Talk:Circumcision/Archive 8

Female circumcision
very little mention of female circumcision this should be adressed as the term applies to both male and female 68.170.137.10 11:38, 22 December 2005

Links to photos
The two photos are clearly of uncircumcised penises. This may be useful for demonstrating to those of us who are not the proprietors of foreskins what one looks like in both unretracted and retracted conditions. But it doesn't demonstrate what a circumcised penis looks like. There is, however, a perfectly good photo of a circumcised penis in the same scale in the archives. Surely someone with better editing skills than I possess can attend to substituting it for the second photo of an uncircumcised penis which is now on the page. Masalai 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed.09:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pending someone actually posting a photo of a circumcised penis I corrected the image label. Benami 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * An excellent idea and a considerable improvement. Actually it would be better to have a photo of a circumcised penis added as a third photo rather than replacing the previously incorrectly labeled one.Masalai 06:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll leave that to someone else. While there's no shortage of such images on the internet, I don't know how to go about adressing the copyright issue for photos, and I'm not about to submit a photo of my own penis. :-) Benami 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor getting into a hoo-ha with those who beg -- no, demand -- to differ! The copyright issue seems to be almost insurmountable other than with respect to those that are so ancient that they have entered the public domain. However, it would indeed be useful to have the three photos, and that hadn't even occurred to me till you corrected the caption on the two that were already there. Masalai 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about adding these two pictures from the French Wikipedia? The french bit underneath says they're public domain and free to be used and/or modified. I think they both demonstrate what the difference is excellently. 64.231.115.78 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Penis_.jpg http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sexe_male_penis.jpg

Reversions
Jayjg, if you think the article is not NPOV, please follow TShilo12's example and edited the article instead of reverting it. There is no need to go back to the 10 December 2005 version. Also a reversion should not be marked as a minor edit, especially for a controversial topic like circumcision. Please do not mark significant changes, including reversions, as minor edits. -- DanBlackham 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text.
 * Reversions of pages are not likely to be considered minor edits under most circumstances.
 * The changes were neither NPOV, nor discussed in Talk: first. Reverts are minor edits by default; if you have any concerns about the use of the minor edit flag, please take them up with Rood, who completely POVd the introduction using both the flag and using a misleading edit summary. And if you think any of Rood's POV terminology (e.g. "natural, intact penis", "fetishistic") or unsourced claims (e.g. "the individual, over time, might occasionally consider multiple circumcisions to be desirable") belong, please make a case for them here. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the whole world becoming dumber by the minute?
Why the whole controversy? Cutting off a sensible part of an infant or young boy's penis without any medicinal indication is sexual abuse and a human rights violation. The essence of the matter can be identified within minutes by a little bit of a priori thinking. Every counter-argument on this page questions my faith in human intelligence. Please, think of the children. Dabljuh 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're free to hold that POV, of course, but Wikipedia must be neutral. Jakew 21:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The truth doesn't care about what kind of POV one holds.Dabljuh 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Jakew 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, if you want to go around being inmature, and insulting intelegence, find somewhere else to do it. Wikipedia dosn't strike me as the type of place very open to flame wars. Second of all, circumcision helps tremendously in the clenliness of the penis. Without the foreskin for example, smegma rarely if ever occures. Finally, as stated in a multiple articles (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/3557266.html), circumcision actually decreases the chance of contracting HIV and AIDS. Look, I could really care less if you don't see the need to mutilate your son's penis at birth (which, due to the development of nerve ending, wouldn't hurt the child if preformed correctly). But it's a perfectly logical and normal thing to do, and one that doesn't really deserve unfounded criticism. Webster100 06:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The results of this study: [] seem to have been inconclusive. Since there is no definition at all to the "satisfaction" items, I don't think this reference and the statement it is tied to add anything and should be removed. --156.101.1.5 15:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitions can be found in the full text, if you care to read it. Nevertheless, it clearly states that circumcised boys scored higher on satisfaction items. Jakew 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, the studies are essentially a posteriori, often flawed and/or intentionally misconducted. If there is no a priori explanation for the results of the study, the study is ultimately worthless. Why should the removal of a highly sensitive part of the penis not reduce sexual satisfaction? Why shouldn't the glans be an internal organ? Why are people happy having to use lube to jerk off comfortably? Why should the chance for an STD transmission be reduced when the penis is less sensitive, has to be trusted harder, and the act is taking longer? Studies that just say 'it is so because we have the statistics' are bad science and to be dismissed. Additionally for every study that is done in favor of intactivists, there's a study in favor of people who like to legitimize mutilating boys. There is a lot of (financial) interest obviously in keeping the public opinion on the side of circumcision, and since you can hardly fake a priori thinking, you have to manufacture studies, and scientifically gullible people buy them. Stop citing studies and just THINK about it for a minute. This was my initial complaint about the state of the article and the talk page.Dabljuh 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you don't like the studies, Dabljuh, but that's insufficient grounds for excluding them. Wikipedia has certain requirements for sources, with a strong preference for peer-reviewed journals. There is no indication that sources should be censored on vaguely paranoid grounds of suspected (by Wikipedia editors) misconduct or disagreement with the findings. Jakew 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask to exclude the studies from WP. I asked to be sceptical towards them and not to use them as a reference when discussing "advantages" or disadvantages of circumcision, when they do not back up their results with a priori models on why this is this way. Why is there nothing about the lack of explanations for the pro-circumcision studies? On the other hand, why aren't the a priori arguments against circumcision treated equally as the a posteriori findings of the studies?
 * As a rule of thumb, if a priori and a posteriori do not find the same, either is wrong. They cannot be both right and contradictionary - Usually this means the theoretical model is false and has to be revised (if model and experiment contradict) but in this case, the rational argument against circumcision is so sound, and at the same time, studies are so easily misconducted with a sensible topic like this, that I would recommend very carefully analyzing the studies and taking the theoretical model (of the functioning of the penis) first.
 * And then we have female genital mutilation. Horrible Practice. And we have Male circumcision, which is somehow beneficial and improves the sex life and everything. Don't some loud warning bells ring up in your head? All signs point to pro-circumcision studies being total hogwash. THINK, goddammit, just use your head for one second and stop pretending its not a human rights violation what the doctors are doing to our sons.
 * So, we have misconducted and unsound studies. I do not accept them as evidence for one or another, without an explanation why! How about you, for once, argue, how exactly a circumcision would be beneficial to a man, and why exactly it should be done on an infant rather than a consenting adult. Dabljuh 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merely calling the studies hogwash, misconducted and unsound is not sufficient. That's illogical. Maybe it would help to talk about specifics. Is there a particular study that you have in mind? If you want an explanation for something, I may know the answer. If not, I'm always happy to research. Jakew 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not request to ponder studies. I request for you make real arguments for circumcision, without citing studies. If you do not believe circumcision to be beneficial, you may act as the devil's advocate.Dabljuh 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, Dabljuh, the scientific method hinges on a posteriori studies. It is those that set it apart from mindless babbling and speculation. A hypothesis is presented, then tested; if it tests negative, it's revised. If no suitable revision can be thought up, that doesn't invalidate the study, it just showcases either our lack of imagination or lack of understanding. In this case, presumably, we don't understand the mechanisms of sexual pleasure well enough to propose a good reason for the studies, but that isn't grounds to ignore them.

If you have specific statistical objections to the studies, fine; if you can prove (in the most rigorous logical/mathematical sense) that they're unreliable, then they must be. If you have specific methodological objections to the studies, that's also fine, and those should be considered. And, of course, we should all keep in mind that it's always possible for there to exist methodological flaws we haven't spotted, as we should keep in mind with all studies.

But "I don't understand" is not an option. An infinite number of functions exist that include any finite set of data points, so there can always be something wrong with your theory, no matter how much observation it's based on. Theories are worthless if not considered in isolation of studies; studies, on the other hand, have practical use even if we don't fully understand the results at any given time. This is the reason studies, and not speculative hypotheses, are useful as reliable sources. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, this is probably the difference between continental European science tradition and anglo-american scientific tradition. The anglo-american way is much more empirically based than the continental european way. The european way is to develop a model, test it in experiment, find differences, adjust the model, and repeat until the difference are small enough for the model to be acceptable. The anglo-american way seems to go more into the direction that no model must be developed, and instead, the pure empirical data must speak for itself. The flaw of statistics is that they are prone to methodical and systematical errors whose existence may elude the conductors of such a statistic.


