Talk:Forced circumcision/Archive 1

Removed original research
I have removed a considerable amount of material from this article, since it had no obvious, direct relationship to the topic. Please note that, per WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." Jakew (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Jake, the material you removed from the article was fully cited and could not fairly be described as original research. Even parts that were not narrowly "on topic" provided valuable background material to the article. The term "censored" would be a fair description of some of your cuts. Michael Glass (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, the provision of a citation is not, by itself, sufficient. It is also necessary, per the above quote, for sources to be directly related to the subject of the article.  If sources do not even mention the subject of the article then they cannot be said to be "directly related" to it, hence their inclusion violates WP:NOR.  Complaining about "censorship" is not terribly productive; please feel free to replace it with material that adheres to the core content policies.  Jakew (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael, Thanks for addressing the issue of background material. While I am not all too familiar with the guidelines, I did notice the following:
 * A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.

It is not clear to me what is meant here by "the initial sections of the article." Should the background material be confined to the introductory paragraphs of the article, or can the introductory paragraphs of important subsections supply a set of circumstances or facts that surround the topics discussed in them? Regardless of this, the general reader cannot be assumed to be familiar with South-African circumcision schools. Writing about these schools in general terms does not amount to "original research." Hence I have decided to re-insert, at the top of the article, the introductory material on this particular topic. The literature referenced in the deleted section on circumcision schools contains multiple references to forced circumcision; and this too is an argument that would merit some attention. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, all material must be directly related to the subject of the article, as required by policy. There is no problem with including background material, as long as that material is directly related to the subject of the article.  For example, if A. Scholar presents discusses X in the context of forced circumcisions, this can be presented as a clear statement directly linking X to the subject.  Material should not be added just because a WP editor thinks it is relevant, however: the link must be established by a reliable source. Jakew (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating on the policy. Naturally, "the link must be established by a reliable source." I assume that, in dubious cases, direct quotations from scholarly sources (monographs written by experts; peer-reviewed articles from international journals) may sufice to settle the controversy (unless they are taken out of context). Quotations of this kind will be supplied. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, quotations are always useful, though they aren't essential as we can often paraphrase instead. Jakew (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus versus Paul (or "Saint Paul")
Please note that the academic literature in which the figure of Paul is mentioned in the specific context of "forced circumcision" (James Dunn etc.) does not seem to know the term "Paul of Tarsus," which might be a modern invention, constructed on the basis of. Google returns some 78,000 hits for "Paul of Tarsus" (many of which are probably related to Wikipedia), whereas the name "Saint Paul" generates more than 14,000,000 hits. Please note that in most Wikipedia articles dealing with Paul, his name is not introduced as "Paul of Tarsus," see, e.g., New Perspective on Paul and Pauline epistles. The main article on Paul is the one notable exception. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable cuts
I note that the following has been cut from what I posted on the atrocities in Ambon, Indonesia.


 * Any mention that the forced conversions were on the threat of death.
 * The fact that the local governor had confirmed that the forced conversions and circumcisions had happened.
 * Any mention that moderate Muslim leaders had condemned the incidents.
 * Any details of the suffering of the women.

