipedia contributions on this article might be an indication of it's quality rather than any inherent bias on their part? But, regardless of each other's opinions, you are correct, evidence must win the day. So, here is some reading. I can provide many more if required, but this is already becoming a bit like smashing my head against a wall. I appreciate that much of this cannot be used directly as per Wiki rules, but I am merely trying to convey that this debate is FAR from over within the scientific community worldwide, and the inclusion of one analysis (which appears to accept blindly the results of a small selection of studies) gives undue prominence to pro-circumcision data. Especially as it has been deemed more important than overall rates for worldwide circumcision.
 * - Scarification and Male Circumcision Associated with HIV Infection in Mozambican Children and Youth
 * - Male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection in South Africa: results of a national survey in 2002
 * - Rolling out male circumcision as a mass HIV/AIDS intervention seems neither justified nor practicable.
 * On a personal note, I would like to point out that I am not "anti circumcision" as has been implied, in the same sense that I am not anti amputation of any kind when it is appropriate. This does strike me as a procedure that is desperately in search of a treatable condition however. If it is PROVED to be medically beneficial, then perhaps it should be encouraged. However, performance of the procedure for any other reason (i.e. the vast majority of circumcisions) can hardly be considered to be anything other than decorative or cultural, and I fail to see how WP:MEDRS can be so broadly applied. I notice WP:MEDRS barely gets a mention in the Body Piercing article. 86.136.214.7 (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite previously stated views (implied and explicit), I must concur with Plot Spoiler here. There are some editors, such as Tuma, myself, and others, that have been editing for years and have other edit interests, but a lot of the anti-circumcision suggestions are coming from exclusively-focused people who don't understand and/or don't care about Wiki content guides. Admittedly, I myself was not so clear on WP:MEDRS when I came to this page, but I attempted to learn the guidelines rather than fight them. The fact that no one "anti" is able to back up their claims with sources that fulfill WP:MEDRS is telling.
 * I am also of the opinion that (most of the) perceived pro-circumcision bias in the article is, as Plot Spoiler stated, merely a "reflection of what the best sources on the topic say" rather than specific editor malice...although looking through Archives of the Talk pages, I see that there was definitely some editor bias in the past. I do think that there are presently a couple of issues with non-inclusion of medical images, as noted in previous discussions, and with the antiquity of the lead photo.
 * This being said, allow me to make an observation. Plot Spoiler states that "the editors of this article are basing its content solely on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS". I don't know if this should entirely be true. Yes, it is a medical procedure, so yes I agree that the majority of the article should be formatted via WP:MEDMOS and all medical sources should fulfill WP:MEDRS. However, it stands to reason that circumcision is vastly different from other medical procedures in that it: (a) is mostly non-therapeutic; (b) is mostly elective on non-consenting patients; (c) is very culturally-specific; (d) has massive legal and human rights aspects. It is illegal in Sweden and South Africa on minors, with religious and medical exception (but see (a)). It is coming under fire from Scandinavia. It was recently addressed as a human rights abuse by the Council of Europe.
 * The last couple of points are important; this article was upgraded to "Good" in February, but the Council of Europe statement, as well as the Nordic children's ombudspersons meeting was a couple of months ago. Worldview on this procedure is changing.
 * The fact as it stands is that circumcision is not just a simple medical procedure. No other medical procedure fulfills (a), (b), (c), and (d). What medical procedure would be criticized by Western governments? As such, I don't know if the article can be purely WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS - I think it could be majority WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, but having the "Society and culture" section treated the same way (quote-on-quote "less important") as it is treated in other Wiki medical articles would be undermining the uniqueness surrounding the procedure of circumcision. Of course, all new sources should be high-quality, mostly secondary and up-to-date.
 * This will obviously be very hard to do without bias on either side, and may not even be feasible. I'm not sure what the solution is, I'm just throwing ideas out there :) Basically, what I'm saying is that because this article differs from every single other medical procedure out there, it can't follow simple WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS protocol. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 18:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Moshe, I largely agree with your comments, but I am pretty sure Plot Spoiler's comments were directed toward the biomedical content, which is what was being discussed previously. I'd like to point out that this article already deviates from most every other WP:MEDICINE-scope article due to its very heavy emphasis on society and culture items, which are not bound by WP:MEDRS sourcing.  I don't know of any other article WP:MEDICINE-scope article that devotes more than half of its content to non-biomedical content, so I think that's already addressed.   23:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Zad68 and Moshe - this article does need non-medical information too, but it already has that, more than half of the article! Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The real problem is the rigid application of rules and the lack of any common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means

The United States of America has a culture of circumcision. The medical articles published in the United States reflect that culture rather than medical science and tend to be biased in favor of circumcision. Articles published in non-US journals have a different tone.

Circumcised medical editors also tend to be biased in favor of circumcision and cannot even recognize their personal bias. It is extremely difficult to write about circumcision objectively because of the interplay of psychological, social, and sexual factors.

http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm#

The position statement by the AAP is designed to get more money into the pockets of doctors - pure and simple. Using that statement blindly is not good editing. It has been ripped apart by others but it still being blindly used as a supreme authority here.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-12_Svoboda-VanHowe.pdf

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-18_Frisch%20et%20al.pdf

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/

There is abundant evidence in medical journals that male circumcision adversely affects male and female sexuality however the circumcision article provides the opposite information, based on a circumcision promotional article published by a group of doctors (the AAP) who pocket money from doing circumcision. There are 72 articles indexed on this page, the vast majority of which indicate sexual problems from circumcision but the Wikipedia article indicates the opposite.

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Obviously, something is wrong.

Wikipedia is published in many languages and so there are circumcision articles in several languages. They have an entirely different tone. There is something wrong with the English language article. For example, this passage from the Spanish Wikipedia has information that is excluded from the English version:

Posiciones de las organizaciones de salud sobre la circuncisión[editar · editar código]

"La Sociedad Sueca de Pediatría,16 la British Association of Paediatric Urologists17 la Sociedad Suiza de Cirugía Pediátrica18 y la Sociedad Alemana de Cirugía Pediátrica19 protestaron contra la circuncisión no terapéutica de los niños, destacando la ausencia de beneficios médicos, los riesgos de complicaciones y problemas relacionados con la ética y la integridad personal."

There aren't enough secondary sources in the medical literature that have been published in the last five years, so it is necessary to use older sources that are still valid and some primary sources. But that is not being done and the circumcision article stinks. I reiterate my statement that this is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sugarcube73, what is common sense to me is that we should not be looking to tiny, anonymous- or limited-disclosure, self-published fringe advocacy websites like "cirp.org", "circumcision.org" and "doctorsopposingcircumcision.org" and bringing them to Wikipedia as if they would be appropriate resources to find authoritative, well-recognized sources. Why wasn't that common sense to you?  Regarding your statement "There aren't enough secondary sources in the medical literature that have been published in the last five years" -- untrue, there have been LOTS and LOTS of secondary sources published in a timeframe compliant with WP:MEDDATE; they're used in the article.  Are you meaning to say that there aren't enough secondary sources that meet with your viewpoint?  That's probably true, but the solution isn't to break Wikipedia's sourcing rules to include fringe, poorly-sourced and/or outdated content just because you personally would like to see it in the article.  This isn't Intactipedia, if you'd like to edit Wikipedia you have to be willing to work within its content rules.  Regarding your statement "Circumcised medical editors also tend to be biased " -- you appear to be stating that you believe edits made by Wikipedia editors should be treated in different ways based on circumcision status.  How would you like to pursue that?    23:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Zad but that is rubbish. If what is provided is a valid document from a peer reviewed source, then it deserves consideration. Wether or not a link exists on a site advocating non-circumcision in infants is irrelevant, and the fact that you would immediately discount it speaks volumes. I would also remind you that it is the AAP that holds the "fringe advocacy" standpoint on this from a worldwide perspective. A self appointed group of individuals who likely stand to gain financially from increased take up of circumcision. They have attracted a great deal of negative response from the worldwide medical community for exactly the type of bias you are complaining about here. Just because a source is newer, it does NOT mean the science performed is of a higher quality. 86.168.64.195 (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was referring to was Sugarcube's "There are 72 articles indexed on this page, the vast majority of which indicate sexual problems from circumcision but the Wikipedia article indicates the opposite" I don't care if it's an anti- or pro-site, the principle is the same, I would have responded the same if Sugarcube pointed to a pro- website.  If the sources are available and worthwhile they will be found in a search at the normal biomedical article databases.  The volumes I speak here are that it's at best pointless and more likely actively counterproductive to go hunting around activist websites (anti or pro, doesn't matter) for sources for articles, doing so will only waste editors' time. As a side note, linking to an illegal copyright-violating copy of a source anywhere, whether at an activist website like cirp.org or not, is not allowed, see Citing_sources.  All such links to cirp.org and all other sites need to come out of all articles.   03:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I am actually beginning to think that there is indeed a bias on the part of Zad and other contributors that support him. He's being obstinate in regards to changes I have proposed that are from the source that is already cited in the article. The citation points out clear problems with the conclusion it reached in regards to sexual sensitivity as a result of circumcision, but Zad is unwilling to mention those problems in the lead. This is not acceptable, to leave out the problems of a conclusion a study has reached spins a preconceived bias. ScienceApe (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time having a productive conversation with you about this when your statements are inconsistent between themselves and (more importantly) are not consistent with Wikipedia content rules. The source you keep referencing, the AAP Technical Report, is just one of four sources cited.  Also it is a secondary source and not a primary source.  We use secondary sources for their conclusions.  It's not totally clear but you appear to characterize the AAP Technical Report as a "study" which is incorrect.  In the Intro is excessive section you appear to want to remove primary source detail from the lead, and here you want to add primary source detail to the lead.  As a result I do not find your suggestions actionable as improvements.   16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said a thing about removing primary source detail so that's a strawman. Whatever else the page cites in the body has nothing to do with that specific statement in the lead which I have a problem with. This is the citation in question, here.. This is a primary source, "...the AAP formed a Task Force charged with reviewing current evidence on male circumcision and updating the policy on this procedure to provide guidance to AAP membership regarding the circumcision of newborn males.", it conducted the study, hence it's a primary source. No, I'm getting the feeling that you want to cherry pick what you want to include and exclude. That's a clear indication of bias, and if you are, you should recuse yourself from this discussion because it's not helping the article. ScienceApe (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Reading through the foregoing I find lots of accusations of bias but little in the way of concrete proposals to improve the article content. is there a discussion on this page about the changes that you have proposed and can you post the source you refer to above, the proposed content you wish to add and where you wish to place it? Are there other specific content proposals that I've missed in this section of the talk page? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion right above the section titled, "Reason 1,316 why Wikipedia sucks". ScienceApe (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Finding stuff on the talk page is pretty labourious. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Intro is excessive
"A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.[10] The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[11][12] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[11] Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV-2 infections by 28%,[13] and is associated with reduced oncogenic HPV prevalence[14] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer,[5] but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions.[2][15] Studies of its protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections have been inconclusive. A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications.[16] Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[16][17]

This entire paragraph should be excised. There's really no reason for it to be in the intro as it adds too much information to the intro which should just be an overview of the various positions that different entities take on circumcision.

"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function."

This line is also using weasel words, and is highly subjective, citation or not. ScienceApe (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing the whole thing wouldn't be an improvement, in fact it would create a WP:LEAD problem--the lead needs to summarize the most important points and per the sources those are some of the most important points. A review of the sourcing will show you that.  Not to say the wording couldn't be tightened up without losing the important information.  For the second suggestion, take a look at what the sources cited say and you'll see the article represents what they say accurately.    03:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Zad on this; the lead is well-rounded, per WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever disagreed with Zad or failed to concur ? Having such detail about a dodgy bit of research  in one corner of the world which was halted on ethical grounds in the lead section  smacks of desperate promotion of circumcision.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 09:34, 22 November 2013‎ (UTC)
 * The material satisfies the requirements of WP:LEAD, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDMOS. If you disagree with these guidelines, please start discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You missed my point, saying "sexual function" is a weasel word. What does that mean? Getting an erection? Ability to ejaculate? Pleasure from sex? It's not specific, it's weaseling and can be misconstrued. See WEASELScienceApe (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point would seem to be off base, as the sources use the term "sexual function". We reflect what the sources say, and, of course, external sources are not bound by wikipeida guidelines like WP:WEASEL. You apparently have a problem that the sources are using that terminology; I would suggest taking that up with the authors of the articles cited. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're using the citation as an excuse to use weasel words in the article, that's not a get out of jail free card. The fact is, the terms are nebulous, and misleading, it's deleterious to the overall clarity of the article, and that takes precedence. Either clarify what that statement means, or remove it. ScienceApe (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the wording, as is, nor do I find it weasel-like. That multiple high quality sources seem to find that terminology clear enough to use is just icing on the cake. Yobol (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Giving your opinion is not an argument. "Sexual function" can apply to numerous scenarios as I have pointed out. Which one of those scenarios does it apply to? All of them? Some? None? It doesn't make it clear, a reader could read that and believe that the statement refers to sexual pleasure when the statement really referred to whether or not a man can achieve an erection. Or vice versa. Personally I can't even tell what the statement really means, hence it's subjective. It will mean a different things to different users, and each person will have their own interpretation on what that statement means. Needless to say, this is unacceptable to a wikipedia article. ScienceApe (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is indeed way too long and too detailed for the intro, it looks out of place.82.113.121.160 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The current lead appears to be compliance with WP:LEAD as a summary of the article. Those calling it to be removed really need to read WP:LEAD. Yobol (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your contribution is not helpful. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not a medical professional and is looking for info on circumcision. That paragraph is bound to make their eyes glaze over! Chances are, most readers will drop out at that point already. Don't you want to see an article that is as reader-friendly as possible?82.113.121.160 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Plot Spoiler has offered his opinion that the first paragraph is compliant with the guidelines on lead paragraphs and with two different medical guidelines.


 * But Circumcision is a cultural act.


 * So the latter two may not apply.
 * And I believe he is mistaken in the first- the heavy emphasis given in the lead to results from a questioned and ethically halted piece of research in  a region of the republic of  South Africa on attempting to use circumcision to cut down on HIV transmission is misplaced.


 * It appears to be the same coterie of editors who promote and defend this prominence who refuse, for example, to countenance any mention at all at all anywhere in the article  of forced adult  circumcisions on the same continent or indeed those inflicted elsewhere.