 * Here I insist we have such a case: We have two models of the workings of the penis. The first one is that the foreskin is a sensible part of the male sexual organ, important to its health, sensitivity, and function, and that its removal therefore would decrease sensitivity and sexual pleasure - to both sides. One may however argue if the increased timespan and roughness of the intercourse, increases the chances of STD transmission more so than the possibly reduced incentive and thus frequence of intercourse.


 * The other model says Circumcision is good because its good.


 * You may fool the regular fucktard here that easily. I want arguments. The difference between a study and a statistic is that a study also develops an explanation, an a priori model why the results happened. A statistic is just a couple numbers gathered and is easily manipulated, hard to figure out if one is not familiar with the detailed and exact conduct of the sampling, weighting etc. Bullshit models are much easier to debunk.


 * There is nothing not to understand about the studies. I want real arguments why circumcision is good, other than "I have studies that..." I want a priori, theoretical, rational arguments why circumcision would be medicinally beneficial, as well as why it would preferrably be done on infants rather than consenting adults. No weaseling around, I demand the answers, now! Dabljuh 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dabljuh, do you honestly believe that this confrontational and combative attitude serves your arguments? Please review WP:CIV.  Tom e rtalk  08:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do I still note: nobody has provided my with any argument pro (infant) circumcision? Maybe because there is none? Instead I am being argued against for my decision to dismiss all studies on the subject as inherently flawed. Do you really have no other argument than "We have studies"? And now I am being insulted for not being civilized enough. In my opinion, circumcision is not civilized in any way, dammit! I demand to hear convincing arguments for circumcision! Dabljuh 10:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * CONVINCING ARGUMENTS?!? The entirety of this page disagrees with you, as does the majority of humanity.  We have sited facts proven through the scientific method, and published in peer-reviewed journals.  We have logically explained every single one of our points and systematically disproved, or pointed out the flaws and fallacies of every single one of your points.  You sit there and cuss at us, use narrow-minded logic, and fail to give us a link to a single outside source, and you want convincing arguments?!  The only place that those are lacking is in what you type.  Webster100 06:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong in several ways. First off, in your appeal to authority/popularity.  The entirety of the page does *not* disagree with him; I certainly don't.  I think his point is a valid one, that there are few convincing arguments in favor of circumcision.  Who is this "we" you speak of?  I'm not part of your "we".  You speak of "our points" and "your points".  Since when is this a war?  We are all supposed to be working towards the goal of truth; by those statements you reveal yourself as a partisan with an axe to grind.  If you'd like to speak of a "we", perhaps the "we" we could speak of might be the majority of the human race that do not perform circumcision?  If you want to go around spouting off appeals to popularity, isn't that the most popular opinion there is?  Please try to keep your head in the future, even when someone disagrees strongly with you, and remember that this encyclopedia is for everyone and it's not here to push an agenda.  -Kasreyn 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I was circumcised as an infant. And I'm so happy I was. I don't want a flap of useless skin whapping around on the end of my penis. Yay! It's gone, and I don't have to undergo the trauma of having to undergo the disgusting surgery of having it removed in adulthood. Thanks, Mom and Dad! Believe me, that's the viewpoint of 99.3% of guys who are circumcised. How certain are you that you want to pursue this issue? Tom e rtalk 10:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I'm fairly certain I want to pursue the issue. With absolutely no pro (infant) circumcision arguments showing up (other than 'ick its unclean' which I attribute to the greater stupidity principle) and only some studies that are likely to have a systemic bias on the outcome, I further expect to expose circumcision advocates as frauds. I pity the people who had their foreskin removed as a child, but trying to legitimize it through bogus means is not the solution. We must fight, with all means necessary, to prevent that another generation of boys grow up with their schlongs mutilated. For adults, seriously I cannot care less what they do if they find circumcised wangs to look sexier and its worth it to them. What must stop is this whole bad science approach that somehow constructs circumcision into having medical benefits to anyone. But hey - I'm still willing to hear arguments from the pro side, so I might change my opinion. But so far, and judging their reactions, I don't expect to hear much. Dabljuh 11:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just curious, TShilo, but how can you be sure that the reason you are so positive about your circumcision isn't that the alternative (thinking of yourself as being genitally mutilated) is too unpalatable? No one except a man who was circumsized after having sex can be capable of appreciating what may or may not be lost, so you're "happy" about something whose effects you cannot know - you do not know what life would have been like as an uncircumcised man.  So mightn't this happiness come from the percieved value of social conformity, ie., you're happy you're "like everyone else"?  The cold fact of the matter is that for a man who was circumcised not by his own choice, ego will always be a barrior to honest self-assessment. -Kasreyn 07:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think TShilo was 100% serious when he posted that. Additionally, circumcision is not as horrible as you think, once you get past the procedure (and its risks). You feel a bit less (maybe a lot less) but, well, that's about it. Its not like circumcised males can't fuck anymore. The problem is just that medically speaking, the risks of circumcision as a procedure are a lot bigger than the medical benefits you get in the long run. That is why, while there is no huge reason to feel bad about being circumcised, this is no excuse to allow the practice to continue out of ignorance or insecurity. Dabljuh 10:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The AAPS sums my opinion up pretty well:
 * We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.
 * Dabljuh 10:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting though this may be, I honestly can't see what relevance it has to Wikipedia's article, Dabljuh. Can I suggest moving discussion elsewhere? Jakew 12:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Er... you do not see arguments pro or contra circumcision (whether they exist or not) relevant to the Wikipedia article? I mean seriously, what the hell? Dabljuh 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article isn't there to persuade, only to inform. However, there's nothing to stop us citing arguments for or against from others. Jakew 12:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't go WP:NOT on me. Apparently, Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle. The article fails to inform that there is apparently no convincing argument pro circumcision, but dozens against. I'm still waiting for arguments pro (infant) circumcision. Are there any? Your continued failure to provide pro (infant) circumcision arguments is beginning to lead me to believe there really aren't any. I'm waiting, but not for long.
 * Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. (from WP:NOT) Dabljuh 13:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if there were consensus that "there is apparently no convincing argument pro circumcision, but dozens against," it would still be inappropriate for the article to say so, because that would merely be the opinion of the Wikipedia editors (and it would also violate NPOV policy). Since the article can only report the facts, discussion of our assessment of these facts and our concluding opinions can do nothing to improve the article. This is why I suggest moving discussion elsewhere. Jakew 14:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that the article selectively provides facts in favor of circumcision, leaves out the disputed nature of those facts, and totally omits facts that are making a point against circumcision. Since you continously fail to provide any argument pro (infant) circumcision, I make you an ultimatum: Argue with me, convince me, or I will add both a disputed and an npov flag to the article's header. This is perfectly appropriate since we do not appear to have a consensus (Also see WP:Consensus on the matter). Dabljuh 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What changes should be made to the article, in your opinion? Alternatively, what paragraph(s) do you dispute? Jakew 14:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The easiest solution would be to add a adequately extensive section where the critics of infant circumcision can illustrate what they believe is wrong with (infant)circumcision (and the way it is being advocated). The general bias of the article appears pro circumcision, so to have one single section showing a contra circumcision POV may not be the optimal solution - just the simplest that I could agree on. A more optimal solution might be a complete reworking of the article: Many points that the article makes pro circumcision are disputed by intactivists and would have to be offset by counter-arguments from the intactivist side, and vice versa, to display the issue in a more balanced light. The current state of the article is unacceptably biased. If you can think of better solutions that I could be happy with, go ahead. And even if we can agree on reworking the article and reach a consensus, I would still like to argue about the subject just out of, well, call it curiousity. If we can create a good debate, we may be able to post a readable summary of it in the article. I can imagine that such a count-counterpoint argument may be more enlightening to a casual reader about the dangers and benefits of circumcision than a whole section bashing the practice unstopped, or an entire article becoming unreadable due to bickering and weasling happening in every other sentence. Dabljuh 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I believe the real solution can only be an approach of both: Dedicate a section to the intactivists' arguments, and remove or counter-point some of the really more disputable pro circumcision arguments in the article. Dabljuh
 * It's perfectly ok to create a section noting arguments that have been made in reliable sources, but to include arguments from the talk page would be original research. It would obviously be expected that any rebuttals to these arguments (that have been made in reliable sources) would also be included. I see no reason why the same should not be true of pro-circumcision statements, and if you have specific citations to counter-arguments in mind, please share them.
 * As for the debate, I'm happy to discuss, but let's move it to Talk:Circumcision/debate so that this page can focus on the article. Jakew 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, lets debate! I have decided as a fun twist to the whole thing, you will be arguing for the intactivists, and I will be arguing as a circumcision advocate. I have roughly laid down the rules there, you may talk back to me and we can discuss them if you feel you cannot comply to them. Dabljuh 18:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm still waiting for some type of reaction. As a side note, just stating the obvious and concluding the not so obvious (which is what every good argument does) doesn't count as Original Research. That's just using your nut - Something even Wikipedia doesn't have a rule against yet. Dabljuh 01:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't seem to find that exception in the relevant policies. Have I missed something? Jakew 13:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, um, I'm new to Wikipedia but I'm not sure how to edit this or where you get your names and all. Excuse me if this is in the wrong place.

