Talk:Ethics of circumcision/Archive 2

$\infty$ Wikipedia article traffic statistics
POV Detective (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC) POV Detective (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that a weak cup of tea attracts few customers.
 * Wikipedia article traffic statistics
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/201007/Ethics%20of%20Circumcision
 * Ethics_of_Circumcision has been viewed 668 times in 2010/07.

NPOVs from hypothetical 1859 Wikipedia

 * $\infty$ notes that Slavery is a system in which people are the property of others, so the ethics of slavery are sometimes controversial. POV Detective (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Detective (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship, so the ethics of gay marriage are sometimes controversial.

POV Detective (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that Female Circumcision is any procedure involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs "whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons," so the ethics of female circumcision are sometimes controversial.

POV Detective (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that Cannibalism is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh of other human beings, so the ethics of cannibalism are sometimes controversial.

Wikipedia and the art of censorship
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wikipedia-and-the-art-of-censorship-462070.html "It was hailed as a breakthrough in the democratisation of knowledge. But the online encyclopedia has since been hijacked by forces who decided that certain things were best left unknown." POV Detective (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC) POV Detective (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that some contributors to this page would benefit from this article:

The Ethics of Female Circumcision
POV Detective (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that the avoidance of Female Circumcision on this page may violate the NPOV. "Female circumcision victims seek out Colo. doctor"  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSMnS303G8Z5t4-z8cXMviLcyO6QD9HGI8S80  POV Detective (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Change to lead
I've reverted a recent change to the lead, for three reasons. Firstly, the addition of the words "According to custom" at the beginning of "male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue..." is incorrect. Custom has nothing to do with it: circumcision is by definition the removal of tissue (the foreskin). Secondly the reference to the "healthy infant's penis" is inappropriate, as the scope of this article is the ethics of circumcision at any age, not just circumcision of infants. Finally, "are sometimes controversial" is preferable to "have become controversial", since the latter implies that controversy is always present, which is not necessarily the case. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC) -- "According to tradition" succinctly highlights the "ethics" under discussion in the article, i.e., the conflict between custom (the customary procedure on infants) and modernity (modern ethical standards of surgery & informed consent). There can be no real debate of "ethics" regarding an adult's decision. To minimize the ethical controversy with the qualifying adverb, "sometimes," reveals a shallow & uninformed understanding of the ethical debate... (or a cynical agenda). Historys Docs (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not permit us to assert that a conflict exists between custom and modernity; we can say that some authors have argued that there is a conflict, while others disagree. While it's true that most sources focus on infant circumcision, there is some debate regarding the ethics of adult circumcision.  I don't think that the word "sometimes" can really be said to minimise the controversy, but it does avoid the implication that circumcision is always controversial. Jakew (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Detective (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that "According to custom,"
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say, because that isn't an English sentence. Could you try again? Jakew (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * $\infty$ notes that this article in stuck in the mud. Some people will never understand the power of custom in their lives. The disputed phrase, "according to custom," is footnoted in the edit with the appropriate citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Feast of the Circumcision.

POV Detective (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is an appropriate (or indeed relevant) citation. The Feast of the Circumcision celebrates a single circumcision: that of Jesus Christ.  So it's completely irrelevant when talking about circumcision of anybody who isn't Jesus Christ (approximately every circumcision that has ever been performed, in other words).  Jakew (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * $\infty$ is reminded of the adage: "You can put an ant in front of a telescope, but it will never see the stars." $\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of replies
+++ (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * +++ POV Detective, there seems to be a problem with your editing client - it is prepending the string "+++" to each line you write. Since this is obviously an error, and since it makes your text difficult to read, I've taken the liberty of stripping the "+++"s from the talk page.  You might want to take a look here for some basics on proper indentation, and of course I'm happy to help you if you have any questions about wiki-markup.


 * $\infty$ notes that a certain user has been editing $\infty$ comments. POV Detective (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

+++ (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * +++ Yes. I noted it too, when I informed you that I was doing it.  Not to worry, though - I'm being very careful to not adjust the substance or text of your comments at all, and am simply reformatting them to reflect Wikipedia best practices on indentation.

POV Detective (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * +++ While $\infty$ considers allegations of POV abuse on this page, $\infty$ will construe all edits of $\infty$ to be evidence in the case.