 * Would it be helpful if editors involved ongoing in this article declared any intactivist or  unintactivist, religious, or other similar mindset or stance,  or pro or con  circumcision cultural backround  ? One editor asked me whether i had ever been "frum" -I found out that this means religiously observant  in one of the cutting religions - what was interesting about that question was the presumption that :I belonged to one of those religions by virtue of taking an interest in this  MC variation of genital cutting and excision --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you weren't an editor of long standing, Tuma, your polemics would have gotten you banned long ago. Still, you should reflect on your behavior here.82.113.121.160 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand the point you are attempting to make this time 8211. Please elucidate. JUst because an editor is around a while is no reason to excuse poor behaviour. But polemics applied to improving the article is what we do here on the article talk pages and is to be commended not chastised !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You, Tuma, are the epitome of what I'm talking about below. A single-minded individual with nothing on your mind but points scoring and sticking it to the "opposition". Never mind, I wash my hands of you and the other fuckers on here.82.113.121.160 (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope that I do not appear to be obsessive generally  but rather simply  intent on improving the article. If the article or editing causes such a strong response perhaps taking a break is no harm.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, lead is excessive. Per WP:LEAD, it should be clear, accessible, and concise. The paragraph in question is especially bad--way too much detail from or about individual sources. Calls of you really should read up on WP:LEAD or if you don't like it, take it up on the WP:LEAD talk page seem disingenuous to me.--Taylornate (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

well said Mr T.-I find, Taylornat, that editors who merrily provide policy references at the drop of a hat  instead of directly addressing article improvement suggestions have often only the scantiest notion of the wording and intent of those policies. Citing policy titles is a poor substitute for collaborative work on making this sorry article better. Your choice of actually referring to the wording of the section of the policy is more useful.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Four paragraphs. Do not see an issue. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to see you again Doc - with  a customary brevity and orthodoxy but if you review the entries above the issues raised are about more obvious AND more subtle points than the mere number of paragraphs. Emphasis and so on.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't know if lead length itself is excessive, but do think 2009 Cochrane is out of place in the lead. Perhaps keep the sentence about the WHO's recommendation per HIV in Africa, but the 2009 Cochrane should be moved down further in the article. "The lead needs to summarize the most important points"; the WHO's recommendation is important since it is a summary, but the 2009 study is too specific to go in the lead. Agree with Taylornate re:"too much detail from or about individual sources". --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 18:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this direction to copyedit and simplify the paragraph. That paragraph could be tightened up and specific mention of the HIV primary studies should come out of the lead, while maintaining the overall findings.  Let's propose new wording and hammer out a consensus version.   19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like you to remark on the "sexual function" bit and the problems I've identified with that statement. You need to clarify what that statement means and be specific as to what it's trying to say, otherwise it has to go. ScienceApe (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not an appropriate perspective. The article currently reflects the wording found in the sources accurately.  I and others have pointed this out, and you can check it for yourself.  If you would like this article's wording changed or made more specific, you need to propose new wording and we'll discuss it, checking whether the new wording you propose better reflects the sources.  If we can't come to consensus that the new wording you're proposing is an improvement, you can try opening a DRN discussion about it.  As you are the one asking for changes, it's up to you to do this.   04:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually yes it is, I actually already looked at the original source which this article btw fails to link to even though it's on the internet. The source does clarify what it meant by "sexual function" because that by itself is weaseling. The article states the following:

''"The literature review does not support the belief that male circumcision adversely affects penile sexual function or sensitivity, or sexual satisfaction, regardless of how these factors are defined.

''Sexual Satisfaction and Sensitivity Literature since 1995 includes 2 good-quality randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of adult circumcision on sexual satisfaction and sensitivity in Uganda and Kenya, respectively.126,127 Among 5000 Ugandan participants, circumcised men reported significantly less pain on intercourse than uncircumcised men.126 At 2 years’ postcircumcision, sexual satisfaction had increased significantly from baseline measures in the control group (from 98% at baseline to 99.9%); satisfaction levels remained stable among the circumcised men (98.5% at baseline, 98.4% 2 years after the procedure). This study included no measures of time to ejaculation or sensory changes on the penis. In the Kenyan study (which had a nearly identical design and similar results), 64% of circumcised men reported much greater penile sensitivity postcircumcision.127 At the 2-year follow-up, 55% of circumcised men reported having an easier time reaching orgasm than they had precircumcision, although the findings did not reach statistical significance. The studies’ limitation is that the outcomes of interest were subjective, self-reported measures rather than objective measures.''

''Other studies in the area of function, sensation, and satisfaction have been less rigorous in design, and they fail to provide evidence that the circumcised penis has decreased sensitivity compared with the uncircumcised penis. There is both good and fair evidence that no statistically significant differences exist between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual sensation and satisfaction.128–131 Sensation end points in these studies included subjective touch and pain sensation, response to the International Index of Erectile Function, the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory, pudendal nerve evoked potentials, and Intravaginal Ejaculatory Latency Times (IELTs).''

There is fair evidence that men circumcised as adults demonstrate a higher threshold for light touch sensitivity with a static monofilament compared with uncircumcised men; these findings failed to attain statistical significance for most locations on the penis, however, and it is unclear that sensitivity to static monofilament (as opposed to dynamic stimulus) has any relevance to sexual satisfaction.132 There is fair evidence from a cross-sectional study of Korean men of decreased masturbatory pleasure after adult circumcision.133

Sexual Function There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men.131,134–136 There is fair evidence that no significant difference exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual function, as assessed by using the IELT.129

'''Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.'''

So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. I suggest there be a separate section on this. ScienceApe (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ScienceApe, you appear to be focusing only on the AAP Techical Report here, which is just one of the four sources cited. (As a side note, I'm not sure why you say this article doesn't link to it, as it certainly does link directly to the full report text, click on the words "Technical Report" in the citation.)  You copied-and-pasted a lot of the AAP's discussion detailing the primary sources they reviewed in performing their synthesis of the source data to come to their conclusions.  This is what we use secondary sources for:  their conclusions drawn from the primary sources.  In this case, the detail you copied-and-pasted backs up their conclusions, which they (like the other sources we cite) are careful to qualify.  If, after reviewing all the available evidence, they didn't feel like they needed to qualify their conclusions by the timing of the IELT studies, we can't misrepresent the conclusions drawn by this secondary source by putting in a qualifier they apparently didn't think was necessary.
 * For the wording itself, the article uses pretty much the same phrasing the sources use. The sources cited say:
 * AAP Tech Report 2012 - - "Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction."
 * Sadeghi-Nejad 2010 - - "most recent articles do not show evidence of adverse effects on sexual function"
 * Doyle 2010 - - "Adult male circumcision does not seem to have an adverse impact on sexual function."
 * Perera 2010 -  - "The evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function."
 * The article says in the lead:
 * Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.
 * and provides further detail in the body:
 * Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.
 * It's hard to see how this could be considered "weasel wording", at least not in Wikipedia's sense of WP:WEASEL. Still, if you're interested in seeing this part of the article expanded, you should propose specific new wording.   04:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm focusing on the AAP Technical Report because that was the only thing cited for the particular sentence in question. Whatever it says in the body is irrelevant, I'm talking about the lead. Replace, "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." with, "Self reporting conducted in the AAP Technical Report reported that circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction however studies of sexual function at 12 weeks post-op may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Ages, coexisting medical conditions and the non-objective nature of self-report may also impact the validity of the study." ScienceApe (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question is actually cited to four sources, not just the AAP. If you'll look above in this thread I specify all four sources, provide the wording they use, and show how the article wording is an accurate summary of the secondary sources.  Please review that, I believe that solves the issues.   02:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not listening to me, you're obfuscating the issue. I am only talking about the lead, not the body. The contentious statement in the lead is this, "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[18]", as you can see it has only one citation in regards to that statement, so I'm dealing with the citation it made. Anything else in the body is irrelevant so don't bring it up with me. The wording it uses is unacceptable and whatever else it states in the body does not absolve this problem. Please change it to what I suggested. ScienceApe (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time having a productive conversation with you about this when your statements do not sync up with what is actually in the article, or Wikipedia content policy and guideline. The reference provided in the lead is the same as the reference provided in the body.  In each location, the reference points to four sources, not just one.  The reference is a WP:CITEBUNDLE to avoid WP:CITECLUTTER.  You cannot ignore what's in the body when discussing the lead.  By definition per WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of what's in the body.  If you have an issue with what's in the lead you must talk about what's in the body.   16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And I'm having a hard time with you. After reviewing what you have said, indeed you are correct that there are other citations cited in the citebundle. So what? How does that invalidate my arguments? Do you accept the fact that this citation points out clear problems that it found with the study's findings? ScienceApe (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If I may jump in - the sources in the WP:CITEBUNDLE (eg Doyle et al. and Perera) seems to indicate that circumcision does "not have an impact on sexual function" solely for adult circumcision. (Perera even concludes with "Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision"). RCTs in the Pediatrics report - whether we agree with the methodology or not - are similarly discussing adults. As a large majority of circumcision is done on infants, the word "adult" should definitely be added to statement in the article, as this clarification would not be inferred otherwise. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 20:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The citation for the sentence in the lead and the body of the text concerning sexual function is Footnote 18. This footnote details that the AAP Technical Report "addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision". It also clearly indicates that the findings of the other three sources are applicable only to adult males. I haven't looked at the Technical Report since March of this year or thereabouts. Is the summary of its findings contained in the footnote contested here? Or is it deemed insufficient, by some, as a source to support the current statements about sexual function without an age qualification? FiachraByrne (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, my personal preference would be to retain the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead in its current position but then to follow that with most or all of the text from the fourth paragraph. I would also remove much of the unnecessary detail from the third paragraph which I agree is somewhat excessive here. There is, I think, an overabundance of technical medical terms and abbreviations which - although mostly hyperlinked (barring UTI) - detracts from the readability of the piece. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it would be fine. Can you post what the lead would look like with those alterations here? ScienceApe (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, do I have to? Here goes anyway:


 * Seeing it in the cold light of day, I'm not sure how vociferously I'd argue for this version but, since you asked, here it is. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks better in some ways, I think the organization of the paragraphs is better. My main issue is still with the last paragraph. Most of the changes you made seem to be an improvement except the first line doesn't seem to be an improvement. The last line I have an issue with for the aforementioned reasons. Personally I don't think that paragraph belongs in the lead at all, but your revision seems to be a step in the right direction. ScienceApe (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't argue for this change vociferously either. Per the emphasis found in the sourcing I think it's a problem to lower the emphasis the lead gives to the medical aspects by moving it down.  And while I agree with removing the individual study detail regarding HIV, stating "There is evidence that circumcision significantly reduces the risk..." understates the current scientific consensus, which treats the findings regarding this effect as far more conclusive than simply "there is evidence".   13:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with my attempt to summarise Cochrane etc. I normally avoid editing purely medical content as I think others are more competent at writing that type of content. I would argue that it makes sense, after briefly, defining circumcision, to include some information on prevalence and the antiquity of the procedure. The argument for this would not rest on considerations of weight but on the coherent presentation of the topic. The inclusion of the detailed surgical information on circumcision, which I would argue is appropriate, cannot rest upon weight either (see WoS results below). However, most of these issues are pretty minor - the history and prevalence of the procedure is contained in the lead after all. The article is of good quality. There are a lot of other articles of equal or greater import that would benefit from editor attention. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall, I agree that, due to a variety of conditions, experienced volunteer editor-hours are better spent elsewhere. An intro section wouldn't be out of place, but as you point out, the lead is pretty much doing that for us.  I think the actionable items we've picked up here are:  to remove the "A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies..." verbiage and instead simply state the results, as per WP:MEDREV and WP:MEDSCI.  Nowhere else in this article do we bring to the reader's attention that the article is sourcing its content from a Cochrane secondary source or other particular "brand-name" secondary source, even in the place we use Cochrane to support content regarding UTIs.  And:  to update based on the Journal of Medical Ethics articles, I'll get those articles.   14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the medical aspects of circumcision are more important than the religious aspects? I don't think that's true, I think the religious aspects are far more important than the medical aspects. The medical aspects are discussed in the first three paragraphs, while the 3rd is entirely devoted to the medical aspects. This is a WEIGHT violation. ScienceApe (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you've started a new section below Religious importance to discuss this point, so I'll reply there.  01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reason 1,316 why Wikipedia sucks
Here is what the WP:LEAD that a number of editors have referred to says: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

I have highlighted the word "challenge"; it appears four times in that paragraph!

This is of course insane. If Wikipedia were an encyclopedia, which it is not, references would be given as appropriate, but not at the cost of making a text a horrid, unreadable mess. And that's what the paragraph in its current position is, though it would not be out of place much further down in the body of the text.

Instead, the "policy" betrays the true nature of Wikipedia as a Massive Multiple Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG). They are crawling all over Wikipedia, bands of fighters and lone wolves, all bent on planting their flag on top of the hill and blowing away the opposition. Wikipedia's policies are the rule book that tells the players what to do and not to do, on pain of being expelled from the game.

All in the service of enriching Jimbo Wales, with his $50k speaking fees, and serving as a shining example of turning what used to be paid jobs into free labor, which is why the corporations are so eager to pony up the $50k to hear Jimbo speak: he tells them how it's done.