I'm against circumcision of infants. It is a tradition here to circumcise children at the age of 13 - since I grew up amongst Europeans (I was lucky enough to be born among a well off family and many of my friends came from Europe and were uncircumcised), naturally when the time came I was opposed to it. But it was still done, without my permission. I even talked to my guidance councelor at school, and she said my parents knew what was best for me.

First off - I had no medical condition requiring circumcision. My foreskin was perfectly fine. I have never had a Urinary Tract Infection. It was done because it was a tradition. Not for anything about health.

After the circumcision, I noticed a distinct drop in sensitivity (Most of my frenulem was removed, aswell). Since then, my glans have also...kind of, dried up? I don't know how to describe it, but they're not as sensitive as before. I'm 15 now - if my penis was more sensitive when I was 13 something is definitly wrong. I can't even believe what was done was legal, either. I mean, it's my body, not theirs, right?

From my own research, I seem to remember that the foreskin contains special nerves of some sort, which are more sensitive than the regular nerves on the shaft of the penis? From my own experience I know this is correct at least in some for there has been some (I would describe it as substantial) reduction in sensitivity.

Onto the benefits thing. I thought condoms already reduced the chances of HIV to like, 15%? And if your partner doesn't have HIV you won't get it either. And a Urinary Tract Infection isn't going to kill you (I don't think), and Penile Cancer, if it is indeed as uncommon as it is, doesn't seem to be a problem. Actually, using circumcision as a preventive measure when there isn't cancer doesn't really make sense to me. Wouldn't that be like cutting of the breasts of a female to stop her from getting Breast Cancer? Or, DanBlackham's example about the labia.

Actually, looking back I was sort of lucky. Many of the people here are circumcised at 13 without anaesthetic because they can't afford a surgeon's fee with a plain old knife. At least I was able to go to a clinic.

I ask that you take my post seriously, disregarding my age.

Sincerely, Michael


 * Ok, I'll bite... I don't think anyone here is going to blow you off because of your age.  If they did, I think we'd all jump on them.  To be honest, most of the arguments here are over routine infant (as in, newborn) circumcision, which is how it is performed in many places.  We haven't had much debate over forced teenage circumcision.  My position is that of opposition to circumcision on ethical grounds.  I personally don't care what benefits there are to the procedure or how much the circumcised may rave about their self-esteem.  My stance is that custodial consent, ie the notion that parents can make important choices for their child, begins and ends with the parents' responsibility to protect their child.  A circumcision to counter dangerous phimosis, which is very rare, would be a justified use of the procedure.  Otherwise, the parents' protection of the child must include protecting their child's foreskin, which they might decide they want someday.


 * For what it's worth, you have my sympathy for what happened to you. Please, try not to blame your parents or bear a grudge.  I don't blame mine.  As I see it, they were lied to by society about the supposed benefits of the procedure.  They had my best interests at heart, they were just misled.


 * Others here have many different viewpoints. Some oppose circumcision for medical reasons, others support it for cultural or medical reasons.  The best thing is, most of us here, on both sides of the debate, are pretty calm and fair people.  Don't be afraid to ask questions and jump into the argument.  For the most part, we don't bite.  Thanks for joining the discussion!  -Kasreyn 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael, where is "here" - what country are you in?Benami 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess would be turkey or some other southeast european state with a big muslim population. Dabljuh 19:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That IP address is located in the Philippines. Jakew 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael here. Yeah, I'm in the Philippines. It's actually not done here for religious reasons (except for in the South, where's there's a high concentration of Muslims). It's a tradition for basically everyone, like a rite of passage. It's just done, usually around 11 or 13.

The supposed reasons here, are "If you're not circumcised no one will have sex with you" and "Your penis won't grow big". The medical reasons (by the way I've never encountered anyone with Phiomosis or who's had Urinary Tract Infection) aren't even discussed.

Thanks Kasreyn ^^ I had a grudge against my parents at first, and I do think they made the wrong descision, but I realize now they were just uninformed. Unfortunantly there's not much I can do about it now.

Michael 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Potentially unexpected images
I think we should be cautious about the inclusion of images of genitalia which the reader may not be expecting to see when following links to the page -- particularly if the reader is, for example, following links from pages about religious topics, and uncertain of the meaning of the term "circumcision" prior to coming to this page. In particular, given the range of ages of readers and the range of jurisdictions within which they may be residing, we should err on the side of caution. I am therefore going to replace the inline images with links to images. The images will still be available, but the reader will only reach them after following a link which makes it obvious what to expect. This is not censorship; it is just allowing readers to make an informed choice about whether to view the images, along the same lines that we already have spoiler warnings. Terra Green 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) To those for whom this is an issue: please take it up at WP:VP, not here. Your chances of establishing a policy on this page will be much bolstered by an en:wp-wide policy. For another approach to this issue, check out the solution on fr:wp (at fr:pénis, for example). Tom e rtalk 23:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is most vital to show the pictures for comparison, as many visitors to the page will do so for the first time, and may not be sure whether they are actually circumcised themselves or not. But this is obviously my (male) POV on the subject. I remember, long ago, when I was wondering about circumcision the first time, it took me quite a while to figure out what exactly it is. The pictures in this article are very descriptive and informative and will explain faster and more efficiently than an abstract sentence like "... the foreskin is missing". I know, I would have been thankful for such a simple and handy explanation what it actually is. One issue with circumcision is that most people are not aware of their status. Uncircumcised people may wonder why male porn stars look so different down there, and circumcised men may not realize their condition is not one they are born with. Also, we generally do not have enough pictures of penises on wikipedia, but various anonymous editors are helpful with this issue. There's few pages where having a picture of a penis is more justified than on the circumcision page. Dabljuh 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely about their informative value; the only issue is whether to show them inline or by means of links. Of course if the reader has arrived here by following a link from a page which is already sexual or anatomical in theme, e.g. masturbation, they can't be too surprised to encounter inline images of penises.  But there are links here from many other pages such as Acts of the Apostles, and (as I said before) the readers of such pages may not understand the nature of circumcision prior to visiting this page.  I think it is a simple courtesy to give people the choice about whether to view the images or not.  (Note that I am not equating religion with prudishness; the same would apply to links from any pages which are not sexual or anatomical in theme). Terra Green  07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * the readers of such pages may not understand the nature of circumcision prior to visiting this page That is exactly why I would leave the pictures in place. Nothing describes circumcision as good as a picture, aside maybe from a video showing the procedure. I agree with you on the choice argument, my POV is that, sadly, not enough people are really aware of their status or about circumcision in general. As such I am most interested in having an informative article, even when just looked at for the glimpse of an eye. I do not find the issue as a whole to be of too great importance however, either would be acceptable. But: Any page with anatomical details can be linked to by any other page, for various reasons, and thus the same rationale would command a general "no genitals directly in the article" rule for the entire wikipedia. Lacking such a rule, I find the "hidden" pictures inconsequential. Maybe we could argue about a kid's version of the circumcision article (and any others), that religious articles could link to? As a final, religious note: since god is so obsessed with foreskin in his best selling book, he wouldn't complain about some tasty pictures of it either. Its his own fault really. Dabljuh 08:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think much of your argument could be used as an argument also against having plot spoiler warnings, but the consensus is that spoiler warnings should be included. I think the principles here are strongly analogous: with spoiler warnings, we simply recognise the fact that a substantial number of readers are likely not to wish to view particular content, and so simply as a courtesy &mdash; while neither agreeing or disagreeing with the POV of whether it is good for readers to view such content &mdash; we give those readers a reasonable opportunity not to view it.  (Of course the actual mechanism differs from the case of spoiler warnings, because we can assume that a page with spoilers will generally be read in a roughly linear fashion, whereas images catch the eye, as you say.)  I take your point about links being possible from anywhere for whatever reason, and yes probably I would therefore conclude that inline images of genitalia are to be avoided in general.  Incidentally, your final point about religion is not relevant to my reasoning against inline images, as I already made clear; my point applies equally well to the link from Maasai for example. Terra Green  12:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing that should be taken into account is wikipedia's policy, or rather with the possible lack thereof, the general usage of this issue. So that the inlining of potentially offensive pictures is done consequentially and not just arbitrarily for some articles and not for others. You may find it to be useful in the long run to actually create/propose a (reasonable) wikipedia policy on this. However I do not find spoiler warnings a satisfying analogy, because King Kong dies at the end and it doesn't really ruin it for anyone. How about a warning template instead: "Warning, this penis-related page may contain penis" Dabljuh 13:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the French solution. I think I'll be bold and add it for now. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, wait, I see that Terra Green's solution hasn't been reverted. Never mind.  In the event we want to use a template, here's a sample:

 Warning: This page contains uncensored images of male genitalia. 