I think this is regrettable.Michael Glass (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no objection, in principle, to adding the first three points, as long as it is done in a reasonably brief manner. The last, however, is clearly off-topic. Jakew (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that the suffering of women is off-topic in your opinion? Michael Glass (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In this article, yes. Jakew (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The fanatics who were circumcising men, women and children were non-discriminatory. Concentrating on one rather than the others distorts the evidence and ends up saying less about the forced circumcision of men. All for a definitional quibble. Michael Glass (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael, you are touching on an interesting point. The question seems to be how to deal with newspaper reports of violent attacks involving victims of both sexes. Things would have been easier if a reliable (non-partisan) monograph had been available, entitled, say, Forced Genital Mutilation. Without belittling the work of Frederick M. Hodges (Dep. of History, Yale University), I fear the answer is that no such book has ever been published in any language anywhere. Needless to say, a Wikipedia editor compiling newspaper reports on a given subject always runs the risk of being reprimanded for incorporating original research, especially if the subject is not extensively researched in the academic literature. In the present case, it is only realistic to realize that the research literature is slim. Hence, as I see it, writing a short statement (e.g., "both men and women were victimized") in the relevant footnote might be viable solution, but, again, I am not all too familiar with the guidelines. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The "official" policy on notability is such that Wikipedia should not have an article unless multiple independent, reliable sources have already covered the issue in sufficient depth. Coupled with the requirement for secondary sources, my interpretation is that Wikipedia articles should only reflect those which have already been the subject of (preferably academic) in-depth study.  (My interpretation is, I admit, a little stricter than average.)  In any case, there is an inherent problem with articles such as this, where no real academic study exists, and the page is merely a synthesis of individual news articles.  This problem becomes evident in in difficulty avoiding original research, and particularly in definitional problems.  We've seen the problem in several other articles.  Jakew (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Jake, thanks for helpful feedback.
 * (1) It is not rare to stumble across a Wikipedia article based entirely on newspaper reports. Some arbitrary examples: Japanese people in North Korea; Uses of torture in recent times; The sealing debate. Personally, I dislike this trend, but I notice that such articles may exist for a long period, because they are labeled as "stubs." I have no objections if the article on forced circumcision is classified as a stub.
 * (2) The lead, according to the guidelines, "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies [my italics]." The requirement of writing from an objective perspective raises, among other things, the question of how to deal with books written by academic experts who may have had a partisan audience in view. The article on animal rights may serve as an example. Philosophers specialized in ethics, as well as veterinarians, who must, by definition, be regarded as specialists on matters relating to animals, are regular contributors to a growing body of literature aimed at creating new legislation to protect animals from cruelty. The problem with citing these philosophers and veterinarians in the just-mentioned article is that other philosophers and veterinarians have argued forcefully against the position that nonhumans are entitled to legal rights. However, this dilemma does not prevent the Wikipedia editors from referring to statements made by, say, Peter Singer. Singer, without explicitly referring to "animal rights," argues that Western-style meat production is cruel. I notice that Singer is allowed to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on animal rights. Hence I fail to understand why it is illegitimate, in an article on forced circumcision, to quote Paul M. Fleiss, an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California Medical Center, who argues that "a male circumcised in infancy, or childhood for that matter, has been circumcised by force regardless of the medicalised arguments that may have surrounded this event." (Paul M. Fleiss, "An Analysis of Bias Regarding Circumcision in American Medical Literature," in: Denniston et al., eds, Male and Female Circumcision [Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice, held August 5-7, 1998, in Oxford; New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum, 1999], p. 380, italics original.)
 * Fleiss, of course, is a controversial figure, but so is Singer. Fleiss is a contributor to the academic literature on forced circumcision; Singer is a contributor to the literature on animal rights.
 * (3) The following essay (along with the references therein), written by Gregory J. Boyle, a professor of psychology, provides evidence that the term itself (i.e., "forced circumcision") is used, not only in the imagination of Wikipedia editors, but in scholarly research papers as well: "Ending the Forced Genital Cutting of Children and the Violation of their Human Rights: Ethical, Psychological and Legal Considerations," in: Denniston et al., eds, Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem (New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum, 2001), pp. 1-18. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To respond to these points in turn:
 * (1) I think the article is a little long to be classified as a stub.
 * (2) In principle, there's no reason why we cannot quote a reliable source claiming that infant circumcisions constitute "forced circumcision" (it would have to be clearly presented as an opinion, of course). However, the particular source you mention does not constitute a reliable source: it is the proceedings of an anti-circumcision conference, and hence lacks the objective review process expected of a reliable source.
 * (3) The publication you mention suffers from the same problem as that mentioned in (2). Jakew (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, these edits seem to be designed to constrain the article in a doctrinaire straitjacket of your own making. You appear to reject the notion that forced circumcision can refer to anything other than the forced circumcision of males, even though we have a reliable source - The Sydney Morning Herald - using this term about the genital cutting of women. The Sydney Morning Herald, is one of the most respected Australian newspapers, but it is not the only source that uses this term. The term scores just over half a million hits on Google and it used by the New England Journal of Medicine, the European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the East African Medical Journal. The purpose of this is not to promote the use of this term. "Female genital mutilation" appears to be greatly preferred in the academic literature. However, in the case of the atrocities in Ambon, the treatment of the men paralleled the treatment of the women and some comparison is inevitable.

I have a similar problem with your edits on background material. Forced circumcisions happen in social and religious contexts, and understanding the background helps the reader to assess what is going on. In this situation it is better to err on the side of too much information rather than too little. As for your points about notability do you believe that only an expert can deal with the problem of forced circumcision? Are you saying that unless forced circumcisions are mentioned and discussed in the academic literature, then forced circumcision is not a problem? Is this for real? It begins to sound like a neat way of discounting information that appears in reliable sources other than academic journals. Michael Glass (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael, articles are about subjects, not words or phrases. For example, metal is about metallic elements.  You can find extremely reliable sources that use "metal" to mean a type of music, but it would not make sense for a Wikipedia article to discuss both in the same article.  Hence, the kind of music known as "metal" is off-topic in the context of the article, metal.  Similarly, female genital cutting by force is off-topic in this article, even if a source refers to it as "forced circumcision", because that's not what this article is about. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jakew's analysis is quite cogent. To give another example, the phrase "Kosher tax" is used to describe a modern antisemitic canard, that Jews extort exorbitant fees from food producers, who in turn pass these costs on to unsuspecting gentile consumers as a hidden "tax" - and that these collected moneys are used for various nefarious purposes. The term is also, however, used to refer to various actual taxes imposed on Jews (e.g. on kosher meat in Poland in the 19th century). Including material about the latter in an article about the former would make no sense, since they describe completely different subjects, regardless of the common name. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, the subject of this article is forced circumcision. You are arguing that the forced genital cutting of males is as different from the forced genital cutting of females as metals are from heavy metal music. That is nonsense. Jayig, if the term kosher tax is used in two different senses, one to talk about a tax on Jews in Poland, and the other to spread anti-semitic lies about the kosher symbol on food labels, then the two meanings must be explained. It's the same with the forced genital cutting of men and women in Dafur, Sudan, and in Ambon, Indonesia. In these contexts a similar human rights violation was committed against both men and women and it doesn't make sense to ban discussion of female genital cutting completely. It is similar to the problem of rape. Defining rape in such a way that it excludes the rape of a man by another man would be problematical in exactly the same way.