Fuck Wikipedia, and fuck every shiny happy little Wikipedian.82.113.121.160 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 8211, while you have made some cogent points above, you detract from them and from the purpose of this page by some other material. Would you consider withdrawing this material?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Religious importance
I'm not entirely sure why the article is organized the way that it is currently. The article seems to be denigrating the importance of the religious aspects of circumcision when circumcision has been practiced throughout history primarily for religious purposes, not medical purposes. But yet the History and Society and Culture sections are down at the bottom of the page. The article seems to be pushing a POV about the medical aspects throughout, giving it undue weight. WEIGHT ScienceApe (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The strongest justification for this is that the preponderance of scholarly sources on circumcision are medical. If you search a database like Web of Science for the topic "Male Circumcision" for the years 1945-2013 it returns 1,325 articles and reviews (1,144 and 181 respectively). According to Web of Science's system of article categorisation, the topic-area count for these publications breaks down as follows:
 * Infectious Diseases (344)
 * Immunology (248)
 * Public Environmental Occupational Health (225)
 * Urology Nephrology (139)
 * Medicine General Internal (134)
 * Pediatrics (104)
 * Social Sciences Biomedical (104)
 * Virology (96)
 * Multidisciplinary Sciences (69)
 * Health Policy Services (53)
 * Microbiology (43)
 * Obstetrics Gynecology (39)
 * Medicine Research Experimental (32)
 * Psychology Multidisciplinary (29)
 * Health Care Sciences Services (26)
 * Respiratory System (25)
 * Surgery (25)
 * Medical Ethics (24)
 * Oncology (23)
 * Ethics (21)
 * Dermatology (20)
 * Demography (16)
 * Social Issues (16)
 * Anesthesiology (14)
 * Family Studies (13)
 * Tropical Medicine (12)
 * Pharmacology Pharmacy (11)
 * Andrology (10)
 * Anthropology (10)
 * Pathology (10)
 * Psychology Clinical (10) etc


 * The use of the results above as the sole determinant of article weight would be properly subject to criticism, but they are indicative of the disciplines which have published most widely on the topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could have (and probably should have) ordered the above by most citations rather than Google Rank; but it would not have impacted significantly on the fact that the most cited sources on circumcision are medical sources. This is not to say that social and cultural content is not appropriate but just to emphasise that the preponderance of scholarly output on the topic has been medical (even if we allow for very different publication models in different disciplines). FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly so... to close this loop, the relevant policy is indeed WP:WEIGHT as ScienceApe identifies. This policy states that we need to represent viewpoints in proportion to the prominence found in the published, reliable sources.  As Fiachra shows, a review of all the reliable sourcing available shows that medical aspects are the most prominent view found in the sources, and that's why this article is organized per WP:MEDMOS.  This article also provides a heavy emphasis on non-medical aspects, but maintains WP:MEDMOS organization per policy as applied to the sourcing.   01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A database search of a science database is hardly what I would consider to be a compelling argument for the weight being put on the medical aspects in this particular case. I already gave a perfectly valid argument, the vast majority of circumcision conducted today and historically was for cultural and religious purposes, they are not for medical purposes. When you put the medical purposes first, there is a note of bias being inserted. You are in fact saying that the medical purposes are more important than the religious purposes. I asked you a question before which you did not answer, I asked you if you think the medical reasons for circumcision are more important than the religious reasons? I could grant you that there are more scholarly sources on medical circumcision. So what? This may in fact be a case where Wikipedia's rules are making the article worse and catering to a bias because the fact is that the reason why the vast majority of people employ circumcision is for religious reasons, not medical reasons. You have to grant that gaming Wikipedia's rules can sometimes push a biased POV, and I do believe that's what's happening here. Clearly people are not pleased with the current status of the article, this really should never have gotten a good article rating, and there are plenty of voices of dissent over how this article is being handled. ScienceApe (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While the coverage of the social sciences and the arts and humanities in Web of Science is better than you seem to allow for, as I stated above, the results are merely indicative and consideration has to be given to the different publication models of different disciplines and, simply, the scale of medical publishing relative to disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, ethics and history. However, the results should not be dismissed out of hand. I can attempt to demonstrate this by searching for a subject which has a large presence in the social sciences and humanities. Thus, if I search the same database for "Foucault" (limited, again, to articles and review articles), 4,012 items are returned. The top ten fields for these references are given as follows: Philosophy (478); Sociology (473); Education/Educational Research (302); Literature (215); Social Sciences Interdisciplinary (199); Geography (187); Political Science (169); History (165); Humanities Multidisciplinary (163); Management (154 -> fuckers). This appears to me to provide a fairly good indication of the influence of Foucault in a variety of fields and, broadly, which types of fields have produced the most scholarly output about Foucault.
 * Weight is an important consideration for article structure, it is not the only one: this is a top-level article and should be so structured to organise the general subject area allowing the reader to navigate to the relevant sub-pages; it should also strive to give a fairly rounded view of circumcision. My own interests would not really be in clinical or epidemiological information on circumcision, but I'd find it hard to construct a telling source-based argument for a major restructuring of the article. One exception might be to do with the prevalence of circumcision world-wide, which I think could reasonably be placed as the first section of the article. But that argument would rest upon a coherent presentation of the topic rather than sources (at least primarily).
 * Another source you could look at to argue for restructuring, however, is the presentation of the topic in other generalist encyclopedias.
 * Neither, I think, should these results be construed to exclude excellent sources on circumcision that are relevant to this article. Thus, one can note that the ethics section currently relies on three sources. However, a recent issue (July 2013) of the Journal Medical Ethics treats extensively of the topic of male circumcision and would be useful addition . There's also quite a few sources on the history of circumcision, the medicalisation and demedicalisation of the procedure, etc, that might improve aspects of the article.FiachraByrne (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In regard to your query, it is likely that questions of culture (including medical culture), group identity/ethnicity and religion vastly outweigh clinical medical or health factors in the multiplicity of micro-decisions and contexts leading to circumcision. But, for a whole range of reasons, it is important that WP articles, reflect the best available sources and the preponderance of research in a given field. If this is not adhered to the structure of articles may simply fall to editor opinion and there would be little protection from ideological crusades and activism (which is rife throughout the encyclopedia as things stand). This is a pretty good article relative to the mass of content in Wikipedia. While it could be improved, I'm sure, a lot of work has gone into creating and maintaining it - this is not the case with many articles in WP which, if they received a fraction of the attention that this article has to date, could be improved considerably. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You concede that the vast majority of circumcisions are done for cultural/religious reasons rather than medical reasons. So how is this article justified in giving priority to the medical reasons for circumcision? Now I don't know what has more reliable sources, religious/cultural circumcision or medical circumcision. My argument is that even if there are more reliable sources for medical circumcision, it is smacking in the face of reality to give it more importance in this article. We have to accept the fact that there is inevitably going to be bias here. We all have opinions as to whether circumcision is moral or not. Now obviously if a biased editor thinks that circumcision is moral, he'll push its alleged medical benefits to the forefront. This will be a scientific affirmation of his position on the morality of circumcision as well as convince others of the same. But this undue weight on the medical benefits smacks in the face of reality. He's gaming the rules to push his own personal agenda to convince the world that circumcision is moral. Ignore all rules, this article might in fact be an exception to the rule because the OVERWHELMING majority of circumcisions performed world wide is for religious cultural reasons, yet somehow this article is putting medical circumcision at its forefront. This is unacceptable. ScienceApe (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I answered your question out of courtesy. I don't care if, overall, the article includes positive or negative information about circumcision - it's not a topic that keeps me up at night. Where bias is an issue, including my own, I tend to cleave to the sources as I'm not really here for agitprop. As has been stated, the main justification for the medical focus of the article - and allowing for the fact that non-medical aspects, including religious ones, also feature throughout the article - is that that reflects the preponderance of scholarly research. It is a policy and source-based argument. If you wish to construct a salient counterargument to the current article structure I would suggest you also present a source-based argument. My interest in circumcision as a topic, which is very limited, would be in terms of its cultural (including medico-cultural), anthropological, and historical aspects. However, if I was so minded and had time, I probably wouldn't invest my time writing about those aspects of circumcision in such a generalist article on the topic. Instead, I'd head to the relevant sub-page. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't give a fuck, then quite obviously you should recuse yourself from the discussion and participate in discussions which you do give a fuck about. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was evident to me that passion for the subject was strongly correlated with capacity to improve the article and reflect the sources then I might. Personally, I would favour more dispassionate and disinterested source-based contributions to this and other controversial topics on Wikipedia. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To add: ScienceApe, we agree that WP:WEIGHT is the controlling content policy and here you recognize that the sourcing is predominantly medical.  Straightforward application of policy to the sourcing gives the presentation that the article has currently, and you even agree that the current presentation is indeed the expected result of policy as applied to the sourcing (your view that "Wikipedia's rules are making the article worse" indicates that you recognize this article is indeed following those rules, but the result isn't to your liking).  So your argument is that in your view you think the religious aspects are more important than the medical aspects.  Regarding I asked you if you think the medical reasons for circumcision are more important than the religious reasons? (emphasis added)-- you're asking me what I think.  I ignored the question before and again now because it's irrelevant.  What you or I think doesn't matter.  Historically it has been shown that allowing development of this article's content to be directed by the personal views of editors is unsuccessful.  The only thing that matters is Wikipedia policy applied to the sourcing.  It is the only approach to development of an article such as this one that can result in content that complies with the WP:NPOV pillar and stays relatively stable, as this article has been for almost a year now.   14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No I didn't say that, I said that I could grant you that, meaning for the sake of argument, even if the claims that there are more reliable sources regarding medical circumcision, this article should be an exception to the rule because the rules are being gamed to push a bias. You are misrepresenting my arguments repeatedly. None of this is about our opinions, I asked you that question to see if you can assess reality accurately. If you prefer I can rephrase the question, is it a fact that the vast majority circumcisions performed today and historically have been done for religious reasons rather than medical reasons? ScienceApe (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We organize medical articles per WP:MEDMOS and reference them per WP:MEDRS. Both these are consensus. And this article currently follows both as it should. We have an article on Religious male circumcision and it can be organized differently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Doc James; this is the medical article, it should be organized as such. Yobol (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should then be renamed "Medical Circumcision Article " or somesuch as a sub article and the flagship central article about all  aspects of  the phenomenon of circumcision would be unfettered by the med/bio science limitations so beloved of the Circumcision  patrol group here. Conversely, if one accepts that the main circumcision article should be focussed on medical aspects( which I and others  do not) then it should mention the sale and reuse of chopped  off foreskins in medicine, cloned skin manufacture,medical research  and  in cosmetics. You cannot have your cake and eat it lads. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Change the name of this article to "Medical benefits and hazards from circumcision" or something like that, and create a new article called "Circumcision" that is more general. This article is way too medical for a religious tradition.84.210.15.173 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"castration anxiety for boys in the phallic stage"
The cited source for this claim is "Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review", which seems to cite this claim from "Psychological trauma of circumcision in the phallic period could be avoided by using topical steroids." The latter has been cited twice while the former has been cited five times. So aside from the fact that it's psychoanalytic nonsense, it doesn't really seem noteworthy enough to include here. Nosewings (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nosewings -Whatever your opinion of psychoanalysis- it's views on circumcision should be included in this article as it is in the other better foreign language wikipedias. Incidentally the systematic review you cited has a table ( table 4) which lists a breakdown of the 4.8 %( N =5,228) of  cut men aged 15 to 49  who reported adverse events from circumcision. So far this information and similar information has not made it into the article. And I am no longer holding my breath.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are article topics weighted according to the amount of publications?
I find this extremely wierd. One reason is that it can be much easier to publish about some things than other things, and then there will be more publications just because it is easier to publish about that. Another reason is that controversial topics tend to generate a lot of publications. If something is well accepted and not controversial there are often less publications about that, but just because something is controversial it doesn't necessarily make it more important. Considering circumcision I think it is pretty obvious that the medical aspect is very controversial, so of course a lot of the publications are about the medical aspect. There are also tons of opportunities to do medical research on circumcision, and medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects of circumcision. How are you supposed to do research upon the legal/moral aspect of circumcision anyhow? Probably there are much more medical publications than legal/moral publications simply because there are much more opportunities to do medical research and publish about it. I also don't necessarily think you can solve the moral/legal problem with circumcision by doing research. What kind of research can possibly prove that infant mutilation is immoral? What kind of research can prove that theft, murder and rape is immoral? Are there lots of publications about the morality of theft/murder/rape? I doubt it, because it is not very controversial wheter is is immoral or not, and because you can't do research to prove if a thing is immoral or not.84.210.15.173 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that you do indeed recognize that the distribution of the weight in the sourcing regarding the topic of this article is heavily medical, and that Wikipedia's guidelines direct us to take that into account in organizing the article. A counter-argument to "medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects" is that medical research is a LOT more regulated and expensive to do than simply reading up on and then writing one's own philosophical reflections on a subject.  Medical research is only ever an expense; comparatively, philosophical writings cost next to nothing, so you can argue that medical sourcing should be weighted more heavily because it's so much more resource-intensive to produce.  But, this article's talk page is probably not the right place to pursue these sorts of general questions.   20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How many philosphers are there compared to medical doctors these days? How many serious places can you publish your own philosopical ramblings, compared to places where you can publish medical research? How many of the places publishing philosophical ramblings are approved by wikipedia? It might indeed be more costly to do medical research, but it isn't necessarily more difficult. I think a better weight system would take other things into consideration. Such as in which context the word circumcision most often is used. The word "circumcision" is probably used much more in a religious context than in a medical context. You might also give weight according to the historical use of the word "circumcision". Zionists certainly love to talk about their right to the "holy" land due to the jewish history in that geographical area.84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, interesting question anyway.  You can do your own research to answer some of your own questions by exploring journal indexes like JSTOR and PubMed.    20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * , your points are all valid really. There's no quantitative way to reliably determine article weight for topics that are treated substantially by multiple disciplines and the results of such database searches are merely indicative. Compared to the humanities and social sciences, medical researchers publish more frequently, they publish shorter pieces that are often highly focused, and they might publish (essentially) the same research findings in multiple locales. There's also more money available for medical research, greater commercial interest, greater government funding for research into public health issues, and the medical field itself is vast compared to most other disciplines. Having said that, database searches have greater force, as in this instance, when the results indicate that medical publications outweigh all other scholarly publications on the topic by a rather massive majority. Thus, it's easy to argue in this instance that the medical manual of style should apply. That is not to imply that a generalist encyclopedic article on circumcision should not be relatively comprehensive, without being overly long, and it should allow the reader to navigate in clear way to more detailed treatments of different aspects of circumcision. This doesn't correspond to policy but, personally, I'd be more comfortable arguing for a different organisation of this and other articles if there was an equivalent guideline to WP:MEDRS for other disciplines like sociology, history, philosophy and anthropology. If your interest is specifically in the representation of the ethics of circumcision, there are other scholarly sources that could be added to the relevant section of this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Having fully read your last comment to the end, I'm kicking myself for posting a reply. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I found your reply independently interesting and useful Fiachra and not at all tainted by an irrelevancy in the tail end of the comment that precipitated yours. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I made this argument before, that this is clearly a case of Ignore all rules. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. While wikipedia's rules for giving weight to the amount of citations is a good rule of thumb, it clearly does not apply here. It's not a far fetched guess to make that people are gaming wikipedia's rules to push a pro-circumcision bias under the auspices that the medical benefits support their pre-conceived biases. This is unacceptable for a wikipedia article. Circumcision is performed for religious and cultural reasons, and as such the article should give weight to that rather than the medical purposes. ScienceApe (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just like when you brought this up before, I agree with you again that it would take an application of WP:IAR to ignore the sourcing and Wikipedia content rules to reconfigure the article significantly, as you appear to be suggesting. In general if there's a case where it is suspected that editors are pushing an agenda, the best course of actionand the only course of action directly supported by Wikipedia's core content policiesis to have the article adhere strictly to the sources and a straight-forward application of those content policies, as this article does currently.  Waving the WP:IAR flag to suggest that the article instead be reconstructed according to the wishes of that same group of editors suspected of pushing an agenda is the opposite of a productive thing to do.   17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood that ScienceApe was proposing that we should supersede the sanitized picture of circumcision that you Zad, and a small coterie group of other editors maintain in this presently peculiarly skewed article. And not that we should continue to support the censorship. Why do you describe the opposite  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you did not read what I said. I said users are gaming the rules to push an agenda, meaning the rules themselves are responsible for a slanted article that does not reflect reality. You're invoking an argument from weak induction fallacy when you assert, "If there's agenda pushing, then the course of action is to follow the rules". That is NOT the case in this situation, so your generalization drawn from induction does not apply here. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. This is a fact in reality, and this article does not give weight to that fact in reality, it gives weight to using medical reasons to justify circumcision. You Zad68, are responsible for gaming the rules to push an agenda. ScienceApe (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah following the policies and procedures of Wikipedia is not "gaming the rules". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strawman fallacy. You are intentionally misrepresenting my arguments. ScienceApe (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That happens here a great deal ScienceApe.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly yes, the other problem is that we are trying to convince the people that are pushing an agenda, that they are pushing an agenda. It's pointless to have a rational discussion with these people. ScienceApe (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits January 4
There has been a series of edits today that do not appear to improve the article's use of the sources, and so were reverted by myself and. The latest edit was this, it modified "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." in the lead and in the body to state instead, According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.(citing four sources) Despite the AAP's positive stance on the procedure, their policy states that the "health beneﬁts (of circumcision) are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."(citing the AAP policy statement). The issue with this proposed change are that 1) The current article content is cited to four sources, not just the AAP Technical Report, and the proposed edit misrepresents the sourcing by making it appear as only the AAP is stating this and giving undue weight to the AAP's policy statement that is not cited anywhere in the article currently; 2) It makes it appear as if the entire cost/benefit analysis being done is based on sex effects, which is not true; 3) The lack of recommendation of routine use of the procedure on neonates is not just the position of the AAP but of medical organizations worldwide, the article already covers this where it says "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males" and sourced to Bolnick, calling out the AAP here only again is redundant and is undue weight on the AAP.  13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the other citations in the citation bundle which you keep using as a "get out of jail free card", is that there is no free version on the net for any of those citations. I was only able to find their abstracts here, 1 2 3, and none of them mention anything about circumcision impacting sexual function. You need to provide us with a link to the full contents of those articles if you're going to keep using them as an excuse to keep the article in its present form. ScienceApe (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look again. The entirety of Perera 2010 is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source. The entirety of the AAP 2012 Technical Report is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source.  For all three of the AAP 2012 Technical Report, Doyle 2010 and Perea 2010 the freely-available abstracts do indeed clearly state their conclusions regarding sexual function. The conclusions drawn by Sadeghi-Nejad 2010 have been discussed several times before and I have provided verbatim quotes from that source, they can be found in the archives.   17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide the links please. ScienceApe (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The links are provided in the article references. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find them, can you post them here so I can read them? ScienceApe (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Control F" Perera in the article, etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Sensitivity Damage Dispute
The article doesn't seem to effectively highlight the fact that the damage circumcision does to men's sexual experiences (both physical and psychological) are highly disputed. It seems to only have references to a limited set of studies, performed by the AAP (which is often discredited due to its pro-circumcision biases ), with a weak statement of "doesn't seem to". There are many reports and studies that find circumcision reduces sensitivity and hinders sexual function as well as causing a number of psychological issue early and later in life. While I'm not saying the article should state that circumcision definitively does do damage, I think it is important to reference several sources and highlight the fact that many studies have shown circumcision has potentially negative side effect on sensitivity, sexual function, and psychological well being. The section seems very glossed over though it really is a component of the topic that is incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pod1989 (talk • contribs)