That shows up as:

 Warning: This page contains uncensored images of male genitalia. 

(To avoid GFDL attribution problems in the unlikely event this is used, I hereby irrevocably allow unrestricted use of the above.) &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, "policy or lack thereof?" WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Wikipedia can not guarantee adherence to regional or cultural social norms. It may shock some of the conservatives contributing to this article, but most of the world (even most of the English-speaking world) is not shocked by penis. For example, children up to age 10 usually play naked in city parks in Berlin, Germany! It is informative and appropriate to pictorially depict circumcision in an article on circumcision.

In my opinion, it is insulting to suggest that a reader would not expect an image of circumcision when following a link to a Wikipedia article labeled circumcision. We should not assume the reader is excessively naive. —Daelin @ 2006–01–09 09:38Z

Fringe Views
Lets make a short assessment what constitutes a mainstream view and what a fringe view is on this by Wikipedia's WP:NPOVUW statement.


 * 1) Infant circumcision is not recommended by any national or international medical/health organization, and outlawed in some scandinavian countries. It is thus clearly the relevant majority view.
 * 2) Since the scientific medical community does not recommend routine infant circumcision, circumcisions performed on infants and children are only explainable due to cultural reasons (Religion, Aesthetics). This clearly belongs to the article and is not actually a POV item.
 * 3) Sexually mutilating children for cultural reasons, since it has no benefits that outweight the risks, would constitute a human rights violation and sexual child abuse. However this view is shared by fewer scientists. This is a minority view.
 * 4) Finally, the fringe view on infant circumcision is that it is beneficial and should be widely done.

Time for a {NPOV}-Check ? Happy Holidays! Dabljuh 16:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, the article does not endorse any of these views. However, I should note that a lack of recommendation is not a view in the usual sense. A recommendation against would be a view, but few, if any, organisations have expressed that. Moreover, several organisations, such as the AAP, recommend that parents make a decision on the basis of religious and cultural factors in addition to the medical factors. Jakew 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article gives undue weight to the arguments of the fringe groups and emphasizes the supposed medical benefits of circumcision that are promoted by those groups. The AAP does not lack a recommendation for or against infant decapitation either. The AAP however advocates vaccines as far as I know. See how the system works? The article does not represent adequately the mainstream view in the scientific and medical community, which is that routine infant circumcision is medically useless at best, and a human rights violation at worst, and instead concentrates on the arguments of the fringe groups that endorse and advocate routine infant circumcision. It thus grossly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As a sidenote, WHO and Amnesty International have expressed their opposition to female genital mutilation, as you probably know, but are reluctant to act on male genital mutilation for reasons that I could only speculate on. However, the supposed "medical benefits" of male genital mutilation are certainly not one of them, as there is not one national or international health/medical organization that would share that fringe group POV. Dabljuh 17:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is a "mainstream view" in the scientific and medical community that routine infant circumcision is "a human rights violation," then it should be trivial to find scholarly sources that state this clearly. Nandesuka 17:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There can be little doubt that most if not all medical organisations acknowledge at least some benefits of circumcision in their policy statements. For example: "In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger than 1 year of age. ... There is at least a threefold increased risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men; phimosis, a condition that exists only in uncircumcised men, increases this risk further. ... Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." -- AAP, 1999
 * Discussion of the same cannot, therefore, be considered a 'fringe view'. Jakew 18:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