I believe that a decent article about the problem of forced circumcision needs to explain the context in which it happens and the fact that forced genital cutting can happen to both males and females. Michael Glass (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Michael, it seems that you are thinking about an article with a broader subject than forced circumcision. Jakew (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as arguing a need for another article, but as simply a way of looking at the subject of forced circumcision in a broader context. For example it helps to know that an element in the forced circumcision of Luo men in Kenya is the inter-tribal rivalry with circumcising tribes around them. In Darfur, it is important to explain that forced circumcision is only one of the abuses heaped on the people by Islamist forces, abuses that include slavery, castration and rape of both boys and girls. The same applies to forced circumcisions that happened in the break-up of Yugoslavia

On the question of definition, it is quite appropriate to have an article that concentrates mainly on the forced circumcision of men. However, there would be something perverse to rule as off-topic the forced circumcision of a 17 year old boy simply because he had not reached his 18th birthday. Also, when there is forced genital cutting of both men and women occur and the report of this occurrence refers to both as circumcision, it is beyond belief that anything more than the briefest mention of the forced genital cutting of the women can be ruled off-topic.

Perhaps people shouldn't refer to the genital cutting of women as circumcision, but as they do, it is helpful to mention this fact in the article even though the article focuses on the forced circumcision of males. Mentioning that people have different ideas and use terms in a different way does not make us captive to these views. Michael Glass (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael, other articles about these "broader contexts" already exist. Forced conversion is a good example.  But the focus of this article is much narrower.  It's not about female genital cutting.  It's not about assaults, or murders, slavery, castration, rape, or other random acts.  It's specifically about forced circumcision.  The proper place to discuss inter-tribal rivalry issues affecting the Luo people is Luo (Kenya and Tanzania); by all means add a paragraph or subsection to that article and link to it as context, but material about subjects other than forced circumcision does not belong here.  Jakew (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, Of course I fully accept that this article is about forced circumcision, but you can't write about this in a social and religious vacuum. Knowledge can't be atomised into hermetically sealed little boxes. If forced circumcision is occurring in a context where others are being raped or killed or castrated or enslaved or forced to convert to another religion, then of course we have to touch on these other abuses. Otherwise we can't write sensibly about what happened in any specific instance.

You describe your edit as "trimming off-topic material". In fact, you cut out the part where Luo men cut off the genitals of the men they had killed, and so effectively remove the evidence of an out-of control and frenzied mob that was shouting, 'If we don't kill you, we'll cut your private parts.' You replace an account of actual forced circumcision in the post-election violence with this anodyne statement: "Post-election violence reportedly "focused on tribal animosities", and included several cases of forced circumcision." You have cut the description of a forced censorship and those who commit this assault while you have left much of the background material. That's not just inconsistent, it's a clear case of censorship of sensitive material. Michael Glass (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, cutting off the genitals is not forced circumcision. It's forced penectomy and/or castration.  Hence it's off-topic.  Jakew (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you also removed this from the article:

''Another example of the violence was reported by AFP. "A group of eight men with pangas (machetes) entered. They asked for my ID," The attackers wanted to see the man's name to find out which tribe he belonged to. "They slashed me and they circumcised me by force. I screamed a lot and cried for help: 'Mum, I don't want to die far away from home'," he says.' Caleb complained that when the police arrived on the scene they left him in a poll of blood and made away with the machetes and other weapons left behind by the Kikuyu gang.''

You removed that entire passage from the article. The passage is clearly about forced circumcision, yet you removed it. Why? The other passage, as I stated before, gives information about the mindset of a frenzied mob, and is clearly relevant to the article. Michael Glass (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanitised version that must be changed.
Here is the present sanitised version in the text of the article:


 * In March 2007, as part of the traditional Xhosa ritual, a group of some ten men abducted and forcibly circumcised Bonani Yamani, a South-African teenager. On returning home from the circumcision school, Yamani decided to lay a charge of unfair discrimination on the grounds of his religious beliefs.

This is based on a text that reads as follows:


 * The question of circumcision was also the subject matter in a ground-breaking settlement reached between an Orange Free State university student and his father and the traditional leaders. The background to the challenge in the Equality Court was that the young student believed that his conscience and Christian beliefs did not allow him to undergo the traditional Xhosa rite. Having undergone a medical circumcision some three months earlier he was however subsequently abducted from his home at 4 am, tied up, taken to the bush and subjected to further circumcision by his father and some 9 community leaders. He was also forced to eat skin incised from his penis. As a result the young student laid a charge of unfair discrimination on the grounds of his religious beliefs. In his application he sought an apology from his father and the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (Contralesa), claiming that he had suffered harassment and had had his human dignity seriously undermined. In terms of a settlement reached, which was subsequently made an order of the Equality Court, Contralesa accepted the right of adult males to choose whether to attend traditional circumcision schools according to their religious beliefs. Importantly, it also apologised for the comments made by its former chairman encouraging the ostracism of teenagers who refused to undergo traditional circumcision.  In delivering the order, Mr Justice Ebrahim stressed that consent was essential if the practice was to be both lawful and pass constitutional muster, stating that


 * “people should understand that the case is not about declaring traditional circumcision unlawful. Nothing prevents individuals making their choice. What is important in terms of the Constitution and law is that no one can be forced to submit to circumcision without his consent.”

,https://www.givengain.com/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=2137&news_id=79313&cat_id=1580.>

The sanitised, distorted, truncated piece of spin that is in the article at the moment cannot be allowed to stand. I will be changing it as soon as I have the time. Michael Glass (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

condensing yes, NPOVing- not exactly.
When you change


 * One example of the violence was reported by AFP.

to


 * One Kenyan man reported:

Call it condensation, but it downgrades the evidence from the report of a respected news outlet to that of a single man.