 * We use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I also pointed this out, that there were clear problems with the conclusions drawn, which were even highlighted by the ones who conducted the study.

'''Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.'''

So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. ScienceApe (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What has to be represented? Are you proposing on adding a line that "there is not good evidence regarding an effect on sexual function" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I stated what needs to be represented. The source identifies clear problems with the conclusion it drew. Failure to represent these problems give the article a slant. ScienceApe (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be more constructive Doc James if you devoted your responses   to considering the highlighted ( 'bold ') text above and less to suggesting that another editor is making suggestions which he clearly is not.filibustering,stonewalling, and  avoiding the issue are so 2013. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * asks a reasonable question. is unhappy with the representation of this study and its findings in the article. Therefore it is reasonable to query what concrete proposals they offer to improve the representation of the study. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except I already said what needs to be represented in the very post he responded to. Tumadoireacht is right, he's filibustering, his question was inherently rhetorical, and not genuine. In another post he deliberately strawmanned me and misrepresented my position. These people are not honestly discussing the problems with the article. ScienceApe (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the standard MO at this article when someone points out how biased it is. The article owners ask for concrete change proposals which they can shoot down by citing biased literature and agreeing with each other. This is unlikely to change without intervention: Most people outside the US consider circumcision to be an unsavoury, atavistic, but essentially harmless practice. As it is also a taboo subject for most of them, they are very unlikely to get involved. For many, however, circumcision is a religious obligation, an important source of income, or something which they must defend for psychological reasons because they themselves or their parents have afflicted their children with it. (Let's ignore the tiny but vocal sneaky minority of those for whom it is a sexual perversion.) This seems to be a much larger number than those who, like me, started researching the subject due to a public debate and found that in many cases it amounts to baby torture.
 * Of course similar situations exist at many articles, and it is still possible to fix them. I would be motivated to do this here. But even when I still had the time to do it, I couldn't. Several of the article owners seem to have far superior access to the often extremely expensive literature. This makes it almost impossible to check for selective or misleading quotations, cherry-picking of biased sources etc. Also, for the reasons I gave above the interventionist bias also seems to exist in a large segment of the literature. By agreeing to elevate that segment to 'most reliable', the article owners can easily quell all dissent.
 * For flying saucers or ghosts we rightly eliminate most of the specialised literature because it is fringe. For circumcision or the virgin birth of Jesus we can't do this because these aberrations are too popular and consequently the specialised literature is accepted as scholarly or even scientific regardless of its intellectual shortcomings.
 * I would like to offer a solution, but I can't think of one. Hans Adler 17:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bring this to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I will put forth a suggestion. Source gives this as a summary of the quality of evidence regarding sexual function "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" I guess we could add a summary of this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion does not address the problems the study identified with the conclusion it drew. ScienceApe (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You lost me. It is very clear "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" There is no issue. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a non-sequitur. ScienceApe (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it a non-sequitur? You appear to want the article to carry more content about the quality of the evidence base for this one particular statement.  Others have pointed out singling out this one secondary source's comments about a primary source is undue.  You haven't made a concrete edit suggestion yet here.  So Doc took the initiative and offered a bit from the secondary source that summarizes their findings regarding the quality of the evidence base, and it doesn't single out one particular primary source in an undue manner.    03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This argument seems wholly pointless and pedantic because it's on the wording from a review of literature - if you want to make a claim that it's disputed, introduce a MEDRS-quality citation (i.e., a literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, or, preferably, a meta-analytic systematic review) asserting the opposite position. Anything else won't matter, because it's not in line with community policy; i.e. WP:MED will remove it. I've taken the liberty to point out the problems in the refs cited above for use as sources in the article. I hope this helps direct this conversation back to medical sources that aren't garbage. Regards,   Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I decided to see what popped with MEDRS filters on this topic (search terms: circumcision pleasure) after looking for a ref I needed in another article - the only thing that popped up was this, a meta-analytic literature review which seems to support the material in the article. Might be worth adding, since it wasn't used as a source.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Seppi. A recent pubmed indexed meta analysis. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The evidence also suggests that infant circumcision is a blatant abuse of Human Rights. DavidHGrateful (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seppi provided a recent systematic review and meta analysis which is pubmed indexed. David do you have one supporting your statement that "infant circumcision is a blatant abuse of Human Rights"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... who are you to say that it isn't a human right to be allowed to grow up in an non mutilated body? I certainly think I have the right to grow up in a non mutilated body. I also think other people have the right to grow up in non mutilated bodies. Tell me why you think you have the right to mutilate other bodies without their "grown up" consent.84.210.13.40 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V Wikipedia is not based on our own personal opinions but on reliable secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I know we're all about properly sourced studies, but the conclusion seems obvious to me. Like most men in the US, I'm circumcised. Above the cut line, on the remaining inner foreskin, I have lots of sexual sensation. Immediately below the cut line, I have none. The shortest inner foreskin I've seen is 2 inches and the longest, at least 6 inches. Residual inner foreskin is typically 1.5" or less, depending on the style of the cut. If it's fair to assume that the nerve endings of the inner foreskin are evenly distributed (and based on my anecdotal experience as an older gay man that's encountered a rather large sample set of uncircumcised penises, this is a reasonable assumption), could we not say with certainty that losing any part of it represents a net loss in sensitivity? This isn't even accounting for the vast drop in glans sensitivity, without which none of us could wear underwear. Am I the only one who feels this way?

It seems to me that these studies are focused on very narrow definitions of what comprises sexual performance and satisfaction. (This is not unique to sexual studies; anyone proclaimed 'fully recovered' after an accident might take issue with that phrase.) If you only measured whether orgasm could be attained, you might easily conclude a penis wasn't even necessary. Likewise, when an individual compensates for a loss of sensitivity with a rough, high-friction grip, is it fair to say the experience is the same as if the shaft had four touching surfaces of sensitive, movable foreskin? My impression of the results of these 'it doesn't matter' studies is as a negative indictment of their methodology rather than a statement of empirical fact. Desinos (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
A NPOV dicussion has been added to the NPOV Noticeboard regarding the content disputes found here. ScienceApe (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article reflexes the best available sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for removing the POV tag are: (from Template:POV/doc) "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever: As their is ongoing discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, these criteria have not been met; the tag should remove until those discussions are formally closed or become quiescent. NE Ent 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
 * 2) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
 * 3) In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

As covered at the WP:AN discussion here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular 's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point" so the repeated re-adding of the article-wide tag is editing against consensus as evaluated by an outside administrator. Also the NPOV tag template documentation states "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." and as the NPOVN discussion states explicitly that the argument being made is ignoring the weight given in the reliable sourcing, this criterion isn't met. 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Per Doc James aka UserJmh649 "Our article reflexes the best available sources" I am presuming that he means reflects or references. A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus- which some of the debate responses here actually do resemble some of the time. A glimpse of a freudian undergarment ? Should we also be mentioning the historical and religious sources which have stated for thousands of years that one of the purposes of circumcision is to diminish sexual pleasure ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tum. Please note It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, there is no legitimate neutrality dispute; I'm seeing vexatious POV tagging only (and have removed it accordingly). Please raise concerns calmly in line with WP guidelines and policies. If it emerges there is a clear POV problem then (and only then) can the article be tagged while editors work it through. Alexbrn talk 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree. I should note that the purpose of the tag is to "attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame." As the issue has been raised at WP:AN, one of the most watchlisted pages on Wikipedia, tagging now is superfluous if its purpose was to attract attention to the article, and would only serve as a "badge of shame" at this point. Yobol (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jmh649's claims are nonsense. All of the problems with neutrality have been explained at the NPOV noticeboard which I linked. There is a discussion going on there right now. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from the article when there's a discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard right now? ScienceApe (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * user:Zad68 please stop this nonsense. There is no consensus against me regarding whether or not the NPOV template should be at the top of the circumcision article or not. There is an on-going discussion at NPOV noticeboard which you have actively been participating in. What on earth is the reason not to put the NPOV template on the top of the article other than to stifle discussion regarding the NPOV discussion? It is disgraceful that this kind of bias and agenda pushing has been going on for this long unnoticed by anyone. Can someone sensible please put the NPOV template back on top of the circumcision article please? ScienceApe (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ScienceApe raises an interesting question: why is a content discussion for this article being held at NPOV/N? It should be right here, where future editors will be able to find and refer to any developed consensus. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We've been having too many problems on the talk pages, that's why I took it to the NPOV noticeboard. If we can't find a resolution there, then I think the next step is intervention. ScienceApe (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We've had "resolution", meaning stable consensus, for quite a while--the article has been very stable for about a year now. Often what happens is that change suggestions don't get implemented because it turns out they're not in line with Wikipedia content policy as applied to the best-available sourcing. That might mean the issue wasn't resolved to somebody's preference, but that doesn't mean the issue wasn't resolved properly and in accordance with Wikipedia content rules and processes. What is "intervention"?  20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how long content has been on an article for. If there is something wrong with an article, then there is something wrong with the article. You just constructed another strawman. The problems I identified with the article were never about preferences, and you haven't refuted one of my arguments, instead you employed strawmen and other fallacies which I identified every time you did it, so you can not misrepresent my position. ScienceApe (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "intervention"?   20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do YOU mean Zad by "stable consensus" - is it a stable of editors who will nod and whinny to the narrow and selective med source based and article construction that you principally maintain here. This article is one of the most contested on the site. Stability can mean that a small and determined block of editors are blocking positive change. That is an ugly kind of stability. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing Information...
When I compare this article with the one in the German Wikipedia, I miss some topics.

For instance the whole subject of "not as good effects", as often occurring Meatostenosis or the loss of most Meissner's corpuscle.

I think wide parts of that do not have the NPOV. This should be marked on the article page, and not in the talk page. 77.64.179.160 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources to support its inclusion? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that English Wikipedia has much higher standards for sourcing, especially for biomedical information. Please see WP:MEDRS.    20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As an outside observer of this discussion, when reading the article, the references in the "adverse effects" seem very reliable. If the reliable sources are stating things like less than 1% of procedures have adverse effects, and there are no sexual implications, then we should not place undue weight on adverse effects.
 * Having said that, your two specific points above about meatostenosis and Meissner's corpuscle (related to decreased sexual function presumably) do not seem to be mentioned currently in the article. If there are recent, reliable sources which discuss these, it would only take an extra sentence to mention them in the article. I would defer to zad68's opinion regarding the suitability of such sources in this case because s/he has handled this controversial topic well and is probably more familiar with the literature than anyone else here.
 * Regarding NPOV templates on the article, there appears to be a majority of editors who do not feel there is any non-NPOV content, so I would think they are not needed. Lesion  ( talk ) 21:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tepi, agree with your comments. I looked through my source database for these terms and didn't find anything relevant.  The only sources that mention Meissner's corpuscles in particular were old primary sources from the 1990s, which apparently German Wikipedia is OK with but our standards are higher here.    21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If we are omitting key information by over zealous and partial application of the Med edit guidelines and fetishising on the recently published here perhaps we should say not that our standards here are higher but that they are certainly different or that our agenda is as currently exercised.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection
I disagree with the protection that User:John Reaves has put on the page. No one has been making any content changes to the article. The sole purpose of that protection is to prevent anyone from putting a NPOV template on the article even though there's a NPOV discussion going on right now. This is unacceptable, and abuse of admin powers. ScienceApe (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I protected the wrong version. -- John Reaves 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your specious remark does not in any way invalidate what I said. There is a NPOV discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard, and you have prevented anyone from adding a NPOV template to the article while the discussion is going on. ScienceApe (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the point. What is the issue here? -- John Reaves 20:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Abusing your admin powers to lock the page for your preferred version of the article for one. ScienceApe (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take your concern that is abusing his admin powers to WP:AN... please leave this article Talk page for discussion of article content.   21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. ScienceApe (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please link to where I have indicated that this is my preferred version. -- John Reaves 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Take your concerns here ScienceApe (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns. -- John Reaves 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PLease explain why a NPOV discussion has been prevented from being tagged on this article if it concerns this article. You may have no concerns with doing such but others do.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Map of all the sub articles on Circumcision suggestion
More experienced editors assure me that having a "See Also" section in an article such as this one is not cool and they will not countenance it. I disagree and think an exception should be made. However as this is unlikely to fly-there are so many such related  articles that I wonder is there a need for a map or Tony Buzan-like family tree illustrating these articles or some other way of showing their availability other than refs buried in the text body of the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For a start, there's these (some of which look like a more natural home for some of the topics lately discussed). It strikes me editors concerned about article quality on this topic might do well to have a look at some of the rubbish here, rather than focus on this GA.
 * Religious male circumcision
 * Circumcision and law
 * Circumcision controversies
 * History of male circumcision
 * Ethics of circumcision
 * Circumcision scar
 * Restoration device
 * Circumcision and HIV

Alexbrn talk 12:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There's this, which is placed at the bottom of the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A third resource that will provide what you're requesting is Category:Circumcision.