In the case of circumcision, where opinions are so polarised, the use of the term fringe view is problematical. It far too easily lends itself to use by each side to demonise the other. It is better to concentrate on giving a fair account of the evidence and of the opinions of medical bodies. Michael Glass 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, the state of affairs is fairly obvious: Circumcision is not endorsed, merely tolerated by the scientific Mainstream. The minority view is one that completely agrees with the medical side, but goes further and adds an ethical point: in drawing the conclusion that since it is just not medically recommendable, chopping a part of some infant's wang off it is a human rights violation, a sex crime and child abuse. Meaning, the only difference to the mainstream is that they do not tolerate circumcision on children. The fringe view however is the one that totally opposes the mainstream view, and obviously the minority view, and rambles about how incredibly beneficial circumcision is and why they should be allowed to do it to everyone. For your argument "There are benefits" there are countless more benefits from castration acknowledged by the mainstream too. Yet no responsible doctor would recommend castration as a way to improve one's life to everyone, and few would actually do the procedure to a willing, healthy adult. But then there are the fringe views that figure, castration is for EVERYONE! Of course if you ask 6 billion humans, you're going to find advocates of everything. Better example? Trepanation. It is not up to Wikipedians in analyzing the medical data. That's what we have doctors for, and the mainstream opinion in the medical community is without a doubt, that circumcision is not recommended - at the very best. And that's why we have WP:NPOVUW. Just because some nutbag on TV shouts about global warming being a hoax, it doesn't change that the scientific community has no doubts about it happening. It does not mean both parties should be treated equally in the article about it. Dabljuh 22:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's the thing. Despite medical evidence, a large part (though not the majority, of course) of the english speaking, potential wikipedia readers, is circumcised. That is why there need to be some of those fringe view arguments in the article, because they want to read them. The important part is that the article as a whole, does not distort the reflection of what the opinion of the medical mainstream is. That the article, as a whole, makes it prominently clear that the medical community does not see any (medical) reason to circumcise. And with less prominence, the opinion of a group that agrees with the mainstream in the medical, and just raises the (important?) ethical question of performing the procedure on infants. Right now the article just reads like a more or less subtle circumcicisionist pamphlet, and thus, violates the NPOV policy. Dabljuh 04:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dabiljuh, if you feel that the article as a whole or any particular part of the article is biased, do your best to remedy this defect. I look forward to reading and considering your contributions. Michael Glass 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The subject is controversial. I would happily rewrite or reorganize the entire article or large parts of it myself, but I want the support and understanding of doing so, not only from people who are sharing my POV, but also of those who do not - for example, Nandesuka and Jakew. Even though they seem to be supporting what I reasonably consider fringe views and have no problems making the article a circumcision advocacy lovefest, even they can understand, not just as wikipedians, but also as sceptical minds, that a rewrite is necessary, and that the article needs to be more balanced. This is why I request their support (and maybe from others, just the whole crowd of people somewhat knowledgeable about the subject) for a rewrite. Wikipedia is a project that works on consensus and before starting an edit war, I want to make sure we all pull the same rope. Also, I'm not a particularly good writer, grammar/spelling and the such, for those reasons I would also prefer to have help rewriting the article (I've been told I'm writing with an accent). Ultimately, I am, myself, biased on the subject and while I can try to write in a due neutral way about the subject, I will need some help straightening things out. This is what makes consensus politics great. Nobody gets really what they want, but nobody can take reasoned offence in the result either. Dabljuh 07:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncircumcised = non-Christian?
The intro to the article makes the claim that religious use of the word "uncircumcised" means non-Jewish or, more rarely, non-Christian. Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. I've seen the word used to describe non-Muslims on occasion, but never non-Christians. Any references?Benami 09:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'm changing the sentence. Benami 01:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Circlist
This is not an encyclopedic source of information about circumcision. Therefore I removed it. Michael Glass 09:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was presented as an external link, not a source, Michael. None of the other external links are encyclopaedic sources, either - that's the nature of the net. Jakew 13:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for circumcision
"Circumcision is performed for religious, cultural, and medical reasons. Elective adult circumcision may also be chosen as a form of body modification, or for aesthetic or other reasons." Could someone explain the distinction between "body modification, or..aesthetic" reasons and the religious and cultural reasons already mentioned? Body modification is a cultural practice, and aesthetics are part of culture. This seems to be a difference without a distinction. Benami 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I changed that sentence to something I thought made more sense. Benami 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" vs. "Intact" ad nauseum
I'm not gonna shut up about this one. The word "uncircumcised" implies that the penis in question lacks some expected quality. It's POV. In the US, circumcision has been a majority procedure, defying all medical logic. So US folks seem to think "intact" implies there is something wrong with their circumcised dicks. Well, frankly, there is: PART OF IT HAS BEEN CHOPPED OFF WITHOUT MEDICAL CAUSE. Intact is the only NPOV term and I defy anybody to make a convincing argument otherwise. Matt Gies 09:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's entirely possible that someone might not be circumcized, but have a penis damaged by disease, accident, or a wound. He wouldn't be circumcized, he the wouldn't have an intact penis, either. How'd I do? Reverting... again. Benami 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you say you are Jewish, I am not surprised that you take this view. But Matt is as far as I can tell absolutely right; the term "uncircumcised" implies a lack of something, whereas the term "intact" implies unmodified.  So, instead of just reverting, how about actually trying some constructive dialogue to see if we can come up with a more neutral term? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the prefix 'un-' simply means 'not'. Thus, uncircumcised means 'not circumcised', which is clearly correct. Intact, in contrast, means completely unaltered, and so is an imprecise term (a penis with a foreskin piercing is neither intact nor uncircumcised). We've been over this before; please see Talk:Circumcision/Archive_7. Jakew 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just zis Guy? Are you familiar with WP:NPA and WP:AGF?  If so, how on earth could you possibly have made this statement?  Because someone is Jewish their opinion is invalid?  That aside, you're right.  Un- implies lack of something, specifically, in this case, it implies, nay states explicitly, lack of circumcision.  So what exactly is your argument here?  Tom e rtalk  14:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * JakeW, If you look, I did more than just revert; for the record if the two terms are placed closer together I have no particular caring in whihc order thay are placed. TShilo12, it's interesting that you consider Jewish to be an insult or attack, I never have. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You quite clearly dismissed Benami's argument for the sole reason that he apparently somewhere states that he's Jewish. If that's not how you intended it, perhaps you should consider rewording your statement.  Tom e rtalk  14:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By way of further clarification, note that you never bother to address a single point Benami raised, you simply brushed him off with "Since you say you are Jewish, I am not surprised that you take this view", and then go on to address Matt's statement. If you had no intention of addressing Benami's well-stated, IMHJO, point, you should have ignored him altogether.  Tom e rtalk  14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the distasteful implications of whether or not anyone's being Jewish or not is relevant in the context of the appropriate terminology, may I point out that the terms used by King James's men in the 1611 translation of the English Bible (as with all before and after) were "uncircumcised" and "uncircumcision." The Elizabethan and Jacobean translators (and the original writers of the gospels and epistles) were certainly not prejudiced in favour of circumcision; quite the contrary. It is no more indicative of circumcision being normative to use the term "uncircumcised" than it is of "scarred" to use "unscarred" or any number of other negatives. Silly discussion. Masalai 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. Here we have a group of (presumably) men who were not circumcized and who definitely didn't have any nasty Jewish POV cluttering up their thought processes using the word "uncircumcised" to describe the state in question. I look forward to any of the "intact" lobby addressing this point - or, indeed, any other point raised in this discussion. Benami 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you didn't even read what I put in place, and why the religion issue might be relevant. Par for the course, I guess - looking back at the history it seems that it is forbidden to even hint that "uncircumcised" is anything other than the normal usage.  Strangely enough, in the UK there appears to be no such debate - nobody would use any particular term to describe a penis which is not circumcised, since circumcision is exceptional outside particular religious groups.  I find on reflection that I do not give a toss, I will leave you all to your petty wheel war since an attempt at constructive debate is apparently considered racial abuse.  And yes, I was trying to be constructive, it's just that you chose not to accept that I was trying to make a distinction between debate over terminaology (intact v uncircumsied) and the minority usage "uncut".  This, too, is par for the course, looking back at the history. Bye-bye. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * nobody would use any particular term to describe a penis which is not circumcised However if they were talking about circumcision and were talking about a penis that was not circumcises as opposed to one that was they would use the term uncircumcised rather than intact.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I wish you'd stay and explain how my being Jewish nullifies the (very reasonable, I thought) argument that I presented in my first post to this section. I made no claims about either condition being the default position for male genetalia, but pointed out that "intact" means more than just "uncircumcized." One of the reasons that I put User Jew box on my user page was to make any potential POV problems obvious. It honestly did not occur to me that it would disqualify me from holding certain opinions or making certain arguments. Huh. Benami 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'm not Jewish and I agree completely. Jakew 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What Jakew said. I'd go further (and perhaps more PC ;/) and say that the terms "circumsized" and "uncircumsized" occur far too frequently in the article.  It makes the language hard to follow on a first read.  It would be more economical to make comparisons by starting "The penis..." and then comparing by beginning "When circumsized...".  A single sentence should be added to the introduction explaining that, for the sake of readability and concision, the rhetorical penis is uncircumsized unless specified as circumsized.  I think "uncircumsized" is totally appropriate, but there's only a 16% difference between "uncircumsized" and "circumsized".  —Daelin @ 2006–01–09 09:53Z

NPOV notice
Well, Dabljuh, you've added the NPOV notice which indicates that there is discussion on the talk page about the NPOV issues you wanted to raise. What, specifically, are they? Jakew 17:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A number. I'll try to completely rewrite most of the article, with a focus on NPOV/UW obviously. Once I'm done we can discuss what you like about it and what not, ok? The article as a whole is currently, well, mutilated and barely readable due to age-old constant edit wars so I think a rewrite is due even aside from the NPOV issues. Dabljuh 18:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|frame|This is just in:

There is no NPOV issue at all!

Not within 200 miles of this article!]]
 * You're not being helpful, Dabljuh. Jakew 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * More than just being unhelpful, comparing those who disagree with him with former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf would seem to be a personal attack. Benami 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could not resist :) Dabljuh 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably unwise to try to totally rewrite the article on your own. With such controversial articles, it's generally better to make incremental changes that can be agreed (or not) on a case-by-case basis. Still, it's your time, and you should spend it how you wish.
 * As things stand, however, you have placed a notice directing readers to a discussion of NPOV issues that does not exist. You should either remove the notice or state your objections.
 * As for your other objections, while the article could be better, I don't think it's as bad as you say. And your stated objections certainly do not warrant an NPOV tag. Jakew 18:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jakew is right; this article has arrive at its current NPOV state through a long period of negotiation and compromise. Attempts by anti-circumcisionists to write a "new NPOV version" are extremely unlikely to meet with any consensus. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck with it - you're braver than I am. :P  By the way, regarding the link to MGC, I agree but only because there is no such article at the moment.  When I find some time I'll do some research and create an article for MGC, so that it will be appropriate to link in such a way.  -Kasreyn 18:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Dabljuh 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I for one thought the picture was funny, if just a bit large and perhaps a closer to over-the-top than absolutely necessary. Dabljuh, may I suggest that if you want to do a complete rewrite, that you propose a rewrite one section at a time...go ahead and make your rewrite, save it and revert yourself, and then offer each section for discussion with the appropriate diffs so that people can comment.  And when I say "one section at a time", I mean do it one section per week.  This article is big and has a lot of contributors, and it's only fair that a rewrite of the scale you seem to be proposing should be discussed in depth prior to expecting adoption of any of your proposed changes...especially if we're going to avoid a long series of edit wars, finger pointing, name calling and picposting.  Cheers, Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Title Change
I'm sure this has been gone over in an archive but I can't seem to find it. I suggest changing the article's title to "Male Genital Cutting" in order that it be equally euphemised-to-death as its female counterpart. After all, Wikipedia must be fair to both genders. Can there possibly be anyone opposed to something so obvious? :P -Kasreyn 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles discuss acts which are different in kind and nature. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet similar enough that almost everywhere in the world *other* than wikipedia, the female version is *also* called "circumcision"... I figured since one had been renamed "cutting", the other should be also.  Hmm, let's go to the dictionary:
 * cir·cum·ci·sion (sûrkm-szhn) n.
 * 1. The surgical removal of part or all of the prepuce. Also called peritomy.
 * 2. The cutting around an anatomical part.
 * --The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
 * Note that the definition of "prepuce", from the same dictionary, is that it describes either the foreskin or the clitoral hood. Therefore, since the same act (cutting around) is being performed on the same object (the prepuce), how are the acts different enough in kind and nature, other than the gender of the recipient, to merit greatly different names?  -Kasreyn 16:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Circumcision article discusses foreskin removal. The Female gential cutting article discusses all sorts of things besides removal of the clitoral hood. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, so there's a different level of specificity. Well then, are there other "cutting" practises performed upon the male genitals with which this article could be merged under the more general title?  Should the female article be split up into articles for each practise?  Or is there a lot more of wikipedia's time being devoted to one than to the other (which I suspect)?  -Kasreyn 17:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is substantial enough already, without merging other content into it. I see no reason why the FGC article shouldn't be split up, though, if enough extra content can be written to make it worthwhile. Jakew 17:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the title of the article to "male genital whatever". I would however suggest that "Male genital whatever" forwards here, because that is the page that someone is looking for when he's entering that, rather than Genital modification and mutilation. Or a separate page of "Male genital whatever" that lists the different whatevers that are done to males, rather than to both sexes. Generally speaking, the redirects are a bit of a mess atm, it is quite frustrating to work like that, I must ask everybody to coopearte a bit more. Wikipedia is a team effort after all. Dabljuh 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the female version is currently being called "female genital cutting", and it seemed bizarre to me to have different terminology for each gender. That was all I was trying to point out, I guess.  -Kasreyn 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is bizarre. But that's just the way it is, it is not common for the majority of english speakers to look up circumcision as "male genital whatever". As a sidenote, especially some (really dumb) feminists argue that the horrible practice called female circumcision should not be confused with male circumcision (which is presumably harmless joy and fun). But "male circumcision" IS "male genital whatever", so anyhow, "male genital whatever" should definitely forward here. Dabljuh 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is wide room here for severe mishandling of the issue. There is one type of "female genital cutting" that is analogous to male circumcision, and as far as I'm aware, the majority of people who object to it do so out of the ignorant assumption that it's one of the other two, which would actually, if they were performed on men, be analogous to complete removal not only of the foreskin, but of the glans as well, and in some cases even to portions of the rest of the penis as well. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  10:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what you mean is clitoridectomy/clitoridotomy being analogous to circumcision and infibulation being analogous to the very severe practice of subincision.
 * I meant what I said. All you've done is put specific names on what I was talking about. :-)  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  02:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Overhaul
I overhauled the whole article, not just with the NPOV issue but also with the general structuring of the article. I find that first, one would want to read the effects of circumcision, then read about its reasons, and lastly read about the history. I cut down the history part to the more relevant bits as I found the last version had way too much irrelevant history in it that should be reserved to the History of circumcision article.