Nandesuka (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * +++ +++ does not understand. Is POV Detective asking +++ to stop refactoring his replies to be correctly indented?

POV Detective (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ has adopted the Symbol $\infty$ as the positive spirit of NPOV. No other user is authorized to edit the comments of $\infty$, nor to provide punctuation in a case where $\infty$ has made a comment under a Section Heading but not in reply to another user.


 * +++ has also adopted the Symbol +++. That's a great idea.  From now, on, User:POV Detective, please refer to me only as +++.  Thanks! +++ (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Detective (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ notes that the user should adopt a symbol of his own, rather than imitating $\infty$. There are several possibilities that would work for the user such as !!! or ??? but ??? should really devise his own symbol.


 * +++ notes that +++ is in fact his symbol, and thanks +++ for honoring his request. +++ 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Detective (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ takes honor in gifting the coveted symbol to +++. Now +++ would do well to emulate $\infty$ in conscience as well.

New Lead Paragraph
$\infty$ requests that other Users not revert this paragraph without giving editors the appropriate time to reference the facts therein, as such consideration has been shown for lengthy periods of time on these pages for unreferenced statements.

An inquiry into the Ethics of Circumcision assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism. According to custom, male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the healthy infant's penis, so the ethics of circumcision have become controversial in modern times. It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism and human rights. Their dismissal of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on ethics more difficult. $\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Request denied: apart from violating most, if not all, of Wikipedia's core content policies, that paragraph is completely unreadable along nearly every possible axis. Is this a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I'm sure someone will ask, I went back and counted: that lede violates WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. So 3 out of 5.  Impressive, in its way. Nandesuka (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * $\infty$ points out that reverter has backed down from reverter's earlier affirmation on this page: "From now, on, User:POV Detective, please refer to me only as +++. Thanks! +++" (Nandesuka)  Would that be the reverter's change of heart, identity crisis, or cynicism?  Such vacillation would normally make a reverter's opinions both unreliable and worthless.


 * $\infty$ notes that reverter apparently holds self to no consistent standards. Impartial observers will discover that reverter has revised and/or deleted reverter's own hasty comments under this section, perhaps because the reverter's initial comments were the equivalent of sticking out the reverter's tongue. Observers will also notice that the reversion itself was just as hasty, thoughtless, and puerile as the reverter's purported critique and justification.

POV Detective (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$

$\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As such, $\infty$ will revert the $\infty$ change; moreover, any reversion by the usual suspects should document in particular, and address in detail, each purported violation of policy. Will the reverter give it 5 minutes of thought, or five hours, or five days, or five years?  $\infty$ shouldn't ask $\infty$ such ridiculous questions.


 * I think your inability or unwillingness to address the shortcomings of your proposed lede speaks for itself. Nandesuka (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ That was five seconds of thought... that's progress for you I hope. It's the reverter's job to specify in detail the reverter's objections. Lazy don't work here, friend. Are you still using that Symbol you borrowed from $\infty$? POV Detective (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My objections remain the same as I already indicated above: (1) The paragraph is completely unsourced (which you explicitly acknowledge) and thus violates WP:V.  (2) The paragraph violates WP:NPOV by ascribing opinions to imaginary people, and expressing judgment on them ("It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism"), and (3) The paragraph violates WP:NOR by, as near as I can tell, consisting mostly of your personal opinions. ("Their dismissal of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on ethics more difficult.")  Since you made no attempt to remedy those defects -- or, indeed, even to discuss them on the talk page, choosing instead to advance straight to ad hominem -- deep reflection was not required.  Hope that helps.  Nandesuka (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a trivial application of policy I fully support. Detective, your edits so far have mostly only disrupted and drawn attention away from more contested and more nuanced issues.  Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely stunned that this material was actually included after I have already pointed out above that it violates WP:NPOV. What a waste of everybody's time.  POV Detective, please don't do that again. Jakew (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ nope, no violation except censorship from the usual suspects, for whom, apparently, thought is a waste of time. $\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no question that that paragraph must stay out of the article until the fact tags are taken care of. The claim attempts to connect the practice of circumcision with broad philosophical trends, something which, as an exceptional claim, needs very strong, reliable sourcing.  Furthermore, the sourcing you did include doesn't support your claims, as it comes from a very POV source--which can be used as a source, but only to represent it's own (Catholic) viewpoint.
 * And now that I looked at the second link, I see you're actually just being WP:POINTy. As such, if you continue to add that statement, you will be reported for disruptive editing, as that 3rd link clearly has nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with your opinions about the value of Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ The third link merely points out that wikipedia is subject to control by an uneducated group that has no desire or capability for philosophical discourse. This abhorred link was not cited in the article revision but merely as a starting point for some discussion & introspection on this page. Unfortunately, some people with an agenda may threaten to "report" and "ban," etc, to discourage dialogue they find challenging to their beliefs. $\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The following three sections have been removed as irrelevant tangents.
Heading added by Blackworm (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC) ==