Protection
More edit warring over the POV tag, more protection. It follows this edit by ; I couldn't disagree more with them (I believe there is a POV issue identified on the talk page, and in one of Hans's edit summaries) or with Doc James's earlier edit summary, but as an admin I am not allowed to pick and choose which version to protect, and waiting until Hans or someone else reverts is dishonest. Besides, we're going for a walk in a minute. Anyway, full protection for a week. Maybe an RfC is called for. Maybe you should call Jimbo (I believe he gave out his cell number?) and ask him to step in (was that dumb painting of him made with a circumcised cock?) Yes, you all really should work this out. Tone down the rhetoric and try to see it from the other's perspective. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An RfC could be good. But please, let the request be crisply worded and with some kind of defined outcome. Alexbrn talk 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We need high quality sources and than we can have a discussion. If there are no high quality sources forthcoming we may just end up continuing as we are.
 * It is those who are proposing a change who are expected to come forth with the sources. This is similar to science were those who propose an idea need to provide the evidence not those who are attempting to refute it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Morality of mutilating children.
I haven't seen a single argument why some people think they have the right to mutilate other bodies without their adult consent. Children are obviously not mature enough to know wheter it is a good or bad idea to become mutilated. Children can also easily be manipulated into doing stupid things simply by offering them candies. I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies. Fortunately that is illegal. By the same reasoning it should oviously be illegal to mutilate children, because we don't know what children are going to think when they grow up. I am sure there are tons of people that feel like their rights were violated when they were mutilated as children. I think physical mutilation of children is just as seriously wrong as sexual abuse of children. Leave the kids alone, and stop this nonsensical propaganda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) revised 13 Jan


 * Use of emotive words like mutilation likely indicate that you do not hold a NPOV, and this comment is barely related to discussion about how the article can be improved. We need to be careful not to use Wikipedia talk pages as a forum for general discussion about the topic (WP:NOTAFORUM). As pointed out before, we need to use reliable sources to build the content of the encyclopedia. We cannot use our own opinions. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted because people found the language offensive. Well, I find it offensive that some people think they have the right to mutilate other people without their adult consent. I don't think my parents had any right to mutilate me, nor do I think I have any right to mutilate my children. People should make these decisions themselves. Humans don't have perfect knowledge regarding the function of the foreskin, and I trust evolution much more than a medical consensus that probably is somewhat biased. If the foreskin is very bad for us, then natural selection would have removed it for us. If there are health benefits with circumcision I also believe those health benefits can be achieved in other ways, for example by washing the genitals with the right chemicals. I therefore consider circumcision to be an unnecessary violation of children's right to grow up in a non mutilated body. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC) revised 13 Jan
 * I see what point you are trying to make with this comment, but it was unwise in that it can be read as antisemitic, which then serves as an excuse to simply ignore you.
 * For all those who didn't get it: It makes sense if you put yourselves into the shoes of someone who, reasonably IMO, thinks that cutting off parts of your children's genitals is serious sexual abuse. Based on what I have read about the traumatic effects of infant circumcision (and the surgical procedures I have seen that were proudly posted on Youtube), I actually agree that inflicting circumcision on a baby is not better than inducing a child to do a blowjob.
 * Note that it pains me to say this, as I have not antisemitic inclinations whatsoever. In fact, I started researching the topic when it became hot in Germany recently, fully expecting to confirm my prejudice that circumcision is harmless. Turns out it isn't. Hans Adler 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The term mutilation is often used on this topic in other contexts (Female_genital_mutilation) and the term is applied regularly to male circumcision in Europe, so its not neccisarily a POV issue for him to use that term here. Mutilation is a significant POV, particularly outside of the US, but we do require WP:RS to satisfy WP:V. Advocacy groups in the US and Europe are acceptable only to document that "person X said Y" - so one would need high-quality medical or media sources to bring into the article (which I would think it should be no problem to find due to how common this POV outside the US) Wikipedia does not edit on what is "right" or "moral", as there are many opinions about what "right" and "moral" actually is.Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That pesky global Jewish conspiracy again. FYI, this kind of comment does absolutely nothing to persuade others. If you want to change the article, find some reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) and then seek consensus via the talk page. Otherwise, kindly do not waste others' time by posting your own opinions here. Lesion ( talk ) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy? I don't see any such thing anywhere. I see stupid humans violating the rights of other humans everywhere. Especially in non western European countries.84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Morality can be an elastic and contradictory yardstick particularly when religious text or tradition is cited as guidance. Would body modification by excision and  scarification be a more neutral term than mutilation to apply to circumcision ? The involuntary nature of most religious and clinical child circumcisions and particularly  of all the well documented  forced male adult circumcisions on three continents  get little or no mention in the article. This is most odd. What the cutters do with the cut off foreskins in all the three major and most famous  cutting cultures ( American, Jewish and Muslim) gets no mention in the article. The  ongoing risk and previous deaths of Jewish infants in New York from oral-genital contact with the male adult  foreskin cutter gets no mention in this article   -- can any member of the cabal who defend the article as it currently wobbles honestly defend these, and similar glaring omissions with a straight face  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources. I honestly don't know how else to explain this. Lesion  ( talk ) 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have said many times, in this article it is very stupid to give weight according to how many secondary sources you find. Most secondary sources are medical, but circumcision is a religious tradition. It is very obvious that the editors of this article are pro-circumcision, and use the secondary sources argument only because it aids their pro-circumcision agenda. The editors of this article think it is okay to violate human rights. That people shouldn't be allowed to grow up in non-mutilated bodies. The editors of this article support human right violations.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer is the same as the last dozen or so time you have brought up these same things. Wikipedia does cover these topics at Ethics of circumcision, Forced circumcision, Foreskin and Brit milah respectively.  This article is a WP:SUMMARY-style overview of the main points of the topic, per the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing; once again you are directed to please see WP:NPOV for an explanation. Not every last bit of detail about every aspect of the topic will be covered in the main overview article in a summary-style constellation of articles. What goes where and with what emphasis is determined by the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing, it does not go by how important individual Wikipedia editors think it should be, this is covered explicitly at WP:NPOV.    15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you so eager to follow this WP:NPOV when it is obviously morally wrong to mutilate the bodies of other people without their adult consent? If you had a conscience, you would care much more about human rights than about following the guidelines at WP:NPOV.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lesion - National Newspapers and Local Health Authorities and Court Records ARE reliable secondary sources and cover the omitted topics mentioned by me above.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tumadoireacht would you please engage with the Wikipedia content policy points raised? Don't you remember a year ago you started this RFC?  You proposed adding content that was sourced to National Newspapers (as you word it) but the RFC closed something like 20 to 2 against your position because it was WP:UNDUE.  Once again, the issue isn't whether it exists, but rather where it should be covered on Wikipedia and with how much emphasis. I already pointed out that Wikipedia does already carry the content you're talking about in the articles I listed.   19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Tumadoireacht, do you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with regard to how to handle this topic? It seems that you do. And if so, this talk page is not the place to try to change those policies and guidelines. Again and again, you blame the editors of this article for presenting it in ways that you disagree with...when these editors are simply following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Repeatedly attacking the editors of this article is not something that belongs on Wikipedia, per WP:Talk and WP:Civil. And repeatedly refusing to drop the stick is counterproductive and WP:Disruptive. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies hid this discussion. I have reverted as the criticism is perfectly justified. The present article is severely biased and written exclusively from the prevailing American POV. The take on circumcision in Europe is quite different. Especially in Scandinavia, where the IP that started the discussion is from, circumcision is generally considered an atavistic, violent, perverse practice that infringes on children's rights. Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands are somewhere in the middle, but even in Germany non-medical circumcision of minors is a tricky business, legally, precisely because it is useless violence inflicted on victims who cannot consent. That's why Germany 'needed' a law that now legalises it. And which, according to experts, is either invalid or also legalises the mildest form of female genital mutilation.

So long as the article is as biased as it is, it will be inviting angry comments. It's something that always happens to badly written articles on controversial subjects. (It also happens to well written articles on such subjects, but not as often, and it's easier to deal with the comments.) Hans Adler 14:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are the high quality recent pubmed indexed review articles that discuss circumcision in this light? Otherwise how does this help improve anything? When you come to suggest a change you should be bringing refs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is something seriously wrong with the way you give weight on wikipedia. You seem to think that the only proper way of giving weight is according to how many secondary sources you find. As I have said earlier, it might be just as valid to give weight according to which context the word "circumcision" most often is used. It might be somewhat tricky to determine that, but I guess you could write a computer algorithm to determine in which context the word "circumcision" most often is used on the Internet. That would however also be somewhat misleading, since many of the people practising circumcision don't have access to Internet. I am also a bit confused about how you are going to deal with morality and human rights on wikipedia. One approach would be to always support a neutral point of view, but I don't necessarily think that is an ideal approach. When one side obviously is wrong, I think wikipedia should give a little bit more support to the other side. Such a case would for example be the wikipedia article about the massacre in Srebrenica. In a neutral point of view you should listen just as much to the Serbs that were guilty of the massacre as to the Bosnians that were victims of the massacre. I however think you should listen a bit more to the victims than to the violators. In the case of circumcision the violator would be the person performing the circumcision, while the victim would be the mutilated child.84.210.13.40 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not. We should ideally be listening to what neutral, third-party sources who have expertise in the area have to say. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Expertise in what? You might find people that have lots of expertise in the medical aspects of circumcision, but where do you find people that have expertise in the morality of child mutilation? One of the main problems with this article is that it is overly medical. Seems like your approach to morality is to ignore morality.84.210.13.40 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Took me two seconds to find a possible source. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One more. Add: Doing a search reveals a multitude of potential sources from a peer reviewed journal -- Neil N  talk to me  16:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't know if I would consider the people writing these articles to be authorities on morality, because I don't necessarily think people can learn to become moral authorities. At least not in the same way as you can learn to become a medical doctor. Anyhow, these articles seem to be pointing on the moral issues with mutilating children. So why isn't it given more weight to this issue? Well, I guess because there are much more medical sources, and you seem to give weight according to how many secondary sources you find in each field. Even though the amount of secondary sources is a very poor indicator for how much weight a field should be given. For plenty of reasons.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at Ethics of circumcision and Circumcision controversies? This article should just summarize them. Alexbrn talk 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a "physiological effects of circumcision" page, but this page could just as well be renamed to it as clearly gives most weight to the physiological effects of circumcision. This article should just summarize the physiological effects of circumcision. This article should give just as much weight to religion and morality as to the physiological effects of circumcision.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Alexbrn: Agreed. There's already a Circumcision which can be revised if so desired. And IP, "moral authority" is a self-claimed term or a description given to someone by people who share the same views. We don't want morality authorities; we want people who have studied the subject of morality and its applications. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that this section is in the end of the article. This article reads like: "Here are lots of medical reasons why you should circumcise your child", and then in the very end "there might be some small moral issues, but don't mind them because we also have to think about our economy(the last section)".84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started a new section with a more neutral title. It'd be great if you could add suggestions for specific content changes there. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A comment by a passer-by
As I see there is a question of balance in the article. By simply scrolling the text I don't see the overall article to be very unbalanced.

On the other hand I do see that the lede is stuffed with unnecessary detail, some of which are even from primary sources. Please move the detail into the corresponding sections. In particular, the whole "2009 Cochrane" paragraph seems out of place. On the other hand I have an impression that lede does not properly summarize the whole article.

Please do not forget that the lede is article summary, especially for such a big one. - Altenmann >t 01:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Abortion has a good example of a lede. What about using that as a model? -- Neil N  talk to me  02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Correlation between the medical benefits presented in this article and bad personal hygiene
Has there been done any studies on how the medical benefits correlate with personal hygiene? I would assume that populations with better hygiene have less medical benefits from being circumcised. If people wash their genitals with a proper soap sufficiently often I would assume that many of the same medical benefits can be attained. Probably even to a higher degree. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose it arose as a custom in sandy dry lands at a time of poor access to hygiene but this page is not for such speculation -unless one produces  historical academic records of this particular aspect being discussed -and sometimes not even then . There IS material supporting the notion that the smegma which gathers under the uncut foreskin has a function as a protective  part of the immune system(which so far has not made it into the article...) and there is other material which appears to support the notion that cutting off the foreskin and frenulum may protect against some conditions in some circumstances. Some of this latter material IS included in the text of the article.
 * If it is the same advice as is given to women, you're not supposed to wash there with soap because it upsets the bacterial symbiosis. Just water, or if you have to, soap that is not pH neutral. 94.196.237.177 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The article as currently maintained has little or no material on the  psychoanalytic, sociological  or other analysis of what would lead a nation like america or two major religions to continue the custom so readily. There may be links between it (circumcision) and fear of contamination/disease or notions about hygiene as you mention, though as Woody Allen said - sex is dirty only if you are doing it right ! . Circumcision has had the additional historical function of being used  to distinguish one's tribe from uncut tribes and as an inflicted act  on conquered enemies akin to a symbolic castration(like eunuchs). There exisits a vocal active coterie of editors who feel that this "flagship" article should focus primarily on selected aspects of contemporary  medical practice around the act of circumcision rather than as an overview of the phenomenon. There are others of us who contest this idea. As Circumcision is sacred to several religions one has to be mindful of the limited capacity of some to discuss it or write about it objectively and additionally endeavour to discuss it with some sensitivity and respect toward their mindset. The fact that circumcision is diminishing in popularity has not made it into the article yet, nor any tables of stats showing its decline in USA and elsewhere --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, washing often with soap is precisely what you shouldn't do. The environment inside a healthy foreskin has a lot of similarities with that inside a vagina, and essentially the same principles apply to cleaning: Just use plain water with maybe occasionally a bit of mild soap without perfumes or similar additives.
 * Otherwise you may get effects as with excessively frequent washing (showering, bathing) with large amounts of soap. AFAIK, it damages the skin's acid mantle (which normally protects you from infections and makes sure only the right kind of bacteria live there) and it kills beneficial bacteria, whose decomposition then causes unpleasant body odour.
 * This shouldn't be surprising: Why should we be the only animal that requires soap to avoid stinking from that region, even in normal circumstances?
 * On the other hand, in some parts of the world people are no longer used to smegma, mistaking it for dirt and interpreting the sexual pheromones it contains as disgusting odours. In those areas it may be necessary to wash away even clean smegma with a little bit of mild soap even before it is in danger of getting old. But that's just following a fashion. Hans Adler 14:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Recommended new structure of the article
The foreskin has nerve endings. Circumcised people have less nerve endings than people with foreskin, just like colorblind people have less nerve endings than people with color vision. Having less nerve endings in any region decreases the sensation from that region.