I also ommitted the annoying "uncircumcised vs intact" part, because really, I couldn't give a shit. That wasn't what the NPOV problem was about.

The "Effects" of circumcision section may be a bit stubish, so please enhance. But please don't add the penile cancer thing, circumcision is a treatment for penile (foreskin) cancer, and a more invasive one at that, not a preventive measure. It is already in the "medical reasons for circumcise" section.

Note here's a difference between the "reasons" to circumcise and the effects that it has.

Since the "reasons" are a bit more detailed, one could certainly argue for moving them in front of the "effects" section, although I like my articles to be clear and brief in the beginning, and go more into details with time. That way one doesn't have to read half an hour to get to the interesting bits.

Be bold :) But try to improve the article Dabljuh 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope reverting the whole thing back to the article as it stood before you decided you knew best isn't too bold for you. I didn't think it was an improvement, and it was more, not less, POV. Benami 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. A bit more bold than what I hoped for. Look, the article needs an overhaul. Every single sentence of it has been torn around for a while and the entire flow is broken. I've added some relevant material and I do expect a bit of a better explanation than "More POV than before".
 * Of course I cannot say I am capable of writing a perfectly neutral article, or that I wouldn't need your help in making it a more neutral article. But the way it was before was an NNPOV mess. I ask for your cooperation: Rather than just reverting a couple hour's of my time's worth, couldn't you just change the sections that you have a problem with one by one? I'm aware that asking you for this is hypocritical since I just rehauled the entire article, but I have put forward some points that should show you that even if the NNPOV issue isn't cleared up completely (or at all) with my rehaul, the article does need a new structure. I'll revert and trust that you, after reading this, will cooperate with me on this one and change what you don't like, rather than reverting back to that ungodly, unreadable and nnpoved mess. Dabljuh 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I find being faced with an entirely new article a little overwhelming. Rather than replace the whole thing in one fell swoop, is there any way to convince you to submit a section at a time? Benami 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a specific idea with submitting an entire article. Instead of comparing every line to the line of the old article (which does not benefit the read flow) I want you to read the article as a whole (again) and judge then if it has a significant NPOV-violation in it (and where). This whole line-by-line comparison is something that is really detrimental to the read flow of the article in the long run. If you really must however, I can recommend you to use the Sandbox to compare section by section. Dabljuh 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On a second thought however, I would not recommend that. A lot of items have just been moved around and rearranged (within sections or from one section to another). And using the sandbox or just a section-by-section adding may give a false impression. Dabljuh 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dabljuh, please review my comment at the bottom of. If your rewrite entails moving things from one section to another, you can easily demonstrate that in a single diff which shows the moves. For such a large article with such strongly-held POVs, a complete one-man overhaul is not only a bad idea unless the consensus beforehand is that you should do so, it's just never gonna fly. As Jim Carrey says, that's just the way the cookie crumbles (cf. Bruce Almighty). Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd endorse Tom's suggestion. I'm sure everyone would welcome the opportunity to discuss section changes and ensure that we achieve consensus on them, but these are drastic changes, and only serve to make the article worse. Jakew 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific criticism with the overhauled article
Specific criticism with the overhauled article goes below this line, please! (Old article for comparison: here) Also, check out for a list of relevant changes of the new version over the old one.

Dabljuh 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Screw Prudes?
I really miss the pictures of the penises. Can we get them back? Dabljuh 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhm, yes. WP:NOT  However, "screw prudes" probably isn't the most diplomatic phrase.   —Daelin @ <tt>2006–01–09 09:20Z</tt>


 * Why don't you review where this was discussed (in part, with you).  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Discussed" being the operative word. "Matt" made a suggestion that inline images be removed, and never followed up in the discussion.  Copying the French delay-for-scrolling was mentioned (ignoring the EN style guide as it happens).  You, in fact, suggested the discussion be taken to WP:VP for some sort of policy decision.  The only relavent policy is WP:NOT.  This article had pictures, and now it does not, despite WP policy.  Someone made a stupid edit at some point.  I don't see an issue.  —Daelin @ <tt>2006–01–09 11:59Z</tt>
 * I wasn't attempting to imply that some sort of resolution had been found there, simply giving background for where the pictures went. Believe me, I recall quite well the rôle I played in that discussion. :-p  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally... Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I think someone missing cockpix is a rather poor rationale for making any edit.
 * 2) Does it not seem rather odd to anyone else that the two pictures W misses so badly, and wants put back prominently into the article, do nothing whatsoever to illustrate the subject of this article?
 * I agree with that issue. Don't we have a picture of an actually circumcised penis somewhere? I was agreeing to the three-pictures-idea already. Dabljuh 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I really haven't spent enough time examining the organ closely to know for sure, but does the one at User:SPUI/dick work? Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  15:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like a circumcised penis, but it is erect and viewed from the side. We'd need a picture of an uncircumcised, erect penis from the side as well to make it useful. I don't mind that btw, although I find the side-view less beneficial, but I find there's this common misconception that when erect, circumcised and uncircumcised penises look the same. Dabljuh 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after a rather lengthy examination of Image:Penis optimized.jpg, I'm not sure it is circumcised. Like I said tho, I'm hardly what one could consider an exspurt. A few others I found digging through the war over images in the history of the Penis article, are Image:Erection s.jpg or, and  deleted. There are a number of other "gems" at User:Markaci/Nudity. Since you miss the pix, I'll leave you the sordid task of sorting through them looking for something you consider "appropriate". :-p Personally, I think the diagram is plenty. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk Image:Penis optimized.jpgIs almost certainly a circumcised penis IMHO, notice the missing frenulum. But for it to be of any use in the article (for comparison) we would require an uncircumcised, erect side view of a penis.Dabljuh 16:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Penis optimized.jpg is very much NOT a circumcized penis. You can see the scrunched up skin by the base of the glans. It doesn't look like that in circumcized penises. Could you check the two penises I linked under the "Links to Photos" section at the top of this page? 64.231.171.102 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexey! I like them. Btw: You might be right, although I still believe it is a circumcised male. Possibly just circumcised a little bit loosely. Dabljuh 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Best to stay safe and not use Image:Penis optimized.jpg. Do you want to add the French ones? I don't know how to move the uncut one. The other one is already in the English wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Penis_.jpg, used in the penis article. 64.231.171.102 01:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the french picture of the uncircumcised wang. Currently I do not edit the circumcision article, but you can view the result at Talk:Circumcision/Dabljuhs_version. Dabljuh 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that this is the best talk page discussion I have ever seen. Screw the prudes, cockpix, and French uncircumcised wang, indeed. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we positively rock! Dabljuh 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the circumcision linked images. Thanks Dabljuh. The last two images were both of an uncircumcized penis. I think that these new ones represent the differences better and are more easily comparable than leaving one of the black-and-white images behind. :-) 64.231.171.102 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Design by commitee
The problem with adding / removing every line and section one by one is that it accumulates to design by committee. The article ("Jakew's version" as I call it) is barely readable, not very informative, some exhaustive driveling about totally irrelevant (and Wikipedia-specific) issues, and contains many NNPOV items.