When you change:


 * "A group of eight men with pangas (machetes) entered. They asked for my ID," The attackers wanted to see the man's name to find out which tribe he belonged to. "They slashed me and they circumcised me by force. I screamed a lot and cried for help...' Caleb complained that when the police arrived on the scene they left him in a poll of blood and made away with the machetes and other weapons left behind by the Kikuyu gang.

to


 * A group of eight men with pangas (machetes) entered. They asked for my ID [to determine what tribe he belonged to] ... and they circumcised me by force. I screamed a lot and cried for help...' He complained that police left him in a poll of blood, taking weapons left behind by the Kikuyu gang.

It's certainly shorter, but at the expense of omitting the mention of machete wounds to the man's head. In context this downplays the violence done to the man. Therefore the report has been distorted and taken out of its context. The first version was wordy, but it was not NPOV. It is not fair to call things POV when they aren't and it is regrettable that a distorted version of the attack has been substituted. Michael Glass (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now worked on the wording, attempting to incorporate the best features from both versions. I hope this proves satisfactory to everyone. Michael Glass (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems fine to me. Please try to avoid language such as "One example of the violence" &mdash; I'm not disputing the accuracy of the term in this particular instance, but an NPOV encyclopaedia should generally avoid characterising an incident in such inflammatory terms.  "Experience", which you used here, is fine. Jakew (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of block quotations
I've reverted a recent insertion of tags. Please note that the manual of style recommends the use of these elements for quotes of more than 4 lines, or that consist of multiple paragraphs. Jakew (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai
I am afraid that the short reference to the boy who was lured to Mumbai and ended up in a brothel tells the reader virtually nothing about the situation of the boy.


 * The Gulf Times reported a case of forced circumcision in a Mumbai brothel of a teenager who had been lured from Nepal into forced prostitution.

Meanwhile, the source states:

WP:COPYVIO removed]] 

The present text fails to do justice to the source. The article reveals that the boy was only 14 when he was lured to India, sold into prostitution and treated so appallingly. The present wording fails to do justice to the situation that is revealed in the article. The important things in this account are the following:


 * 1 There is a trade in young boys from Nepal to India, involving between 50 to 100 brothels in Mumbai alone each of which has as many as 50 to 60 boys.
 * 2 The boys involved are often infected with STDs or HIV. Some have been castrated.
 * 3 The boy in question was only 14 when he was lured to India with a promise of better work, sold to a Muslim brothel owner, locked up with 40 or 50 other boys, forced to dress as a girl and circumcised. Many others were castrated. Beatings and starvation became a part of his life.
 * 4 The boy seized an opportunity to escape, got back to Nepal and aid organisations were alerted to the problem.

A single sentence simply doesn't do this story justice. To make any sense of it, and to put the forced circumcision into context, we simply need to provide more information.Michael Glass (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, this article isn't about this boy's story. It's about forced circumcision.  only point (3) is relevant to the subject of forced circumcision, and then only a small part of it.  Jakew (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you cannot explain what was going on unless you explain the context. I invite you to put down what you think explains the context in a satisfactory manner. The present sentence simply isn't good enough. Michael Glass (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the sentence in the article provides adequate context. Jakew (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I don't agree. Let's see if we can work out something that we both can find acceptable enough.

Jake, these are your versions:

The Gulf Times reported a case of forced circumcision in a Mumbai brothel of a teenager who had been lured from Nepal into forced prostitution.  The Gulf Times discussed a case of forced circumcision in the context of sex trade of boys in large Indian cities. 

Your two versions have quite a different emphasis. Put them together (added words are bolded,) and we get:

The Gulf times discussed a case of forced circumcision in the context of the sex trade of boys in large Indian cities. A teenager had been lured from Nepal into forced prostitution and forced circumcision in a Mumbai brothel.

I would prefer this change:

The Gulf times discussed a case of forced circumcision in the context of the sex trade of boys in large Indian cities. A 14 year old boy had been lured from Nepal into forced prostitution and forced circumcision in a Mumbai brothel.

I believe that stating the boy was a teenager underplays his extreme youth and vulnerability. We know the boy was 14 when he was lured away from his native land; it doesn't hurt to state it. If you have any comments with this proposed wording, please state it. Michael Glass (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael, these versions represent different attempts to reduce the volume of off-topic material. I tried two different approaches in the hope that you'd prefer one or the other.  I do not consider combining the two to be acceptable. Jakew (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake you have demonstrated that your idea of off-topic is a moveable feast, a device to minimise information rather than to remove things that are clearly not on the topic. Why are you playing this game? Michael Glass (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Michael, I've demonstrated that I'm willing to permit a small amount of off-topic material in an attempt at compromise. If you're going to throw that back in my face, I'd be very happy not to compromise. Jakew (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you and I have radically different ideas of what is relevant. I insist that it is relevant to point out that the setting is one of widespread abduction and abuse. It is also relevant to point out what happened to one particular victim. If all that is relevant is that the boy was forcibly circumcised, then we know virtually nothing about the context, and that is simply unacceptable.