Bacteria might grow underneath the foreskin. People supporting circumcision believe it can be used to decrease the likelihood of getting infected by a number of sexually transmittable pathogens. People with foreskin argue that chemicals can be used to keep the the foreskin clean.

No person has any right to mutilate the body of another person without its adult consent. Human right activists argue that genital mutilation of children should be illegal in all countries. Zanthius (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading statement in cancer section
I just got surgery for penile cancer, so have done a lot of research. HPV is a minority of penile cancers, and males are not being vaccinated. I recommend removing: "(and may get more rare with increasing HPV vaccination rates)". If requested I will get the appropriate research.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Bob, although I am glad to hear you're doing better now, it's important that we don't use our personal experiences to drive article content. Can you find a reliable source that contradicts the existing source that supports "(and may get more rare with increasing HPV vaccination rates)"?  If so that would be a good argument to remove.   19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zad, Sorry if I misinterpreted, I was CERTAINLY not trying to put my experience into an article, I was trying to demonstrate authenticity to fellow editors, I will be more careful in my wording in the future. I had thought the quote was an opinion not research, so was challenging it as unsubstantiated. It also seemed to defy common sense. If it is a substantiated claim I have no problem with it.  Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem Bob, sticking to sources just like you have been is the way to go. You have a good point about the increasing HPV vaccination rates, I'll check the source to see how well-substantiated it is.   20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Source contradicting statements in "Adverse effects" section
Study Confirms Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation

Is this study from the British Journal of Urology International a reliable source?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A 2007 press release? Alexbrn talk 15:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Add) I think they mean this article: PMID 17552969 17378847. It does not use the word "mutilation" once. Its conclusion (money quote): "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis". It's a small (163 men) primary study, and rather old. Alexbrn talk 15:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really need sources to tell you that chopping off nerve endings in an area gives you less sensation from that area?Zanthius (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The underlying study is Sorrells, it's a primary source and many secondary sources have been published since then that have taken it and the other primary studies that have been done into account. Per WP:MEDRS we use the secondary sources--in fact the article has five secondary sources in it right now supporting the related content in Adverse Effects.   15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a stronger primary: ; still shouldn't be used to "however" secondaries though. Alexbrn talk 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, a non-randomized anonymous Internet-based self-reporting survey, where respondents self-selected based on their decision to respond to advertisements? Not sure.  But neither of these are even in the ballpark of the large multi-center RCTs that were done.   16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes (you're right, it's not great) - I'd have thought would be the current "daddy article" in this space. It concludes: "The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction". Also some interesting NHS commentary that follows-up is here. Alexbrn talk 16:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All studies regarding the issue of sexual function are necessarily self-reported, and are inherently imprecise. You dismiss this article because of the nature of self-report, but you support the other self-report studies when they conclude that circumcision does not impair sexual function, nor do you want to identify the problems of self-report in the article when they reach a conclusion that you support. ScienceApe (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That particular one doesn't have MEDLINE indexing listed for it yet although I fully expect it will, the journal it's published in is MEDLINE indexed and both of the authors have hundreds of MEDLINE-indexed publications each.  It came out after I finished doing the content for that section, and as there are already plenty of other high-quality secondary sources supporting the existing content I didn't see the need to bother swapping around the sources...    16:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it is now published in final form so the indexing is probably just systems lag. I notice from the reader comments on the NHS site (familiar somehow) that the name of Morris raises a red flag for some, but I don't suppose that is any of Wikipedia's business. Alexbrn talk 16:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alex, agree that the optics on are near-perfect, it's a recent formal systematic review written by two well-published univeristy-affiliated academics, one a PhD professor of molecular medical sciences and the other an MD professor of urology and Chief of Urology in his local health care system, and published in a journal that specializes in the relevant field.  One concern, though, with using a publication by Brian Morris is that Morris is an active pro-circumcision advocate, and when I read his secondary source articles they generally come to the same conclusions as others but are worded with a bit more glowing a review of the benefits than other sources.  I'd prefer we use the middle-ground sources when summarizing scientific consensus when there are so many secondary sources covering the same thing (I think I can give you eight by now).  Another issue is that the name "Brian Morris" is so reviled by anti-circumcision activists that I've seen on their chat boards that they use codewords to avoid spelling it out in full.  True that doesn't make a difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned but from a practical point of view, putting a source with his name on it in the article has drawn time-wasting Talk page arguments that are easily solved by supporting the same article content with a different source that says the same thing.   19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting - truly this is a fraught area! I suppose the chief point here (returning to the comment which opens this section) is that what Wikipedia is saying appears to be aligned with the best RS's. Alexbrn talk 20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it very amazing that people can be fooled into thinking that chopping off nerve endings doesn't decrease sensation. One would assume that most of the editors here have a basic understanding of the nervous system. This doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps the editors here believe that we somehow "magically" perceive from our environment, and that we don't need receptive nerve endings to sense. That seems like a theory with as much intellectual merit as this wikipedia article.Zanthius (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh... editors that understand the nervous system quite well would probably be familiar with cortical maps and, particularly relevant to this argument, sensory cortical remapping, which more or less invalidates this argument/line of reasoning. Biological systems, particularly neural ones, are a lot more complicated than stimulus-response. It's almost always followed by some form of dynamic feedback loop. Ignoring that, the nerve endings beneath the foreskin are far more numerous and dense, so I'm not sure it's a valid argument either way.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 00:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsensical argument. People with foreskin can sense the foreskin while circumcised people can't sense the foreskin, unless you are talking about a phantom limb. Even if circumcised people say they still can feel the foreskin as a phantom limb, they still don't get real sense impressions from a foreskin.  If you think that the nerve impulses from the glans somehow are amplified in circumcised people, then I want to see proof of that.  As you said yourself, the nerve density in the glans is much higher than in the foreskin, so even if all the nerves receiving signals from the foreskin were remapped to receive signals from the glans, I doubt people would be able to sense it. Nerve impulse strength should also not be confused with nerve impulse manifold. So even if the glans somehow are amplified in circumcised people, they still don't have the same nerve impulse manifold since they cannot sense the foreskin.


 * Rather than invalidating my line of reasoning, your argument about dynamic feedback loops seem to strengthen my line of reasoning. When sensory neurons in the foreskin interact with sensory neurons in the glans, it should create much more intricate neuronal signaling from the penis. And it doesn't necessarily matter that the neuronal density is higher in the glans than in the foreskin. You have a much higher density of neurons on your finger than on your stomach. Still, you can touch your stomach with your finger, and get sensory impressions both from the finger and from the stomach. It is not like the sensory signals from the finger completely overwhelm the sensory signals from the stomach. Rather it creates an intricate synergy of nerve impulses when you touch your stomach with your finger. In a similar way, sensory neurons in the foreskin can interact with sensory neurons in the glans to produce an intricate synergy of nerve impulses.Zanthius (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * and while this discussion does seem interesting could I ask you to please take it to one of your User Talk pages?  Per the instructions at the top of this page we are not to use this page for general discussion about the article's subject.  Thanks...   17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am super sceptical to your secondary medical sources which claim that there is no loss of sensation with circumcision (as they obviously can't sense the foreskin anymore). How are the primary studies done? Are they asking people if they notice a decrease in sensation after circumcision? You do know that people will respond extremely inaccurate to such questions. Many people for example believe that it makes a huge difference in the sound quality when they have the most expensive sound system, and they will report that the super expensive sound system is vastly better than less expensive sound systems. But when you put them to a blind test, they can't even tell the difference between the super expensive sound system and another sound system to half the price.Zanthius (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to take this any further bc I'd rather not have a debate. It seems I've been misunderstood though (or the concept misinterpreted). Remapping is a response process to stimuli (i.e, a neuroplastic process) . Infinite sets of stimuli support Zanthius' example and another uncountably infinite set would result in the opposite case (since each set of stimuli would result in a different remapping). The gist of my prior and current argument is not "Zanthius is entirely wrong / backward" - it's "you can't draw a conclusion for or against this without more information." I'm not going to further explain why this is a moot point to argue if this paragraph doesn't 't suffice.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be so great if more neuroscientists studyied the neuronal effects of circumcision. Research where people are asked how they feel after circumcision is worthless.84.210.13.40 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Having followed this discussion, it's seems that whether one supports or opposes the practice, the removal of foreskin is not of the same order anatomically and physiologically of the "circumcision" to which females in some cultures are subjected. To distinguish between the two, the use of "mutilation" should probably be confined to the scope of "female circumcision". That appears to be the norm in medical journals, and I didn't notice that the article to which I linked was a 'press release' or that there were already related studies cited in the article. I don't intend this as a statement of opinion on the possible adverse effects of circumcision, but to defer to RS.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ubikwit, thanks for adjusting to the sourcing, that's really appreciated.  14:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

HIV in the lead
To start with the "A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis..." paragraph is much too detailed for the lede and should be cut or one or two sentences merged into the prior paragraph. Thoughts? -- Neil N  talk to me  17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would support changing it to "A 2009 Cochrane review found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men in Africa by 38–66% over 2 years." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing just that sentence or...? -- Neil N  talk to me  18:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neil, have you reviewed the prevalence of the sourcing related to circumcision that covers circumcision and HIV? Out of all the things to trim, this would be the hardest one to justify based on the sourcing. The mention of the African RCTs here acknowledges how influential they've been. Even so, I'm happy to support a tightening of the wording in the lead regarding this, the lead could just state "Circumcision reduces the female-to-male transmission risk of HIV by 50-60%" or whatever the latest secondary sources say.  18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think statistical specifics can be toned down in that paragraph, it can seem a bit jargon-y with all the percentages in there; specific risk reductions and that sort of detail can probably be left to the body of the article.. Yobol (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am assuming the sourcing supports the text and agree with Yobol. Also, the paragraph is a bit inconsistent with "...range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks." I recognize that the studies may take into account non-neonatal circumcisions but the reader is left wondering at the discrepancy. -- Neil N  talk to me  19:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 's is a valid criticism and agree, how about "by better than half"? Although I personally find this kind of wording like "better than half" "twofold" etc., while it looks simpler because it avoid digits, ends up making the sentence more ambiguous.  Other suggested wording welcome.   19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would personally just leave it at "significantly reduces risk" and leave the details to the body. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted84.210.13.40 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page is neither a WP:SOAPBOX or a WP:FORUM for general discussion of the topic. I suggest hatting further digressions off topic to keep this talk page on a manageable movement forward on improving the article. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

BXO
Recommend also "Balanitis xerotica obliterans occurs in 1 in every 300 or 1000 males, 98% of which are uncircumsized. 4-8% of those develop penilie cancer."
 * http://misc.medscape.com/pi/android/medscapeapp/html/A1074054-business.html
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22085120

I just had surgery for that cancer, so I know it is a risk factor people want to know about in plain English. Only after discussing benefits in US should we put in an equally short summary of AIDS benefits.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bob that you brought is a decent-looking review article.  I can verify the 4-8% by looking at the abstract but I can't verify "1 in every 300 or 1000 males, 98% of which are uncircumsized", is that in the body of the article?   20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not know the pubmed tools very well, but I thought this was a from a good review source. There are also other articles that cite any range of frequencies.  There is also newer research showing both growing trends and geographical linkage, but I don't think those citations are yet useful to Wikipedia, but can research.
 * Frequency


 * United States


 * Kizer et al[2] noted that of 153,432 male patients discharged from Brooke Army Medical Center, 108 (0.070%) had a diagnosis of balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO). The age distribution was similar over a range of 2-90 years, with the exception of the third decade, when the incidence almost doubled. Black and Hispanic patients had twice the rate found in white patients (10.59 cases, 10.67 cases, and 5.07 cases per 10,000 patients, respectively).


 * International


 * The prevalence of male genital lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans [BXO]) has traditionally been estimated at 1 case per 300-1000 males. No recent studies confirm this estimate, but male genital lichen sclerosus is not considered a rare condition. Huntley et al[3] reported on 100 consecutive patients seen in pediatric urology clinics who were followed to discharge. Eighteen referrals for circumcision were for religious reasons. Of the other 82 patients, the main reason for referral was retractability or phimosis. Six patients were identified as having BXO, a condition that had not been suggested on referral. Epidemiological data continue to show that BXO can effect boys.[4, 5] Some in Italy claim that the incidence of BXO has been understated.[6]


 * In Austria, 75 boys younger than 10 years were treated for phimosis; phimosis grade 2 or 3 (schema by Kikiros) was suspected of being BXO. Boys were given either circumcision or conservative therapy with circumcision secondarily (only if therapy did not yield good results in the conservative group). A pathologist examined every circumcision specimen. Doctor performed circumcision primarily in 29 boys and secondarily in 17 boys (mean age, 3.7 y; range, 1-10 y). The pathologist found BXO, chronic inflammation, and normal histological results in 8 (17.4%), 26 (56.5%), and 12 (26.1%) of patients, respectively. The average follow up was approximately 8 months. Doctors did not report recurrences. BXO appeared to be more common than previously reported. The clinical appearance can be confusing in boys, and preoperative BXO suspicion failed to correlate with the final biopsy results.[7]


 * Race


 * Male genital lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans [BXO]) has no known predilection for any racial or ethnic group.


 * Sex


 * Male genital lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans [BXO]) occurs most frequently in persons who are uncircumcised and who are of middle age. One study[8] revealed that 51 (98%) of 52 patients clinically diagnosed with penile lichen sclerosus were uncircumcised.