I decided to write the whole article from scratch. I'll now try to explain in some detail what I did:


 * Removed the description of "uncircumcised" penis. It is the result from this annoying POV-War of intact vs uncircumcised vs genital mutilation, and does not add anything to the article. Used "uncircumcised" except for one incidence of "intact" where I found the difference to be relevant.
 * Added a section "Effects of circumcision". This is a bit stub-ish, I expect you people to add some more effects. The reason for this is that this is probably the most important thing the first thing that someone wants to read when he's informing himself about circumcision. Some of the material in that section is C&P from the old article, some I wrote from scratch. Read it and reconsider if there is any considerable NNPOV in it. I have tried my best to make it just the "current state of the art" medicinally relevant while maximizing readability.
 * Improved structuring of Reasons for circumcision, trying to make it more easily readable and also skip-able.
 * Improved structuring and rewrote some material on medical reasons for circumcision.
 * NPOV relevant edit: I changed the infant circumcision section to fix the WP:NPOVUW problem.
 * History of circumcision: Removed what felt like 100 pages of bible thumping. This is the general article about circumcision, if you want to read the historic details, go read History of circumcision. I feel there's only a few relevant bits of information that should be in the article:
 * Circumcision is way old
 * The christians didn't circumcise for some reason (like, the romans didn't like it) (Didn't find a section in history that summed that up with style, so omitted it. Experts on historical christian non-circumcision may add a section like that again)
 * It came en vogue again in late 19th century as a cure against masturbation
 * And because I find the section to be relatively interesting and also relevant to the article I didn't reduce the 20th century history of circumcision. But I intend to work over that part again as it still has a lot of link- and statistics- thumping in there that I don't think does all really belong in the historical section of the article. This section may have to be worked on still.
 * Didn't change "Prevalence" at all
 * Removed 2 small, badly structured and barely readable sections that felt like incoherent POV rambling and in their meaning belong to Bioethics of neonatal circumcision.
 * Revamped the links section
 * Update Added Risks assessment and What is circumcision stubs. 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: do NOT start reading the article line by line and section by section again. You need to read an article as a whole! Otherwise, the quality suffers (or to cater to the policy police: Make articles useful for readers as well as Guide to writing better articles )

Read the article as a whole! Observe if a casual reader would be more informed than he was before. Do not lose sight of the forest because you're looking for trees. I ask you. And dammit, don't just say it was more NNPOV than before. It's not.

I acknowledge that the article has come to this place through long POV edit wars. But that's not something that is beneficial to the article. Its something that sometimes can only be reversed by being bold Dabljuh 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For better comparison, I've created Talk:Circumcision/Old_version and Talk:Circumcision/Dabljuhs_version
 * I don't know that this is going to accomplish what you're hoping for... Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?
Dabljuh, in your latest edit summary, you stated: "rv (That write is POV, barely readable, and does not have consensus)".

Can I remind you that so far only you have endorsed your preferred version. Three people have reverted you:


 * 1) Benami
 * 2) Jakew
 * 3) Jayjg

Additionally, four editors (the three above plus one other) have advised you not to rewrite the article.

While there is no unanimous view either way, you appear to be in a minority in preferring your rewrite. Jakew 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jakew, you might want to refresh your memory on what consensus is. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I respect that there are several issues with my rewrite but I still consider my current version to be superior, as an encyclopedic entry, as an informative page, from WP:NPOV viewpoints. I have one request: READ the article in its current form and judge then. Dabljuh 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read it, Dabljuh. How else do you think I came to the conclusion that it was more POV and less well referenced?

Are you going to revert your 3RR breach, by the way? Jakew 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My intuition tells you have not read it thoroughly. BTW, I have discussed the matter with Benami and as far as I can tell, he agreed to more closely evaluate my version before simply dismissing it again. I am eagerly awaiting further input from his side. I wished for a similiar sort of cooperation from you (and Jayjg.

I have already agreed not to revert any more for the time being. Any further reversion (like the one you request) would indeed constitute a 3RR breach. Would that mean you get blocked for breach of 3RR instead of me? I doubt it, so I will simply abstain from further reverts for now. Dabljuh 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot help your intuition. As for the 3RR, you are already in breach. If you read WP:3RR, you'll notice that self-reverts are explicitly excepted. It is fine to use a self-revert to undo one of one's own reverts. Nevertheless, I have reverted your edit. Jakew 17:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I wonder if you would all be kind enough to indicate which version (author and timetag or latest) you are reverting to, please? I was unable to follow the recent edit history. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that confusion. For better comparison, I've created Circumcision/Old_version and Circumcision/Dabljuhs_version. I currently try to introduce my rehaul of the article because I consider the old article to be a mess, not only due to NPOV issues but also because of a lack of readability and "flow". It was reverted quite soon, so I reverted to my version giving more explanation on the talk page, the others then reverted to the old version for statusquoistic reasons rather than really evaluating the new one, as I believe.

I would like to add, I find the edit/rv war unfortunate. Dabljuh 17:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How could you find it "unfortunate", when you knew it was inevitable? You replaced a fully sourced version, which had been achieved via lengthy negotiation and consensus, with an unsourced, POV re-write.  You were warned beforehand by a number of editors that doing so would not achieve any sort of success, yet you did so anyway.  As far as I can tell, in the past day or so you have reverted 5 different editors on this article, violated WP:3RR, then refused to undo your violation.  What other outcome could you possibly have imagined? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I expected the willingness of all editors involved into improving the article and achieve a consensus. Sometimes, in order to really improve an article, bold moves are necessary because of the problems associated with . Everyone can be aware of that, and ultimately agree that an overhaul is necessary when viewed with all due objectivity. In the case you are not interested in improving wikipedia and its various article, I must ask you to abstain from edits. Dabljuh 18:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But there already was a longstanding consensus. Then you showed up, and decided it wasn't good enough for you alone. And your edits certainly didn't improve anything; on the contrary, how could they, when they were filled with unsourced POV?  There's nothing wrong with you having an extremely strong anti-circumcision POV, and one could even say that your lengthy debates against it on various pages weren't terrible, but you cannot write articles that mirror that POV.  If you're not willing to work with other editors in a collegial way (which is the Wikipedia paradigm), and respect Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR) how can you possibly hope to get anywhere here? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are factionalizing again. The long debates and all that convinced me: I am not opposed to circumcision anymore. Circumcision is great! Although its certainly not for everyone. However the medical consensus is still not to advocate routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision, so even though I dont like it, that has to go into the article. And to say there was a consensus and no NPOV problem before... Do you want me to dig for comical ali again? Dabljuh 19:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, Dabljuh, I don't see how this discussion is going to reach any meaningful results if you adopt stances you don't really have. Your user page, which contains this passage "A LOT of mis-information is happening on wikipedia and in the world in general about the topic. I don't mind adults to circumcise or castrate themselves for fun, but when performed on infants and children, I consider it a male genital mutilation, a sex crime. And I do not tolerate people harming children because of stupidity, ignorance or perversion." You added that information on 8 January, so your road to Damascus experience concerning circumcision happened since then? Your behavior here, as well as your comments about the Wikipedia editing process, strongly suggest that you're not at all interested in consensus - just getting your POV across. Benami 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Addmittably, that I think circumcision is great is an exaggeration. However I have debated long and exhaustively with Jakew and have found for example that there are indeed significant advantages to circumcision. However, my personal opinion, as well as the consensus in the medical community, is that routine infant circumcision is medically unreasonable. Indeed, I am agreeing with the genital integrity movement that circumcision should be something that everyone should be able to decide about as an adult. The reason I was debating with Jakew was just that I was interested in finding common ground and being able to find a solution that everyone can agree to.
 * What you are further implying is that I am merely interested in getting my POV across. Nothing could be further from the truth, you have misinterpreted my information darwinism argument. I am just and only interested in helping good ideas spread, and I am willing to throw my own in the bin at once if I find a better idea. The reason I take such a combative stance about my own ideas is that I have gone to great lengths identifying - and if possible nullifying - my own biases and inform myself in an objective matter, so I can objectively assess what a good idea is and what not. Only because my POV are already based on a strong, scientific background, I am not willing to abandon them easily. But as I said in my user page, bring me good enough arguments, and I shall abandon them at once.
 * I have written a version of the article that, unlike the old one, does treat the subject fairly, is a good read, and has a strong respect for WP:NPOV as good as I can. I am offended that you do not trust I am capable of writing an at least somewhat neutral article. Are you interested in a consensus? Dabljuh 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You inserted deliberate falsehoods into your response to me above, and are now adopting a false position in order to give the appearance of NPOV. Moreover, your new article does not meet NPOV requirements, is harder to read, and inserts uncited claims which just happen to be anti-circumcision. Instead of being offended, you should honour WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and the Talk: page consensus process. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to make clear I am not biased in favor of circumcision or against. Objectively gathering the facts, (which is a slow process with lots of verification due to a large amount of misconceptions and misinformation) I have come to adopt what I wrote in my version of the article as my own belief. Notice, I didn't add much information that wasn't already widely known. If you feel something requires citation, please indicate with what you have a problem. And for the cases where the information is not widely known (in my own assessment) I did provide respectable sources. If you feel something requires NPOVization, go ahead! If you feel I am biased (meaning, incapable of adopting an NPOV, for non objective reasons) you should point out to me why and I will evaluate the issue.