I will comment frankly about how I see your latest edits separately. Michael Glass (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, the topic of this article is forced circumcision, not repression of religious minorities, the child sex slave trade, etc. Also, Wikipedia is only allowed to use brief quotations from sources if they are on the topic of the article itself. Lengthy quotations of off-topic material are copyright violations. Please review WP:COPYVIO and restrict this article to material directly discussing forced circumcision. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this an article or a random list?
The article appears to be mostly a random list of every single incident of forced circumcision that has happened in the past 2,500 years. However, this article is not titled List of forced circumcisions, but rather Forced circumcision. Also WP:NOTNEWS indicates that articles should not list every single incident of an individual forced circumcision that happens to hit the news. For example, what exactly is the significance of the incident in Australia? Yes, someone assaulted someone else, and in this case attempted to cut off their foreskin with a beer bottle, and the victim sued and was awarded damages. But, frankly, so what? Is there some epidemic of Aboriginal women feeling up drunken Aboriginal men when they fall unconscious, and his companions attempting to cut off their foreskins with beer bottles? Is this some common cultural practice? Most of these incidents should be summarized with one sentence: "There have also been incidents of forced circumcision in Australia, Uganda, Sudan etc." Unless someone can express some policy-based reason not to do so, I plan to properly summarize all this tabloid news in the article. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a very good idea. Jakew (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal is in effect saying that the article is too much like a random list so let's make it more like a random list by removing the background information that explains how and when and where these arttacks happen. Michael Glass (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bunch of one-off news stories! Are there any reliable secondary sources that actually tie all these incidents together? What exactly is the "background information" that ties Turkish persecution of the Yazidi with the child sex-trade in Mumbai and beer bottle foreskin removals of drunken Aborginal Australians by other Aboriginal Australians? Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first thing that unites these reports is that they are all about forced circumcision. There are also some similarities between the attacks. The drunken Aborigines wanting to "make a man" of their victim were actually making the same point as Xhosa tribespeople and the Kikuyu tribe in East Africa, all who asserted that men who were not circumcised were not grown up. It should also be noted that the problem of forced circumcision is an ongoing problem in both South and East Africa and extremist Muslims have been forcibly circumcising non-Muslims for centuries. Another issue which happened in more than one of these reports is that a few forcible circumcisers don't stop at that and go on and castrate their victims. Yes, forced circumcisions happen in other settings such as in the child sex trade in India and apparently random attacks elsewhere, but that in itself is no reason not to record these incidents. It would be good if we could find a reliable secondary source to draw together these different reports. However, just because we have not turned up such a source should not stop us from noting when and where and under what conditions these attacks occur, just as long as we don't jump to any conclusions. Michael Glass (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Jayjg meant whether reliable sources perceive similarities between the incidents, not whether Michael Glass perceives similarities. The former can and should be incorporated into the article (and, indeed, such analytical comments about forced circumcisions in general should really be the main focus of the article); the latter cannot. Jakew

(talk) 11:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it would be good to have a reliable source draw many of these these incidents together and I hope that one can be found.Michael Glass (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As per today, the list of references consists of 74 citations. Some 25 citations are taken from newspapers and similar media. The remaining 66% of the citations are of an academic nature. Hence, it seems doubtful that the article can be categorized as "a random list of every single incident of forced circumcision that has happened in the past 2,500 years." While the perspective varies according to individual interest, it would be wrong to assume that the authors cited in the article have limited themselves to discussing individual cases of forced circumcision. Consider as an example the paragraph on the Mandaeans of Iraq. Four sources are cited:
 * (1) Buckley, 2006, a work on religious history, deals with forced circumcision, because being uncircumcised is essential to the Mandaean faith.
 * (2) Nickerson et al., 2009, and Nickerson et al., 2010, two reports on psychiatric research, are concerned with the trauma the Mandaeans are experiencing right now due to forced conversion, including forced circumcision.
 * (3) An essay from The Arab Washingtonian, written by Charles Häberl, an expert on Middle East and a graduate of Brown University and Harvard University, deals with the recent development.
 * (4) The Testimony of Dr Suhaib Nashi at the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Hearing on Threats to Iraq's Communities of Antiquity, 25 July 2007, can hardly be labeled "tabloid" material.
 * The perspectives chosen by these writers include religious history, psychiatric research, and religious freedom. The WP article cannot be expected to cover anything but the basic facts.
 * There is, of course, room for debate about which publications are of an academic nature and which are not, but please try and be specific rather than general. Please note that different works deal with different countries. Peter Sutton, an Australian linguist and anthropologist, deals with the Australian Aborigines; Suzette Heald deals with the Bagishu of Uganda; etc. Dividing the article into separate articles, one for each country, may be an alternative, if the absence of an all-encompassing publication on forced circumcision, written by one scholar, proves a serious obstacle.
 * Finally, speaking of "random" lists and "single" incidents, notice the parallels between the present article and, say, the article on Uses of torture in recent times. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would advise strongly against dividing the article by country. We're in this situation because, to be blunt, we have an article about a subject that doesn't really exist, as an object of study, in academic writing, hence the lack of secondary sources.  When such a situation occurs, there are generally only two possible outcomes.  One is that the article becomes a mass of original research; the other is that the article becomes a laundry list of ways in which the subject has been mentioned in random sources.  Splitting the article would simply exacerbate the problem: instead of one article about a subject that hasn't been discussed in academic writing, we'd have X articles about subjects that haven't been discussed in academic writing. Jakew (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not deny that "forced circumcision" (forcible circumcision, circumcision by force, involuntary circumcision, etc.) does not exist as a scholarly field in its own right. The prediction of the two possible outcomes ("original research" versus "laundry list") seems logical and is probably very accurate. However, it is not correct that the subject has "never been discussed" in academic literature. Forced circumcision is discussed in the contexts of or in relation to Mandaean culture, African tribes, and Pauline theology. (Search engines such as Google Scholar and Google Books can be used to verify this claim.) If official Wikipedia policy requires that subjects chosen for separate articles exist as well-defined academic disciplines, the article will have to be deleted. But as far as I can see, countless WP articles can be found that do not fulfil this criterion. I already mentioned the article on Uses of torture in recent times. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct in noting that the subject has been discussed in the literature, and I apologise if my words seemed to suggest otherwise. Several authors have discussed forced circumcision.  Nevertheless, I believe it is true to say that no authors have made forced circumcision the primary topic of a work, and so those that have discussed forced circumcision have generally done so briefly, and in the context of another subject.  This limits our ability to incorporate the work of these authors into the article.
 * Regarding other articles, it is generally inadvisable to point to the existence of an article, or its survival of a deletion debate, as an argument for keeping another. The wisdom of the community may well produce the right result in a statistical sense, but it is by no means certain that it will do so in any particular case.  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an interesting essay on the subject.
 * In any case, nobody has actually proposed the deletion of this article, so it seems rather unnecessary to debate whether it should be permitted to exist. I think we're all agreed that the available secondary sources for the subject are weak, so it seems as though it's worth doing everything we can to avoid making the situation worse. Jakew (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * After re-reading the article, I agree that certain sections have become too detailed and lengthy. Anecdotal material should be deleted. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjg: The article on Uses of torture in recent times was nominated for deletion in 2007 because of the lack of "proper citations." One writer felt the article read "more like a current events article than an encyclopedic one." For this reason, please consult the archived discussion page before taking steps to summarize the present article "with one sentence," which would be tantamount to deleting it. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one is nominating this article for deletion, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, summarizing extraneous detail is not in any way "deleting it", much less "tantamount" to doing so. The news stories in the article will be summarized for the benefit of the reader, so that this becomes an article on Forced circumcision, not a List of random forced circumcisions, including titillating details. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing off-topic material or censorship?
Jake, I note your latest edits:

First of all, thank you for picking up the typo and correcting it. I only wish my other comments could be as positive.

Edit 1


 * A 2003 report stated that Islamist forces from Khartoum forcibly circumcised boys in the Darfur region of Sudan. A former slave writes of "the forced circumcision of boys and girls, often with them fully conscious and screaming and having to be held down by many people. Sodomy and sadistic torture are common. Living hell."
 * ''By removing the last two sentences you have effectively toned down the violence inflicted by the Islamists. Not your best effort.

Edit 2


 * In 1999, a woman who was feared throughout the Vaal Triangle district of South Africa controlled a gang of kidnappers that abducted young people, forcibly circumcising the boys and extorting ransoms from their parents for their release. Some young people were killed; those who talked were threatened with death. The bodies of some of those kidnapped were found in shallow graves. The decomposed body of one victim was found with his genitals cut off. A local police officer said as many as 10 teenagers had been snatched every day,
 * ''By removing two sentences you have once again effectively toned down the violence perpetrated by the woman and her gang of thugs. You have concealed the fact that they were killers, and that at least in one case they mutilated the body of a victim. These thugs don't deserve your airbrushing.

As I said, you may think you are removing off-topic material; I believe you are censoring Wikipedia. Michael Glass (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If this article were about sodomy, sadistic torture, murder (or threats of murder), etc., you would have a point. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

When the people doing these things are also circumcising others by force it's part of the evidence, about the circumcisers, Jake. It's blatant censorship.

Edit 3

'''Christina Sadat, herself a victim of genital cutting in the attacks, commented that the men suffered more than the women from infections and bleeding and took longer to recover. '''

This statement, which is evidence from an eye-witness of the suffering of the men is suppressed, together with the citation. Why? Christina Sadat made a comparison between male and female genital cutting. Ideology, which will not tolerate any comparison between the genital cutting of men and women, has suppressed eye-witness evidence of the suffering of the men. So even eye-witness evidence of forced circumcision is removed on ideological grounds. Michael Glass (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, there are multiple problems with this sentence:
 * First, this article is about forced circumcision. Why, then, an off-topic reference to female genital cutting ("herself a victim of genital cutting in the attacks"), which is not the subject of this article?
 * Second, "attacks" is an inflammatory term that does not belong in an NPOV discussion.
 * Third, the comparison between complications and recovery time is not informative because there's no useful reference point: the reader cannot be expected to intuit how many complications the women had, or how long they took to recover. It's like saying "the alien tongue squirgleflip has fewer consonsants than that of xyylgrug": it tells the reader practically nothing at all.
 * Your continuing accusations of censorship are uncivil and I'm becoming increasingly likely to ignore them altogether. Jakew (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC

Response:

1 Christina Sadat was talking about the forced circumcision of the men.

2 She was subjected to forced female genital cutting in the same attacks, or if you prefer mealy-mouthings, incidents.

3 Forced genital cutting of either gender is an assault, or an attack. If you don't like plain English, then find some other way to express it. And while you're at it, get the Americans to stop talking about the September 11 attacks on the grounds that they're being inflammatory, too.

4 Expecting an eye-witness to come up with a list of complications and detailed recovery times is unrealistic. However, it is something that an eye-witness noticed and commented on and expressed plainly.