 * Age


 * Although males with genital lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans [BXO]) are most frequently of middle age, the condition also may appear in children, ranging from young boys to adolescents. The incidence of BXO in pediatric patients is higher than most physicians realize. Additionally, the incidence of BXO is high in boys with phimosis.[9, 10, 11]

I find it so wierd that they don't have a Norwegian wikipedia article about this. Everybody in Norway have foreskin. It is called "Sekundær fimose" in Norway. I get only 236 hits in google. If it is such a common occurance among uncircumcised men, why aren't more Norwegians writing about it? Anyhow, it says "Patients have overcome and minimized it by soaking it in hydrogen peroxide 3% solution." Zanthius (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is research (primary source, not yet Wikipedia ready) that shows that BXO has a geographic pattern. I don't think anyone yet knows what that pattern is, or what the source is, but this is true for a number of diseases, and one of the theories (not BXO, but generally) is that geographic patterned diseases are exacerbated or caused by a toxin or pathogen that is endemic to some regions.  Or maybe Norwegians are cleaner.  Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And that reference in the Norwegian Wikipedia may want to be modified. I am not sure if it has a medical reference, but you would probably need to do that kind of cleaning frequently (and soap and water is what the papers seem to recommend for frequently), and I am pretty sure that is not a cure for the disease.  It might have been recommended in some place as an analgesic, but since I am not smart enough to read Norwegian, so didn't check the reference.Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethical and legal
There should be a small paragraph about the ethical and legal questions in the introduction. The sentence "Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.", seems too thin. I also don't think the section about "Ethical and legal issues" belongs in the end of the article. It should be much farther up. It also seems somewhat ridiculous that there is a section for "Economic considerations". Remove it, and mention it briefly somewhere else. For example where it is written about HIV. I also strongly advice Zad68 to take this criticism seriously, otherwise I think this debate is going to continue forever. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with IP that an expansion of coverage in lead to discuss ethics is probably warranted (I count 5 paragraphs in the body, which would justify some expansion in the lead). Disagree that we should move the ethics section (per WP:MEDMOS), or that we should ignore economic considerations, as there is extensive literature discussing it. The location of this section seems fine. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you have any better way of determining how much weight should be given than the amount of literature? The section about economic considerations is bigger than the section about Judaism or Islam under cultures and religions. How many people do you think circumcise their babies because of economic considerations? Probably none. How many people do you think circumcise their babies because of Judaism or Islam? Almost everybody. Policy makers might be somewhat interested in the economic considerations, but if medical organizations start recommending circumcision because of health benefits then it is already implicit that it has economic benefits. It is kinda obvious that health benefits go hand in hand with economic benefits regarding circumcision, and therefore the economic considerations should be mentioned where you have written about HIV. Especially since the economic studies seem to be directly related to HIV.84.210.13.40 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (e/c) No, that is precisely how we determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give a topic; we see how much is it discussed in the relevant high quality sources and literature. Since economic considerations are not specifically medical considerations, but more of a societal/cultural consideration, its own section in the society/culture section is appropriate. Yobol (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that there are heaps of sources on economic considerations (what you actually said earlier) or that overview sources on the main topic give a lot of weight to economic considerations (the actual criterion for determining weight in Wikipedia)? That's often a huge difference. Hans Adler 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am saying there are a number of secondary sources that discuss circumcision in the context of economics (cost effectiveness in the medical context). Yobol (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That could be reason to mention circumcision in the appropriate economic contexts. For giving much weight to economics in a circumcision context, we need the opposite thing: Secondary sources on circumcision which give weight to economics. It seems that the Norwegian IP intuitively understood this and contradicted you for this reason. Hans Adler 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And overview sources such as the WHO and AAP sources regularly discuss cost effectiveness, so yes, secondary overview sources discuss the economics of it. Yobol (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case. Since the economic effects of circumcision are so closely related to the medical effects of circumcision the section about economics should be located much closer to the medical section. I also think WP:WEIGHT needs huge improvements if it only determines weight according to the amount of secondary sources. That is a very simplistic and one-dimensional way of giving weight, and in this article it makes absolutely no sense. Especially in regard to the economics section.84.210.13.40 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Assessing weight by how much emphasis is given in the relevant literature is a good method of having some objectivity in measuring how much weight to give a subject; it avoids the messiness of using the personal opinions of editors (and the inevitable disagreements that come from those personal opinions). If the literature gives a subject a lot of weight, it is not the role of the editor to unilaterally decide to de-emphasize it just because they do not like the topic. Yobol (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Chronic Lyme is mentioned in 2-3X more studies than Post-Lyme Syndrome. Are you sure that you want to make that argument?Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I dispute that WP:MEDMOS fully applies to this article. In particular, circumcision is not just any surgical procedure but one that started as a ritual and still is performed most often as a ritual. The article decapitation is not structured according to MEDMOS, and neither should this one be, as the generic MEDMOS structure for surgical procedures marginalises some of the most important aspects. MEDMOS was not written with such a special case in mind.
 * Decapitation???? 56% of boys are not Decapitated.  I just had penile surgery for cancer 3 months ago.  Give me a break.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a need for an article discussing just the medical aspects and following MEDMOS slavishly, then it can be created separately under a name such as, e.g., "circumcision techniques".
 * I believe that the perceived need to follow the MEDMOS structure may be one reason why it has proven almost impossible to get this article balanced.
 * While we are at it, I would appreciate an unequivocal statement from the most active status quo supporters that they have understood the following fundamental and inevitable principle: WP:MEDRS (note this is now about sourcing) applies to medical claims in all articles, not to all claims in medical articles. Or if someone disputes the principle, please say so explicitly; don't just argue as if statements about religion, politics or law must be backed with Pubmed sources. Hans Adler 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been longstanding consensus that this article falls under MEDMOS as a medical topic. It would require an RfC to suggest that it does not, and I would suggest that rather than arguing it out here, you raise that point in a separate section as it would fundamentally change the way we approach this article, and should have its own section. I would like to comment that comparing this article to decapitation is, frankly, bizarre, as decapitations are not, to my knowledge, performed currently as a medical procedure. Yobol (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Decapitation was just the first thing that came to my mind as a surgical procedure that one could but very obviously should not treat according to MEDMOS. Applying MEDMOS to this article only to the extent that doing so is reasonable should normally be a no-brainer. The properly medical sections of this article are of course in the scope of MEDMOS. But to the extent that MEDMOS suggests an overall structure which marginalises non-medical aspects, this is clearly not applicable as it would enforce a biased article.
 * Similar situations come up throughout Wikipedia whenever an article is simultaneously in the scope of two wiki projects with their own special manuals of style. Of course you can insist on an RfC on the obvious, but don't be surprised if I will hold it against you later as an instance of stonewalling. Hans Adler 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As decapitations are not, as far as I can tell, ever been considered a medical procedure on humans, in the history of ever, I continue to find the comparison bizarre and not particularly helpful to this discussion. You can hold whatever you want "against me" that you want (is that a threat?); the fact of the matter is that it has been long held consensus that this article is a medical article and therefore falls under MEDMOS. It would be best if you think it is "obvious" that this article should not fall under MEDMOS, that you start a RfC that demonstrates this "obvious" outcome so we can move forward. Yobol (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An RfC is a waste of other people's attention if we are just having a misunderstanding. So let's be totally clear. I am merely disputing that the outline which MEDMOS proposed at WP:MEDMOS is binding for this article. The article currently basically follows that outline, but by doing so it marginalises key aspects of the topic. Hans Adler 21:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are disputing the consensus that MEDMOS applies here. Start a RfC if you find it "obvious" that it should not apply here, and we can move forward. Yobol (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of the criticism has been that this article is too medical for a religious tradition. As circumcision mostly is done for religious reasons it clearly should have much more weight in non-medical fields than other procedures done for purely medical reasons. I have said earlier that this article very well could be renamed to "the physiological effects of circumcision" or something like that. If the article had a name like that, then it obviously should follow MEDMOS. The name of this article is however just "circumcision", and therefore it shouldn't be overly medical.84.210.13.40 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of discussion of the ethic, religious, social, etc context of circumcision in the article. Again, I would suggest a RfC to get a wide community input on whether MEDMOS applies here. Yobol (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Weight
Further to recent discussion on article weight and criticism of database selection here are the results of a record search across several databases. Selected date range was 1997-present as coverage of non-STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) sources improves in Scopus and Web of Science after this date. The number of publications in this subject (probably in most subjects) increases markedly from the mid-1990s in any case. The JSTOR and Project Muse database search results differ considerable from the Scopus and Web of Science ones as, aside from the fact that they predominantly index Arts, Humanities and Social Science sources, they are derived from a complete content search rather than a subject/topic search. This will inflate the figures (lots of false positives where coverage of the actual subject is trivial). Results are indicative rather than determining, etc, for questions of weight, and direct comparison of these databases may be questionable in any case. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * this is an awesome starting point for discussion, thank you! It's always best when we can base these sorts of discussions on independently-verifiable data that has relevance to Wikipedia content policy.  I'm starting to look at these results.  I'd like to hear your thoughts, based on this data do you personally have any feelings about whether the article needs significant restructuring or a change in weight?    03:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)  ...and is there any way to tell how much duplication there is across the result sets??   03:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . Re: WP:MEDMOS. I'm open to arguments about moving away from MEDMOS for this article but I don't think you'd find much support for such a change on the basis of the proportion of circumcision related articles published in defined research fields. The medical field clearly still publishes vastly more on the topic than any other field - although one could argue that their field of interest is necessarily narrower and most of the heavily cited stuff relates to the purported protection circumcision provides against HIV for populations in certain countries/regions in Africa.
 * Therefore, if I was to argue for a change I would look in the first instance to the presentation of circumcision in generalist tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias to see whether they privilege a medical or other depiction of the topic as this would be relevant to questions of article weight. Then, I'd probably assert that this article should be considered a broad-concept article that should cover all the significant sub-articles/topics associated with circumcision without unduly privileging any given one - including a medical one. Finally, without reference to any policy or guideline I'm aware of, it might be possible to argue for a divergence from the use of the medical manual of style on the basis of the coherent presentation of the subject whereby the broadest consideration of the topic should be given prominence - such as prevalence of circumcision around the world, context in which it is performed etc. Obviously, WP:MEDRS would still apply for all medical content - has objected that this has been misapplied in this article but I'm unclear as to where specifically. It would also be great if we could get an agreement amongst editors here that sourcing for non-medical content could also parallel the sourcing conventions for MEDRS - peer-reviewed, academic press literature only, preference for literature/historiographical reviews, etc. Such an agreement might be facilitated if those of us with access to such literature would agree to make it available to other editors, regardless of their POV. It might deter discussion about the use of retrograde sources, at least.
 * Anyway, I'm undecided if such a change would materially improve the article and I think it would probably entail an awful lot of work to maintain a neutral point of view following such a change. Either way, at this point a RFC (groan) with an agreed formal closure should probably be initiated on the question of whether MEDMOS should continue to apply to this article or not.
 * I'll attempt to answer your question on the citation databases presently (short answer is that there is a lot of overlap). FiachraByrne (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . Re: duplication across data sets. It was estimated in 2009 that both Scopus and WOS share about 2/3 of their records in common and 1/3 unique to either database  so the overlap between these two datasets is considerable - Scopus holds more records overall (20% more coverage than WOS ) with greater global coverage but it is patchy for records prior to 1996 and includes lower impact journals . Scopus has recently (2009) doubled its coverage of Arts and Humanities literature through partial incorporation of the Project Muse database and the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) . The overlap between Project Muse and JSTOR appears to be quite limited. For instance, JSTOR holds 136 journal titles in Lit Crit, Project Muse 123, but only 31 of these titles overlap. The problem with evaluating the results from these two databases, however, is determining how many of these results are actually relevant to the topic of circumcision. I'll attempt some kind of evaluation of that if I have a bit of time later. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiachra, remember the results from Harzing's Publish or Perish:
 * I could have (and probably should have) ordered the above by most citations rather than Google Rank; but it would not have impacted significantly on the fact that the most cited sources on circumcision are medical sources. This is not to say that social and cultural content is not appropriate but just to emphasise that the preponderance of scholarly output on the topic has been medical (even if we allow for very different publication models in different disciplines). from an archived post by FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you comment on whether these results are also still relevant to this discussion, or are these new bibliometrics you produced of superior quality and utility such that the Harzing's results aren't relevant? 14:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Still relevant, I think, in identifying the most widely cited records on the topic. Google Scholar has its deficiencies (duplication of records, inclusion of non-scholarly sources, etc) but it's free and its coverage of Arts and Humanities topics is, apparently, better than Scopus or Web of Science, so it provides something of a corrective. Whether or to what extent Google Rank should be used is another matter. I might edit the table above to provide a little more detail and to match the search criteria used on the other datasets. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fiachra, very much appreciated. If we're going to have a dispositive conversation about the structure and relative weights of the sections of this article, it needs to be based on data like you're providing here, rather than the the culture and points of view of the individual editors who happen to show at the article this week.     18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem . I might need a few days to get back to this and I'm still trying to think of some way to assess the general relevance of the JSTOR and Project Muse results and how to get a fix on the level of duplication between the different databases. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . I'll need at least a week or so to assess duplication across datasets and make some kind of estimate of relevance of JSTOR and Project Muse records. Following discussion on proposals for RFC on new layout below but not weighing in yet. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fiachra if you're willing to get that work done it'd be very much appreciated. Even if you could come up with a general heuristic based on estimates that provides a convincing argument about what the relative proportions are of the sourcing weight across disciplines, that's be so very useful.  What we need here is way to resolve this discussion one way or the other so that both the article and Talk page can have some longer-term stability.    02:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Current weight distribution of article