But: You have to be aware that you yourself may well be biased. On your user page, you describe yourself as jewish. I find it problematic to believe one would easily have adopted a truly objective view, when this objective view may ultimately infringe on your perceived freedom of practicing your religion (to circumcise your kids according to Judaism). Of course it is not impossible to gain an objective view, even a strongly opposed one, which one example of is Jews Against Circumcision. But: because you have apparently adopted a strong stance in favor of circumcision without backing this stance up with good arguments, I believe you are not objective on the issue, and your view is incompatible with the NPOV. That is regrettable, and I suspect the same issue to be even worse with User:Jayjg. User:Jakew is not jewish, but I have already attempted to explain to him where his incredible bias, that borders on lunacy, comes from. So the three individuals that oppose my changes, or my position, all have reason for internal, non objective bias. If you are aware of this, you may also realize that you are probably not fit for writing about the subject in an objective matter, and the best policy would be to abstain from editing the article, and limit voicing your concerns on the talk page with respect to your own bias. Dabljuh 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a little hard to tell who you're addressing in this rant. User:Jayjg, to whose entry it appears to be a reply, doesn't say that he's a Member of the Tribe on his user page. Moreover, you later write about him in the third person, which would suggest that you are not addressing him. I, on the other hand, do identify myself as a Jew, but I didn't write anything that might be considered a trigger for your entry. Your allegation that a member's Jewishness is proof of an inability to write  an NPOV article is, frankly, disgusting. (Oh, and you really should look up that word "bias," since I don't think it means what you think it means.) Benami 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I adressed you. "A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology." Exactly what I meant. I did not make an allegiation jews were unable to write in an NPOV way. Please, read what I wrote again more carefully, and Assume Good Faith. Dabljuh 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And what exactly caused you to 'adress' me out of the blue like that? The last contribution I made to this section of the discussion was on 9 Jan. Are you feeling quite well?Benami 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dang, you are right. I read the last edit on Talk:Circumcision was by you, when I scrolled down there, I thought that last bit (that I hadn't read yet) was by you. Apologizing very much. I was talking to Jayjg then, not you. Note: I was reading the article history, rather than the Talk page history. I was already confused by the strong words as you seemed the sanest guy of the bunch. Dabljuh 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd still like an explanation for why I'm considered less than sane here, but in the meantime, I've moved both versions created by Dabljuh so that they each have talk pages of their own. In the interest of insanity, apparently.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean you. I was referring to the Jakew, Jayjg, Benami bunch mentioned in . You're certainly all sane otherwise. Dabljuh 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But...you just told Benami that he was the sanest... Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  08:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure, after all, that I'm the "one other" to whom Jakew refers in that section... Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 08:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. I didn't mean you really. I hereby declare you at least as sane as Benami. Thanks for the move of the versions and pictures, btw. Dabljuh 09:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, as a preventive measure, I declare Benami at least as sane as Tom e r, so you can figure out for yourselves how sane you exactly are. o_O  Dabljuh 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I find your Hitler reference to be in very poor taste.

Secondly, there is no logical reason why Jewish people should be biased in favour of circumcision. The following is from my limited knowledge of Judaism, and may not be spot on, but I think it's broadly correct. Jewish people regard circumcision of Jewish children as a religious obligation, but this does not apply to non-Jews. In other words, secular reasons are irrelevant to Jewish attitudes towards circumcision. Because it is a religious obligation (and because of absolute devotion to God), any other issues relating to circumcision are relatively unimportant. Put bluntly, to regard any other issue as of higher importance would imply that you know better than Him, and that's a no-no. So there is no reason why a Jewish person should be biased in favour of circumcision.

Thirdly, to keep an open mind, you have to accept that it is possible to hold an objective view that differs from your own. To imply that Jews Against Circumcision hold a more objective view than some editors here is quite an offensive attitude. Jakew 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you mean, if the consensus of secular medicine would end up finding Circumcision is a human rights violation (which it cannot, that would be a legal issue, not a medicinal one. Medicine only needs to find out that it is medically not recommendable, which it already has) and politicians would, as a result, forbid infant circumcision, jewish people would continue to circumcise their boys because the law of god is superior to the law of humans? And thus, jewish people would have no incentive, not to be objective about circumcision and its perception by the public? I find your explanation to be, well, lacking of common sense. Dabljuh 00:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what Jakew is doing is pointing out that Jews do not circumcize our children, or converts to Judaism, because of any medical claims about its benefits. And whether or not other people circumcize their children or themselves is of little interest to us.Benami 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Benami. That is exactly what I meant. Jakew 14:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But most jews still live in the western world, where politicians have already outlawed female circumcision which is required (or so is believed) by the religion of Islam. The danger to the free practice of Judaism is there, that male circumcision will also be generally outlawed in the western world in the near future. Dabljuh 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And your point is what - that in order to avoid this danger (which isn't even remotely likely) Jews will simply adopt a pro-circumcision stance based on health benefits - perhaps while even privately disagreeing with the stance? Wow, we ARE wily.Benami 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Religious infant circumcision is outlawed in Sweden already. Jews will simply adopt a pro-circumcision stance based on health benefits - perhaps while even privately disagreeing with the stance? Dude, maybe you should read bias. If you were conciously aware of your own pro circumcision bias, we wouldn't have this discussion. Dabljuh 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Religious circumcision is not outlawed in Sweden, though it is regulated. See here. Jakew 15:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I used the word "restricted" in the overhauled article. They don't allow circumcision without qualified medical personell and anaesthetics, or so (purely IIRC). Dabljuh 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I find the Hitler picture offensive on a couple of different levels. First, it's really in poor taste. As I've said at other pages of WP, though, I don't think that policing people's taste is within my purview. A gratuitous Hitler reference doesn't make me think better of the editor or his arguments, but it's a free country. What I find harder to tolerate is the implied comparison involved: Jews are to circumcision as Hitler was to Jews. I am deeply offended at being compared to Hitler, and find the random way that he was pulled into the discussion pretty creepy. If I found being compared to the Iraqi Minister of Information a personal attack, imagine how i feel about being compared to Hitler...Benami 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually... maybe you need to get a sense of humor, as you didn't get the joke obviously. I didn't compare you with the dumb guy, I compared myself with him. Your implication was, as I suggested jews may have a harder time to write objectively about circumcision, that I would be, somehow, an antisemite. I was poking fun at that: Your allegiation that, if I was an antisemite, that I, as an antisemite, could not write objectively about jews, would be exactly as disgusting as my other statement - Or indeed, just a display of common sense. Dabljuh 01:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as disagreeing with your views does not equal being POV, not finding your Hitler joke a laff-riot does not equal a lack of a sense of humor. BTW, your explanation makes no sense.Benami 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm invoking Godwin's law again, and again removing the offensive picture of Hitler and the accompanying comparison of editors here to him. Please do not restore it. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been restored the first time by User:Scandum, who stated that he was reverting vandalism. Scandum: it is perfectly ok to remove personal attacks. Indeed, it is actually a recommended action. It is not vandalism. Jakew 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)