5 If you don't like being called a censor, stop censoring. Michael Glass (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about forced circumcision, not forced female gentical cutting. Material that is not about circumcision is off-topic. Please stop inappropriately accusing other editors of censorship. If you want to add this material to the female genital cutting article, please feel free to do so. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Christina Sagat was commenting on the forced circumcision of the men. How much more on the topic do you have to be? If the mere mention of female genital cutting is the problem, then just say that she was one of the victims. Other details, as you say, may be more appropriate in the other article, but when the two abuses happen together, as they did in Ambon, Indonesia in 2001, then there will be some overlap. Michael Glass (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, most of the material I was referring to was unrelated to the Sagat stuff. That said, why would we care what Christina Sagat says about this topic? Yes, googling her name turns up basically the same material on dozens of anti-circumcision websites; but Wikipedia isn't an anti-circumcision website (or shouldn't be, at any rate), so why would Wikipedia include this detail? Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that the woman's eye-witness testimony is of no value because she is a woman and because she is quoted on anti-circumcision websites. I regard that statement as both sexist (rejecting the testimony of a woman, apparently because she is a woman) and guilt by association (because she is quoted by anti-circumcision websites). What a convenient way of dealing with material you don't like. Michael Glass (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Who said anything about her testimony being "of no value because she is a woman and because she is quoted on anti-circumcision websites"? Did you actually read my comment? The point is that it's testimony. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court case, or a truth and reconciliation commission. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a transcript. It doesn't matter if Sagat is a man, woman, or intelligent alien being; the question still remains, keeping in mind that we're writing an encyclopedia article, not taking a deposition, or interrogating a witness, why would Wikipedia care what Sagat says on this topic? Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Maluku Islands
It misrepresents the sources to
 * suppress the fact that those forcibly circumcised were Christians.
 * suppress the fact that women as well as men were targeted.

Suppressing this information is not acceptable. Michael Glass (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Christians were targeted for forced conversion and circumcision in Dafur and Pakistan as well as the Maluku Islands. Suppressing the information in the article also suppresses the connection.


 * Both man and women were the subject of forced genital cutting in both Dafur and Indonesia. Suppressing the fact that both men and women were targeted also suppresses the similarity of the attacks in both places.


 * The sources make it clear that thousands of men, women and children were forcibly circumcised in the Maluki Islands. They do not say that thousands of men were forcibly circumcised. As the figures were not broken down to say that x men, y women and z children were circumcised we are in no position to say whether thousands of men were circumcised. This is an assumption of the editors who put this into the text. It is not a fact that has been established from a reliable source. This invention, therefore, is not based on evidence.

I would like to have verified, factual information in the article. I find it totally unacceptable to find an invented factoid thrust into this article. Michael Glass (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Female genital cutting is not the subject of this article, Michael, and so the fact that it occurred is insufficient justification to include it. I have no problem with stating that the men were Christians.  Your final point has some validity; we can instead say that "many" men were forcibly circumcised.  Jakew (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

1 The fact that forced female genital cutting and forced male circumcision happened together is an important fact. The mere mention that these two things happened together does not mean that female genital cutting is the subject of this article. To suppress the mention of female genital cutting from any mention in the article makes about as much sense as suppressing the fact that men are raped from an article on rape, simply because most of the victims of this crime are women.

2 I note that you have not addressed my concern about the suppression of the fact that Christians were targeted in the Maluku Islands.

3 I welcome the fact that you have seen the problem in saying that thousands were circumcised when we do not have the evidence to say that this is so. However, your solution, to resort to the word many, replaces a factoid with a vague word that conceals even more of the evidence of persecution. Many could mean 50 or 100 or 500 or a couple of thousand. Who is to tell? Why not simply quote the source document? "Circumcision has been forced on hundreds of Christians, including children and pregnant women, in a campaign by extremists to spread Islam through the war-ravaged Maluku islands." (Sydney Morning Herald 27 January 2001). End of problem. Michael Glass (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding your point (2), Michael, I did in fact indicate that I was quite happy to indicate the faith of the men: "I have no problem with stating that the men were Christians". Regarding your first and third points, once again, this article is about forced circumcision, not female genital cutting, and the latter is off-topic. Jakew (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, when both men and women are assaulted and when the source uses the forced circumcision to describe what happened to both men and women it is not off-topic to note this occurrence. The article as it stands says that the term forced circumcision most commonly refers to the forced circumcision of a male. If a source uses the expression differently there is no problem in quoting it. Michael Glass (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, Michael, Wikipedia's articles are not written about words or phrases, so it doesn't matter that "forced circumcision" can refer to female genital cutting. Articles are about specific subjects.  This article is about removal of the penile foreskin by force.  Hence FGC is off-topic.  Jakew (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, when the two things happen together as they have in the Maluku Islands and in Dafur, mentioning one but ensuring that the other isn't even mentioned is quite bizarre. The article deals with two instances when the two abuses occur together and yet you don't want this mentioned. Why? Why should this be taboo? Michael Glass (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One is the subject of this article; the other is not. Jakew (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So? Australia is not the subject of this article. However, when a case of forced circumcision happened in Australia, the country was identified. The Xhosa are not the subject of this article. However, when several cases of forced circumcision happen in that tribe we mention the fact. When forced circumcision occurs with other violence, this should be noted.