Link to Censored Introduction for Scholars & Historians
Historians & Scholars may click on the Symbol $\infty$ to find an archive of the censored introduction.

An inquiry into the Ethics of Circumcision assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism. According to custom, male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the healthy infant's penis, so the ethics of circumcision have become controversial in modern times. It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism and human rights. Their dismissal of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on ethics more difficult. $\infty$$\infty$$\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
User:POV Detective has added (twice) some material that does not belong. The edit adds the words "however, while a minority debate the issue, the American public continues to abandon the practice" to the first sentence. There are four problems:
 * 1) It's an unreliable source, as I've previously explained at Talk:Circumcision
 * 2) The source doesn't support the claim. It says nothing about a minority debating the issue; in fact it doesn't even mention the issue of the ethics of circumcision.
 * 3) As an obvious consequence of (2), it is not "directly related" to the subject of this article, and is consequently original research to include it in this article.
 * 4) It's US-centric. The scope of Wikipedia is larger than just the United States, hence even if the material belonged somewhere it should never appear as the first sentence. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * $\infty$ User may be right in this instance, but User's inconsistency at the Bible's disputed & unsourced statements of purported "fact" in Circumcision and law makes such claims arguably parochial & dubious. $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * $\infty$ The recent edit does have the virtue of explaining the "sometimes" qualifer in the sentence before the semicolon. $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice
The disruptive editing on this article has been raised at WP:ANI. If you agree or disagree with the claims, your comments are welcome there. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Detective (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ Good luck with your half-cocked accusations.

"Disruptive" around here really means "in opposition to the version preferred by Jakew (and thus enforced by Avraham and Jayjg)." The fact that you are being flippant and hostile in the face of such brazen ownership and subtle incivility and harassment, of course, will cause any of your valid points to be ignored by others as well. There is no political will in Wikipedia to oppose "the right side" in this matter, no matter their evident violations of policy. No transgression on their part will ever be acknowledged officially, since it would be a very time consuming and complicated matter to show ownership over years, and "wheel wars" can destroy any good-willed, neutral administrator in such an attempt. Further, an infinite supply exists of firm supporters with one-line votes of agreement in any administrative action, no matter how transparent the argument. The result is continued evident bias in all these articles, probably for the long term. Perhaps it's just time to accept it, and seek sources of neutral information instead of Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious ritual
Why no primary mention of the most widespread reason for circumcision: religious ritual? Leaving the article like this is a serious omission that suggests some sort of pro-ritual censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.56.193 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, few sources assert that this reason is of particular relevance to the subject. This is an article about ethics, specifically; the general article about circumcision is here. Jakew (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of "mostly" or "sometimes" in the lead
I hold that the long standing version of "sometimes" is correct, unless the new editor User:Drealgrin can provide a source demonstrating that "mostly" is correct. Below I am copying and pasting the initial conversation Drealgrin started on my talk page, so that other editors may join in the discussion:

Ethics of circumcision, from User Talk:Qwyrxian
You say quote "since they are performed routinely across the world in many countries" Please show me your reliable source that male circumcision is performed routinely in many countries. The practice is widely considered controversial, As the countries who do not routinely circumcise vastly outnumber those that do. For a country to be considered to partake "routinely circumcising" males it must be customary to a majority of the country's citizens themselves. Furthermore there are those who reside in countries who are perceived to "routinely circumcise" who find the ritual to be very controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drealgrin (talk • contribs) 05:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple math here: From the WHO report, which you can find as reference number 9 on Circumcision, 30% of men worldwide are circumcised. That means 70% are not.  In order for something to be "mostly controversial," you would need evidence that nearly all of those parents of the other 70% consider it to be "controversial." If you look at Circumcision controversy, you'll see both positive and negative discussions of the issue. See, the issue here is that the burden of proof lie more heavily on those who would make the more extreme claim. There is no doubt that circumcision is at least sometimes controversial.  I freely admit that. But you want to state the stronger claim that it is "mostly" controversial, thus, the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce evidence of that fact. If you could, for example, produce a survey that showed that a super-majority (note that "mostly" requires a substantially higher number than 50%) of people worldwide consider it controversial, and you can add that source to the article, then you are more than welcome to do so.  Absent such documentation, you are making unverified claims, which can and should be removed per WP:V.  And if you want to continue the discussion, please do so on the article's talk page, not my personal talk page, so that interested editors may join in the conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore an ethnocentric view is disingenuous to wikipedia's neutral pov policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drealgrin (talk • contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, please continue this discussion on the article talk page. This is something that all editors of the article should be involved in. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I welcome the input of other editors, and also strongly request the Drealgrin provide a reliable source, as the WP:BURDEN on xyr to support the stronger claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it's obvious that there is sometimes controversy regarding circumcision, but what does "mostly" mean? Depending on interpretation, it either means that most instances of circumcision are controversial, or that any single instance of circumcision is held to be controversial by most people.  In either case, that's a much stronger claim, as Qwyrxian says.
 * As a possible alternative, we could take the position that neither claim is supported by a source, and simply remove the reference to controversy altogether. Jakew (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's possible, but it certainly needs to be removed from the first line -- that whole lede is pretty atrocious.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is fairly awful. The tricky part is coming up with something better.  [[Image:Smile.png]] Jakew (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that, prior to being blocked, Drealgrin did comment on this point, but because xe did it at the top of the article, I (and maybe others) didn't see it. I'm going to refactor it here, so that it can be incorporated as part of this discussion, in case Drealgrin decides to rejoin us after the block has expired:

moved from the top of the page by Qwyrxian I have replaced the statement that the ethics of circumcision is "sometimes" controversial to "mostly" controversial as the majority of reasons stated for circumcision are and have been for a long time a matter of dispute. Except in cases of genuine medical necessity, regardless of a society's or wikipedia editor's ethnocentric view, circumcision inspires controversy everywhere in all but the most blindly devout societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drealgrin (talk • contribs) 15:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've already addressed those points above, let me know if anything else is unclear. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Content proposed for deletion
This article has problems with WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE content, content that depends on sourcing that fails WP:MEDRS as very out-of-date, and off-topic content that doesn't even mention ethics. I am proposing to delete the following content that is running into problems with these WP:P&Gs.
 * Problematic content: "Some studies indicate that the foreskin and frenulum perform certain physiological functions, which would be destroyed by excision.  Other studies indicate that men with foreskins are at increased risk of certain diseases. "
 * Issues: The first part of this article content is a few medical claims supported by journal articles from 1998, 1999 and 1997.  Per WP:MEDRS these sources are wildly out-of-date.  Many relevant studies have been produced in the years since the late 1990s and the medical information that was available in the late 1990s is obsolete, so the primary sources that make arguments based on it are outdated.  Secondly, the content is WP:SYNTH or simply off-topic because the sources are not even being used for a discussion of ethics, they are being used for medical claims.  The second article doesn't even mention ethics at all, it's simply a very out-of-date medical review.  The part "which would be destroyed by excision.  Other studies indicate that men with foreskins are at increased risk of certain diseases." which appears to be the actual attempt to tie the sources into an ethical argument, is unsourced:  no reliable secondary sources are provided that show that these are actually the relevant ethical arguments.  It's WP:OR.