How does this fit with the source distribution found by FiachraByrne? 84.210.13.40 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the chart. Tough to say so far, because as Fiachra pointed out there's a lot of duplication between the various source databases, and each source database looks at a very distinct slice through the sourcing.  Needs more analysis.    19:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the weight distribution, I think this article is sup-optimally organized. The economic considerations should be located after the positive effects section, as it derives from studies in that section. I also think cultures and religions can be merged with the last section in History (modern times). And then there can be a separate section just for Ethical and Legal issues. Also. Shouldn't there be a section about the possible function of the foreskin in this article? Maybe the adverse effects section can be merged with a "possible function of foreskin" section? Or we can make a new section called "Possible function of foreskin and adverse effects".84.210.13.40 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article organization is being driven by WP:MEDMOS right now, which gives the layout it currently has. This is part of the general discussion we're having. I think if there's consensus to change how the article is organized overall, the result would include layout changes like you're describing. And there is mention of the anatomy and function of the foreskin, see the introduction in the Technique section, which begins "The foreskin extends out from the base of the glans...". More detail will be found at the dedicated Foreskin article, of course.  19:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for their efforts above. Based on my reading above, two indices are heavily weighted to medicine as the recent scholarly output, while two weight against it. The two that weight against medicine use content searches rather than topical searches, which probably decreases their reliability with regards to using their search results to determine weight for topical discussions.  I also see that our weight in our article has >50% non-medical content.  As such, I agree with the comment by Altenmann above that the overall article does not appear to be unduly weighted one way or another, though the lead probably needs to be adjusted (if >50% of the article is non-medical, >50% of the lead should reflect that). Yobol (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If >50% is non-medical, isn't that also a good argument for the article not to follow WP:MEDMOS? 84.210.13.40 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be an indication that there has been special attention to the non-medical aspects (understandably, given the context), not that it is a non-medical article. Yobol (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the sourcing distribution it'd more be an argument for making the summaries in the non-medical sections tighter. The non-medical sections have expanded over time.  This is the lead article in a WP:SUMMARY-style constellation of articles, there are full-blown articles going into specific coverage of the many society and culture aspects, like religion, ethics and law, plus medical aspects like HIV.  See the "Main" links within the article., agree with that assessment of the source distribution, based on the data provided I don't see an overwhelming case to reconfigure this article.   20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be wise to commit to a RFC on the applicability of MEDMOS in the not too distant future. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , the article has long-established stability and consensus with the WP:MEDMOS layout. I am totally supportive of an RFC if those who are interested in changing the current WP:MEDMOS layout to some other layout would like to propose that change.  I would do it myself but I don't know WHAT the proposed desired change is.  There's a general discussion that some other layout is desired but I can't guess what it is, so I can't start an RFC proposing moving to it.   02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . Yes but that consensus is under attack and has been for some time now. In fact the applicability of MEDMOS has been questioned pretty much since I first started watching this page about a year or so ago. I'm not sure if a RFC will resolve that issue but it might help to safeguard article stability - or it could risk a major overhaul. Either way, given that the results from the search of citation databases above indicate that coverage in non-medical sources is more significant that has heretofore been acknowledged, it might be useful to formally confirm where consensus now lies. Anyhow, I'm not rushing off to write a RFC presently myself or anything but I do think its something that should be done in the near future. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The way the article is organized right now is extremely poor. There has been equivocation going on, equivocating the medical reasons for circumcision with the medical aspects for circumcision. Encyclopedia Britanica actually has a good method for organizing the various sections which can be seen here. An overview is at the top, the historical religious and cultural reasons for circumcision are then explained, an explanation of the medical procedure follows, and finally the medical reasons are listed last. That's basically how this article should be organized. ScienceApe (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will respectfully disagree with ScienceApe. I am new two this discussion, and it seems like there are two issues that are important to a large number of Wikipedia readers, which are medical and prevalence/history (neutral and informative), and these are handled with balance and grace.  Then there are two polarizing issues, religion and ethics, which are lightly mentioned and linked out.  That feels exactly right.  I don't doubt that there are people who feel strongly on both sides, but they are not mainstream views.  Keeping this as a MEDMOS article helps keeping the article from being a morality battlefield.  Female mutilation concerns are mainstream, circumcision as mutilation is NOT mainstream based on its frequency. Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Keeping this as a MEDMOS article helps keeping the article from being a morality battlefield". I wouldn't dispute that; and, if a RFC concluded that MEDMOS did not apply, it could certainly lead to article deterioration. While it's probably not ideal, in my opinion, I think the application of MEDMOS is probably better for this article than not at this point in time. Nonetheless, I think a RFC on the applicability of MEDMOS would be advisable. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re 's post - that tertiary source is relevant to questions of weight. I wish there were more such generalist tertiary sources available. Or maybe there are and I'm not aware of them? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, keeping this as a MEDMOS article is what's turning it into a morality battleground because medical reasons are given undue weight to overemphasize their importance to circumcision. Historically, circumcision has been practiced for exclusively for religious and cultural reasons, with various new excuses to rationalize routine neo-natal circumcision. The latest excuse to rationalize it, is medical reasons, but as said before it's just an excuse. No medical organization in the world recommends routine neo-natal circumcision, but proponents of it, use medical reasons to rationalize their practice of it when the true reasons are religious and cultural. The problem with this article is that it is giving undue weight to those reasons when it's not an accurate reflection of reality. ScienceApe (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not buying the "Historically, circumcision has been practiced for" arguments across the board. Marriage falls into the same category, "with various new excuses to rationalize enslaving women into a contract..."  The argument is fatuous.  There is a section on history, but it does nothing to raise or lower the value of the main content which already exists: culture and medicine.Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you "buy" it or not. It is a documented fact both on wikipedia and it's well sourced. Bringing up marriage is an argument from analogy fallacy, irrelevant and fatuous. ScienceApe (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, I escalated, and am sorry. I believe you are trying to make a statement in good faith that circumcision is largely cultural and less medical.  I was only debating that history is relevant to today. You seem to believe it is.  I am making a statement that the article should be more medical because of the literature's extensive documented risks from non-circumcision.  You are saying the article is unbalanced because you think the medical issues are less relevant.  I am saying that cultural issues are well handled with trend information and international references.  You are saying that religion is a big part of the story, and I am disagreeing that it is a big factor anymore (at least in the US) I think it is purely cultural, and we can report what people do and even trends and variations.  You are saying that pro-circumcision advocates are acting in bad faith to hide behind medicine, and I am disagreeing that I am acting in bad faith, but I won't speak for others.  I have had Penis cancer, so I hope you will see my sincerity in wanting medical literature to document all medical procedures.   I certainly respect your sincerity.  I do believe that the mainstream in the US is tolerant of circumcision, and that is what the article is too, and that emphasizing religious or moral issues would degrade the article, as it is outside the mainstream.  It seems like you would prefer to emphasize more of the moral or religious issues involved.  Am I correct?  I did not mean to put words in your mouth, I was trying to be respectful in case I my mistaken escalation was also causing me not to listen well.Bob the goodwin (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. The first thing we need to clear up is the religious cultural thing. You need to understand that for the longest time, culture and religion were the same thing. Only relatively recently (compared to the time humanity has existed), with the rise of secularism, has religion and culture been two distinct things. So when we are talking about the history of circumcision we are talking about religion and culture being intertwined. It's not so much as "pro-circumcision advocates" these people are more specifically "pro neo-natal circumcision advocates". I'm saying people like that use this article's bias (and there is a bias) to justify neo-natal circumcision using medical reasons when they are wholly irrelevant and unjustified. No one is saying there isn't medical justification for circumcision however, there is no medical justification for neo-natal circumcision in a healthy boy. I understand that you had penile cancer, but you also have to accept that penile cancer is rare, and has very little to do with the vast majority of circumcisions in the world, of which are neo-natal circumcisions on healthy boys. Because of that, the weight of this article should be on the cultural and religious aspects of circumcision. As for circumcision in America, it mostly began in the 1930s or so, championed mostly by John Harvey Kellogg because of his strong religious beliefs felt that masturbation was a sin. He believed that circumcision would reduce the incidence of masturbation in boys. So while circumcision in America today isn't directly tied to religion, it has its origins due to religious influence and its views on sexuality. ScienceApe (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, but your version of history is different than the history written on our own page. So if you have sources you should bring them out.  The trend began a lot earlier, and were dominated by health issues not morality issues, although the morality issues were present.  At minimum you are trying to combine things that are different (America, Islam).  But to use your example as a proof of cultural (or religious for that matter) causation in America needs stronger evidence.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well. If you also take into consideration that circumcision is a religious tradition, which most people associate with religion, I think there is a very strong case for reconfiguring this article into a non 84.210.13.40 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Circumcision may have a religious history, but do not see any evidence that religion represents a dominant factor in circumcision today in the US.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, wikipedia represents a worldwide view, however religion and culture are intertwined and both are relevant, and circumcision being practiced in the US is closely tied with cultural reasons, not medical reasons. ScienceApe (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hold on silver! You switched your argument from religious to cultural.  Those are quite different things.  The best predictor of circumcision is the fathers penis, and the mother is usually the one who decides.  So I think that prevalence of circumcision is a very good discussion of culture and has nothing to do with religion.  So I think there is a LOT of information on culture.  But for the detractors and the promoters, not so much. Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. My position was always that the weight of this article should be on the cultural and religious aspects. The main thrust of the discussion NPOV noticeboard was based on this premise. ScienceApe (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't switch positions, but religion was the question I addressed, and you responded with culture. So where do you differentiate between culture and religion?  I think religion is important as a factor in circumcision to a minority of Americans, and I just don't see it as the big driver anymore.  If you have evidence that religion is the dominant issue in the US, I will stand corrected.  What do you have to add on the cultural front that I am missing?  I found this article that listed cultural issues on why circumcision is chosen and differences around the globe UN culture circumcision Is this the kind of information you mean?Bob the goodwin (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've addressed most of what you said and combined it all into the most recent response I made to you which can be seen above. ScienceApe (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As someone who's not really involved in this article, and not connected with WP:MED, but just developed a mild interest in the subject on a drive by, having seen the NPOV argument last week, I just wanted to query whether the ratio of coverage between Positive Effects and Adverse effects, as detailed above, (a 6.16 to 1 ratio) is really a fair reflection of the relative material or the medical evidence devoted to each? Many "secondary" sources I've looked at, (inverted commas because they may not meet the WP:MEDRS bar that seems to be quite a high one), such as the British Medical Association's guidance document, imply that the jury is out on whether there is a net benefit or a net adverse affect. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem . The ratio in this article is very much in the ballpark of what's found in the secondary and tertiary sources. Generally the more detailed the coverage the higher the effects-to-adverse effects ratio of the coverage is.  For a middle-of-the-road example, the complete text of the coverage of the procedure in Current Diagnosis and Treatment Pediatrics, 21st ed. by Hay et al. is (hope this isn't so much that it's a copyvio):
 * Circumcision is an elective procedure to be performed only in healthy, stable infants. The procedure has medical benefits, including the prevention of phimosis, paraphimosis, balanoposthitis, and UTIs.  Important later benefits of circumcision include decreased incidence of penile cancer, decreased incidence of STDs (including HIV), and decreased incidence of cervical cancer in female sexual partners.  Most parental decisions regarding circumcision are religious and social, not medical.  The risks of circumcision include local infection, bleeding, removal of too much skin, and urethral injury.  The combined incidence of complications is less than 1%.  Local anesthesia by dorsal penile nerve block or circumferential ring block using 1% lidocaine without epinephirne, or topical anesthetic cream are safe and effective methods that should always be used.  Techniques allowing visualization of the glans throughout the procedure (Plastibell and Gomco clamp) are preferred to blind techniques (Mogen clamp) as occasional amputation of the glans occurs with the latter technique.  Circumcision is contraindicated in infants with genital abnormalities (eg., hypospadias).  A coagulation screen should be performed prior to the procedure in infants with a family history of serious bleeding disorders.
 * Compare this to the 30+ page 2012 Technical Report from the AAP, which goes into a lot more detail (link available from the article) and has maybe a 10:1 ratio (rough estimate). Meanwhile, the entirety of the coverage at Rudolph's Pediatrics is "Circumcision is associated with decreased risk of penile cancer, UTI, and STDs, including papillomavirus, syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV.  The complication rate is less than 1%, typically bleeding and infection at the surgical site." which is about 1:1.  This Wikipedia article hits a spot in the middle.   21:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if the adverse effects section is combined with theories about the function of the foreskin, then maybe you could argue to have it a bit larger. I think we should change the name of adverse effects into the name "possible function of the foreskin and adverse effects". Since they are deeply connected, and since it will give a bit more food to that section. If sections are very small, it can be argued that the text don't deserve be in its own section.84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, remember that the English wikipedia is not just used by American people. You might consider circumcision to be something medical in the United States, or if you are a doctor practicing it. But most people are not citizens of USA, nor are we doctors practicing it on innocent little children...84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the placement of the content about the function, the trouble with the suggestion to move it to the adverse effects section is that it's not just the adverse effects that are related to it, the entirety of the effects section is related to it too.  03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the foreskin tends to accumulate bacteria that is not a function of the foreskin, but rather a possible side effect of the foreskin. The function of the foreskin is related to why we have it, in a biological context.84.210.13.40 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you don't think the benefits are 6 times the costs? Many more people die of Penis cancer than die of circumcision.  Are you arguing the slight improvements in sexual pleasure offset the decades of pain, inability to pee or have sex to the tiny minority who get the severe infection?  Or are you saying that the cultural issues outweigh the medical?Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If grown up people want to remove their foreskin because they are afraid of getting penis cancer, then I have nothing against it. Nor do I have anything against women removing their breasts because they are scared of getting breast cancer. It would however be seriously wrong to remove the tissue which grows into breasts on all female infants. And MUCH more people get breast cancer than penis cancer.Zanthius (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * and while this discussion does seem interesting could I ask you to please take it to one of your User Talk pages?  Per the instructions at the top of this page we are not to use this page for general discussion about the article's subject.  Thanks...   17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Apologies.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image
Just out of curiosity, how was Turkmenistan chosen as the possible location of the image? The original caption at the Library of Congress website says "Customs of Central Asians. Circumcision". In subjects it lists "Turkic peoples". From what I know, there are five countries in Central Asia and four of those are Turkic speaking (except Tajikstan, where a dialect of Persian is spoken). The only thing that could have made someone, not very familiar with the region, think it's Turkmenistan is the line "Turkestanskīĭ alʹbom" in the 'Notes' section. Turkestanski means Turkestani in Russian, which is not the same Turkmenistani. -- Ե րևանցի talk  05:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * can you help come up with a more accurate caption? The caption is "A circumcision performed in central Asia, possibly Turkmenistan c. 1865–1872".  Should we just removed "possibly Turkmenistan"?  Or are you talking about the description in the file information for the image itself?    14:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's not a big deal, but I think it would be best to simply link to Central Asia (with capital "C") and remove "possibly Turkmenistan", because it can easily be Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, both of which are Turkic-speaking and are larger than Turkmenistan. In imperial Russia, the term "Turkestan" referred to the Turkic-speaking lands. In fact, Russian Turkestan didn't include modern Turkmenistan. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or this quaint charming image could be bunged into the historical circumcision article and a contemporary drawing or photograph showing the actual article title act ( skin removal) could be sourced. In an ideal world.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 09:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would favor the removal of the image from this article. I think it inaccurately represents what should be the scope of this article as our emphasis is not on circumcision in Asia in the nineteenth century. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That particular image is (as far as I know) the only circumcision-related image we have on Wikipedia that is Featured-quality content. The one image brings together three of the most important aspects of the article's topic:  the procedure itself, the procedure's religious and cultural significance, and the procedure's history. It's a very well-qualified image.    02:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But Zad you are contradicting yourself - do you not remember saying that this article is to be primarily about the medical aspect of present day circumcision ?  You have done a great deal of work to see that this is so- to be consistent then surely we should have a lead image that shows the modern clinical procedure per your desires. As you have so often pointed out we have a whole article devoted to the religious end of circumcision and another given over to the historical. In the image here that you so lavishly and repeatedly praise and defend the actual  procedure is not even seen. We see the glint of an instrument on a pinhead of pixel and the rest of the photo is given over to displaying  seven elderly men to the baffled  wikipedia reader . The image is also  not consistent with the rest of the article as, per your and others of a similar mindsets entries most cutting off of  boy's foreskins nowadays does not happen out of doors, and  is  not conducted by old men in filthy clothes on a blanket  on the ground  but in safe  aseptic clinical settings.This is poor work. We might as readily show a recent  picture of a forced adult circumcision from Africa, Australia or eastern Europe  and call it significant for embodying the same three factors you list above (religious cultural/historical/and the "PROCEDURE" --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, and demonstrates that Zad seems to change what the article's focus is supposed to be depending on what he chooses to protect from the article. ScienceApe (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)