 * Problematic content: This list of outdated, arbitrarily-chosen primary sources with no secondary sources to support them:
 * Denniston (1996) argues that informing parents that circumcision is "in any way useful" constitutes a failure to make "relevant scientific information available to that parent." He states that "[c]ircumcision is unnecessary and harmful: therefore, not in the infant's best interest."
 * Benatar and Benatar [2003] argue that circumcision is "neither a compelling prophylactic measure nor a form of child abuse", and that it is therefore suited to parental discretion.
 * Somerville (2000) argues that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision. She states that the removal of healthy genital tissue from a minor should not be subject to parental discretion, or that physicians who perform the procedure are not acting in accordance with their ethical duties to the patient, regardless of parental consent.
 * Critics of non-therapeutic circumcision argue that advocating circumcision to prevent HIV infection may detract from other efforts to prevent the spread of the virus such as using condoms. They argue that a child's sexual behaviour as an adult is very difficult to predict, as is the future of HIV and treatment or prevention of AIDS. If the child chooses to remain celibate or if a couple remain faithful to each other, or if HIV is eliminated by the time the child is an adult, the surgery would not have been needed. Moreover, they argue that circumcising a child strictly to protect him from HIV infection may be seen as permission, or even entitlement to engage in dangerous sexual practices. Others would argue that baby boys do not immediately need such protection and can choose for themselves, at a later stage, if they want a circumcision. Note this is again sourced to Somerville 2000 like the previous paragraph
 * Viens [2004] contends that "we do not know in any robust or determinate sense that infant male circumcision is harmful in itself, nor can we say the same with respect to its purported harmful consequences." He suggests that one must distinguish between practices that are grievously harmful and those that enhance a child's cultural or religious identity. He suggests that medical professionals, and bioethicists especially, "must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful."
 * Richards (1996) argues that parents only have power to consent to therapeutic procedures. Povenmire argues that parents should not have the power to consent to neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision.
 * Canning (2002) commented that "[i]f circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America [...] the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists."
 * Benatar and Benatar (2003) argue that "it is far from obvious that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure," and that "it is far from clear that non-circumcision leaves open a future person’s options in every regard." They continue: "It does preserve the option of future circumcised or uncircumcised status. But it makes other options far more difficult to exercise. Transforming from the uncircumcised to the circumcised state will have psychological and other costs for an adult that are absent for a child. ... Nor are these costs “negligible”, [...].  At the very least, they are not more negligible than the risks and costs of circumcision."
 * Holm (2004) states that, in the absence of "valid comparative data" on the effect of infant circumcision on adult sexual function and satisfaction, "the circumcision debate cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and there will always be a lingering suspicion that the sometimes rather strident opposition to circumcision is partly driven by cultural prejudices, dressed up as ethical arguments."
 * Hellsten (2004), however, describes arguments in support of circumcision as "rationalisations", and states that infant circumcision can be "clearly condemned as a violation of children’s rights whether or not they cause direct pain." He argues that, to question the ethical acceptability of the practice, "we need to focus on child rights protection."
 * Fox and Thomson (2005) state that in the absence of "unequivocal evidence of medical benefit", it is "ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision." Thus, they believe, "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible".
 * Issues: First, each of these sources is making arguments about ethics based on medical claims, and they are all wildly out-of-date.  As mentioned previously, per WP:MEDRS we are looking for sourcing based on medical secondary sources from the past 3 years.  Second, these are all WP:PRIMARY sources from individuals engaging in the ethics argument, they are not WP:SECONDARY sources.  Primary sources really need to be used in conjunction with a good secondary source that provides the context and interpretation, and demonstrates the notability of the particular primary source used.  Without a secondary source to provide this, we end up with the exact problem this article has:  It's a list of out-of-context primary sources of questionable notability.  Who says Denniston or Somerville or Viens is notable, or is representative, or is providing the most pertinent information regarding this article's topic?  (Why is Somerville used twice?  What secondary sourcing supports giving her views more weight than the others?)  A secondary source that directly discusses the individual primary sources is required to support the use of these primary sources.


 * Problematic content: "The 12th International Symposium on Law, Genital Autonomy and Children's Rights, which convened at Helsinki, adopted the Helsinki Declaration on the Right of Genital Autonomy on October 3, 2012. The Declaration, based on international human rights law, asserts that only the individual concerned may grant consent for the non-therapeutic surgical alternation of his or her genital organs. It is applicable to male, female, and inter-sexed persons. The Declaration calls on governments to recognize this right. "
 * Issues: This was just added today.  This is basically spam.  It's a press-release from an anti-circumcision conference.  An independent, reliable secondary source is needed to demonstrate that the findings of this conference were notable regarding the general topic of circumcision ethics.

03:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, with reference to some of the points above, you are correct that WP:MEDRS applies; for example, the Denniston clearly purports to be a medical source, and, as such, fall under WP:MEDRS. Others, however, do not. Benatar, et al and Somerville, for instance, are clearly medical ethics arguments, and thus do not fall under the stricter standards of WP:MEDRS. That guideline really only applies to cases where we're looking specifically at medical results, not to wider issues related to the health care industry. For example, in the case of capital punishment, while we might apply MEDRS to specific statements relating to how any given drug cocktail used in lethal injections affect the body, we don't require that sources discussing the political ramifications, ethical considerations, or effect on crime rates meet MEDRS. The same thing applies to this article--if someone is arguing medical ethics, then they don't have to meet MEDRS--in fact, by definition, they never could.
 * In addition, you've misapplied MEDRS to some of the articles. Both Fleiss, et al and Cold, et al are review articles. That, in fact, is exactly what MEDRS tells us we're supposed to use. Excluding them would be inappropriate.
 * Looking over the articles you've selected (keep in mind I can't access full copies of some of them, and am relying mainly on the journal and what I can see), I think Moses, Schoen, Denniston, and Canning, (in your list above, that's refs 3, 4, 5, and 11) should be removed on MEDRS grounds.
 * As for the newly added "12th International Symposium on Law, Genital Autonomy and Children's Rights," I'm fine with removing that unless we have a secondary source establishing this as some sort of influential/important group in the ethics of circumcision topic. In other words, if they're something like the premier international umbrella organization opposing the legality of circumcision, then they're views are probably notable, but if they're just some random group that likes to sound important, then we shouldn't include them. As you say, we need something independent of the group itself to justify keeping it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Off the top, we both agree the "12th International Symposium on Law, Genital Autonomy and Children's Rights" should go so I'll just ahead and do that.    03:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the rest, I don't think your response quite meets my point:
 * First, I get that general discussion of ethical arguments doesn't need to meet WP:MEDRS. However, when we're discussing medical ethics, WP:MEDRS has to come into play, here's why (and for these points, I'm using Clinical Ethics in Pediatrics: A Case-Based Textbook, Diekama, Mercurio and Adam eds.):  For a medical intervention involving a minor, there are three parties in play, the parents (or other guardian), the physician and the patient.  The basic dynamic is (from Clinical Ethics) "Physicians have a resopnsibility to promote the interests of their patients while avoiding unnecessary harms."  The current medical understanding of what an intervention's exact benefits are that would be used to promote the interests of the patient, and what are intervention's exact harms, are driven by the current medical understanding of the intervention.  An ethical argument against Intervention X based on the idea that Intervention X has terrible Side Effect Y would be very persuasive, as long as the medical science as reported in the most up-to-date WP:MEDRS's backs up the contention that Intervention X has Side Effect Y.  If some years later, it turns out that suspicions that Intervention X has Side Effect Y are unsupported by clinical trials, and the consensus of medical opinion as reported in WP:MEDRS's is that Intervention X actually does not have Side Effect Y (and in fact has Benefit Z), the ethical argument against Intervention X is much weaker.  So, in the cases of specific individuals making medical ethics arguments for or against an intervention based on the benefits and harms as currently understood by medicine as of a certain year, WP:MEDRS very much does apply.
 * Regarding individual articles:
 * Fleiss and Cold: Yes you have read WP:MEDRS correctly in that we are looking for review articles (secondary sources), but you seem to have missed a very important part of that guideline, the age of the source.  According to WP:MEDRS, we are looking for up-to-date ones, the guideline says, "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years."  Fleiss is from 1998, Cold is from 1999, they are both in the article only to support a medical claim ("Some studies indicate that the foreskin and frenulum perform certain physiological functions").  The statement being supported is so weak and uninformative as to be useless--Why do some studies indicate, and why don't some others?  What physiological functions?
 * Moses 1998 and Schoen 1997 are similarly wildly out-of-date per WP:MEDRS.
 * Denniston 1996 is an argument based on outdated medical claims (actually you said you were ok with removing so I will).
 * Benatar 2003 "Between prophylaxis..." does not appear to dive too deeply into the medicine, it may still be useful
 * Somerville 2000 also makes a benefits vs. harms case based on outdated medical info
 * Viens 2004 actually discusses ethics mostly at a societal level and not a medical level and I agree it should be kept although it should probably be used a bit differently
 * Richard 1996 and Povenmire 1999 also look like they argue society and law generally and not so much the medical aspects, so we can probably keep these
 * Canning 2002 might be similarly useful
 * Benatar 2003 "How not to argue..." is a response to the criticism received for Benatar 2003 "Between prophylaxis...", it may also still be useful if its use is adjusted
 * Holm 2004 is an argument based on out-of-date medical information
 * Hellsten 2004 based somewhat on medical information but largely not. It's written mostly as a response to certain circumcision roponets. It's a very partisan source, referring to circumcision as "genital mutilation" and its existence an indication of "lack of civilization."  No doubt such views exist about circumcision in the world of discussing its ethics, but without a secondary source to put it in context, it's unclear how it can be useful.
 * Fox 2005 is another very partisan primary source arguing against, also calling circumcision "genital mutilation", and has arguments based on out-of-date medical knowledge.
 * Lastly, you didn't really address the most pressing problem, which is the WP:PRIMARY issue. Take, for example, Holm 2004.  It's a letter to the editor.  How do we know that this particular letter from this individual is important and notable enough to include?  Doesn't using this letter have the same issue we had with the "12th International Symposium on Law, Genital Autonomy and Children's Rights" that we both agreed should be removed: What is the threshhold for inclusion of primary sources in this article?  If we include Holm 2004, why not any of the other hundreds or possibly thousands of letters to the editor or journal articles arguing for or against on this subject printed in the past 10 or 20 or 30 years?  This was really the problem that my edit was trying to address.  Can you please weigh in on this?
 * Cheers....  04:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...you raise good points, which I'm going to have to think about more, and maybe try to look harder at the references. Two things: First, why don't you go ahead and remove the ones that I agreed on above definitely don't belong, since we have consensus at least that far. Second, do you know of some more up to date review articles that we could look to instead (or are they already in the article?)? In the mean time, I'll try to look further into your points above; I may be able to do it in about 12 hours, but may not be able to do so for about 36. Apologies for the delay. If you really feel strongly about it--like, so  strongly that you think the current information in the article is doing harm (the whole reason we have WP:MEDRS), then go ahead and revert my entire undo, and we can work the other direction--that is, add back in only those we can come to a consensus on.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll get back to actually making these edits in a few days, and actually this article isn't a huge priority for me right now, take your time.  I definitely do have more up-to-date WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to use--my sources folder for the general subject of circumcision (all aspects) now has over 100 documents in it, nearly all secondary sources.  I am doing some related work and will get back to it.  But I am very interested in your general thoughts regarding what I am describing as the issues with WP:PRIMARY sources.  This is a problem I see in a lot of articles, not just this one, and I'd love to have your thoughts on it for me to consider and use here and elsewhere.  Cheers...   03:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the more general issue of WP:PRIMARY...I think you're trying to apply WP:PRIMARY too widely, in a way that would make whole branches of knowledge highly inaccessible as sources in Wikipedia. In some fields, like medicine, hard sciences, and education (and probably others), there are a large number of review articles written; in my own field, for instance (TESOL/Linguistics), there's a whole journal devoted to providing yearly review articles on major topics. But is that true in narrower fields like "medical ethics"? What about or soft sciences like history and economics? I know that in history articles we regularly use the conclusions of individual historians, so long as those conclusions match the field as a whole or at least a reasonable portion of it (i.e., they're not lone voices crying in the wilderness). For that matter, what would a secondary text in medical ethics even look like--an analysis of another author's analysis? That could arguably still be a primary source, since that's simply the nature of ethical arguments. So I'm worried about walking away from these sources solely because they're primary sources. More later. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the particular case of this article, I do not think we are lacking for decent secondary sources. Here's exactly what one looks like:  Clinical Ethics in Pediatrics: A Case-Based Textbook.  Here's a review article published in a PUBMED-indexed journal:  Circumcision controversies by Kirk Pinto.  These sources discuss the topic of the circumcision ethics debate without engaging in the debate (too much).  Here's a list of 90 PUBMED-indexed journals (not individual articles, whole journals) dedicated to the subject of medical ethics:  NLM Catalog.  History and economics have loads and loads of excellent secondary sources, perhaps an overwhelming amount, not to worry.  And if there is an article about a subject that does not have sufficient independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, off to WP:AFD it goes, right?  Secondary sources are required. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying a bit.  I'm not saying primary sources cannot or should not ever be used.  Here's what I think is a recent example (my own) of an acceptable use of a primary source in conjunction with a secondary source:  diff.  What I am saying is that they should not be used without a secondary source, or indiscriminately, or in a manner that allows or encourages an ever-growing list of uncurated quotes--exactly the problems this article has.    16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Surrrogate consent
Since the circumcision of children requires consent by a surrogate and surrogate consent has special issues, a discussion of surrrogate consent is needed in this article.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO
There is need to put in information about the UNESCO ethics declaration.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? This declaration does not appear to mention "circumcision" at all.    04:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Council of Europe
This article ought to make reference to the ethics statement of the Council of Europe which now in force in most of the 47 state-members.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm

Sugarcube73 (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you say this? This treaty does not mention "circumcision" anywhere in it at all.    04:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Council of Europe document provides ethical guidance in about 29 countries in Europe. Article 20(1) prohibits removal of tissue from non-consenting persons. This necessarily has to include male circumcision because it removes tissue. It is entirely appropriate to include this document in this article.

Human rights have impacted and continue to impact medical ethics and this is not going to change. It is likely to be even more important in years to come.


 * Ok, your personal views on this are noted. So no authoritative reliable source?  That's all we care about on Wikipedia.   03:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Medical Ethics
The Journal of Medical Ethics has devoted substantial space to the issue the ethics of child circumcision. This needs to be organized and presented here.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent journal and I'd expect that the articles they have published on the subject would be useful here, although of course each article needs to be evaluated on an individual basis. They have published a few articles on both child and adult, and from a range of perspectives.  Care will need to be taken to avoid using articles based on outdated medical information, as a lot of new data has been produced on the procedure in just the past few years.  Sugarcube73 this will be a good opportunity for you to demonstrate that you understand and are willing to develop articles in line with Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy, and represent the journal articles accurately and give emphasis to the viewpoints in proportion to what is found within the reliable sources.  I will be reviewing the edits as time permits.    16:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter W. Adler
I have looked up Peter W. Adler, B.A., M.A., J.D.

Peter W. Adler is a graduate of Dartmouth, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Cambridge School of Law. He practiced law for many years before taking an executive position. He is well qualified to write a law journal article. His paper is on point and it was improperly deleted from the article.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterwadler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarcube73 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 2 December 2013


 * The issues were: 1) There was a WP:GEVAL problem as the wording made it look like Adler's comments were on par with the influence and authority of the BMA, which they aren't, and 2) If he's really a respected voice on this you should be able to find something he's published in a major ethics journal, as opposed to a student-edited one, right? Where is that source?   03:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding, his "executive position" appears to be that he gave up law and now sells watches and Swiss army knives? Is he really the best-available voice on this??    03:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

All law journal are edited by law students. That is normal. It does not disqualify the journal. Adler did not forget law when he went into business. His papers have been accepted by peer reviewed journals. His voice is one of many voices that need to be presented on this controversial subject.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument isn't that Adler doesn't have a law degree or didn't practice law in his previous career before he turned to retail sales. It's that the journal he got published in is crap.  See here.  It provides an independent ranking of 105 law journals in the category of public policy, politics and the law.  The top dozen journals have ranking scores of 60 or higher.  The journal Adler got published in had a ranking of 0.7, and placed near the bottom.  It's simply untrue that all law journals are edited by students.  Student-edited journals are considered bottom-tier, faculty-edited ones are generally considered more authoritative.  Given all this, there's no reason to expect that Adler's view is influential enough to include.  What independent sources can you point to to demonstrate that Adler's article is considered generally authoritative and influential?  Without that, WP:DUEWEIGHT can't be shown to be met.     19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Medical Ethics, July 2013
The entire issue of the July 2013 Journal of Medical Ethics is devoted to the question of non-therapeutic circumcision of male children. This page won't be complete until the contents of this very important issue of the JME is discussed.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would need a secondary source too Popish Plot (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Medical body's views" and the "ethics of circumcision"
It is odd to give such weight to the view of medical bodies on the ethics of circumcision. What kind of ethical expertise are we to suppose medical bodies have? Srnec (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Usually both practitioners as well as biomedical researchers are required to at least take some coursework in ethics and basic research methodology. Additionally I would be surprised if all the research done on effects of circumcision were not put through an IRB. If you could, can you please clarify what you mean by "ethical expertise?" --Dabrams13 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Issues
This edit has a lot of issues.

It is full of medical claims that are poorly referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)