Take a similar article. The Holocaust usually refers to the Nazi Genocide of of Jews in the Second World War. However, some but my no means all scholars contend that other victims of Nazi persecution - such as Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, the disabled and so on, should also be mentioned. This is explicitly noted in the Wikipedia article. If the article on the Holocaust can note other victims of Nazi violence, then this article can also mention when other victims - who happen to be women - are also subject to forced genital cutting at the same time as men were being forcibly circumcised. Michael Glass (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Certain information, such as the country or cultural group, provide context allowing one to distinguish between instances of forced circumcision. However, things that happened at the same time as forced circumcision, but which are not forced circumcision, are clearly irrelevant and do not belong. Jakew (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, Jake, makes as much sense as saying that the rape of men is irrelevant because rape concerns women only. Has it struck you that if zealots are cutting the genitals of both men and women that this is telling you something about the mindset of the zealots or their beliefs? Why do you take this blinkered approach? Michael Glass (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's rather more like saying that the rape of men is irrelevant to an article that is about the rape of women. And it is. Jakew (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If there were incidents where men and women were being raped then it would be worth reporting this in a general article about rape. Even if it was an article about rape and women the rape of men would be significant because of what it revealed about the mindset of the rapists. Similarly, in an article about forced circumcision, where men and women are being cut, and the word used to describe both acts of violence is circumcision then this is notable. The thing about forced circumcision that makes it unacceptable is not so much the circumcision, but the force. People who force circumcision on adults against their will are doing violence, and it is not surprising that this act of force is accompanied by other violent acts. That is why the violence that accompanies forced circumcision should be given due consideration. Michael Glass (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, I don't really care why you find forced circumcision unacceptable. Personally, I don't regard it as acceptable either, but that doesn't matter either.  Since this is a source-based neutral encyclopaedia, the only thing that does matter is what sources say about forced circumcision.  And only what they say about forced circumcision: what they say about anything else is immaterial, even if you or I find it interesting. Jakew (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I'm glad that both you and I agree that forced circumcision is unacceptable but then you go on to say that our personal opinion on this question doesn't matter. Are you saying that your objection to forced circumcision is a personal taste, like preferring a particular colour or a particular food, or are you saying that you find forced circumcision morally unacceptable?

The thing I find unacceptable about forced circumcision is the use of force. It's not a question of whether you or I find these details interesting, but whether these details are important in understanding the context in which this assault happens. The context could be as part of forced conversion to a circumcising religion, it could reflect animosities between different tribes, or the authoritarian structure in a tribe or the activities of a criminal gang. The context is important in explaining why these assaults happen in particular instances and while there might be differences in particular incidents, common patterns also emerge. Removing context removes knowledge of what is going on. For example, it is important to know whether the force is the result of criminal activity or local tribal custom or misdirected religious zeal. Michael Glass (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, Wikipedia isn't about our personal opinions, it's about presenting the opinions of reliable sources in a neutral manner. Now, if everyone felt that forced circumcision was unacceptable, nobody would do it.  Clearly, that isn't the case, so it is reasonable to conclude that there a viewpoint exists (albeit a minority one) holding that forced circumcision is acceptable.  That being so, WP:NPOV requires us to state the facts, neutrally, and where possible to avoid asserting our personal viewpoints about the subject.  I hope that clarifies matters for you.  Jakew (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, You and I both stated our personal opinions about forced circumcision. Other people might well feel that forced circumcision is fine by them, or even that it should be encouraged. That is not the issue. Nor is there an issue between us about using reliable sources or presenting infomation in a neutral manner. The questions at issue are whether to include or exclude some facts and about how to present the issues fairly. What I have stated all along is that to understand forced circumcision is must be understood in context, and that the violence of the attacks should not be understated. Understating the violence of such an attack is not presenting the facts neutrally, nor is it a neutral presentation of the facts to exclude information of relevance. I am concerned that some information has been removed from this article and the result has been to underplay the violence and to exclude facts of relevance. Michael Glass (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Summarising a detailed paragraph
When this:


 * one man was cornered by a mob, stripped naked, frog-marched to a nearby river, covered with clay and then brought to a nearby trading centre where he was forcibly circumcised by traditional surgeons as police watched helplessly. When four traffic police officers tried to intervene the crowd began to stone them. The victim was left bleeding at the scene. The District Commissioner of Police expressed shock at the incident and told police ....."

is summarised as this:


 * following a violent incidence in Butere/Mumias District, a district commissioner instructed the police ..."

We have lost a lot of information such as
 * a man being cornered by a mob
 * his being stripped naked,
 * frogmarched to a river
 * covered with clay
 * brought to a nearby trading centre
 * forcibly circumcised by traditional surgeons
 * as police watched helplessly.
 * Four traffic police officers tried to intervene
 * The crowd began to stone the traffic police.
 * The victim was left bleeding at the scene.
 * The District Commissioner of Police
 * expressed shock at the incident

The two reports, of course, agree that the District Commissioner instructed or told police to crack down on traditional surgeons involved in forcible circumcision.

"A violent incidence" is rather uninformative. Could we actually describe something of what happened? Michael Glass (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you describe a very good edit that removed material irrelevant to the subject of this article, and preserved what little was relevant. Jakew (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? If the article says anything about the circumstances surrounding a forced circumcision you immediately brand it as irrelevant. Sounds to me like a good excuse to say nothing of substance. Why is it so important to delete as much information as possible about this human rights abuse? Michael Glass (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than failing to be neutral, "this human rights abuse" is also ambiguous. Do you mean "forced circumcision"?  If so, it's somewhat amusing, as material directly relating to forced circumcision is, in fact, that which is least likely to be deleted. Jakew (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again we are faced with the issue of tabloidesque details being inserted to titillate and shock the reader, while providing absolutely no information about forced circumcision. Is being "frog-marched to a river" a common theme in forced circumcisions? How about being "covered with clay"? We are not trying to increase our paid circulation here, and we're not interested in the "reactions of the man in the street". We need to stick to themes, not incidents. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, in this case the material deleted described in detail the violence that accompanied the forced circumcision. This human rights abuse referred to the whole incident, an account of which was removed from the article and replaced with the words, a violent incidence. I believe that this wording is unsatisfactory because it tells the reader nothing about the incident.

Jayig, I wonder how you would react if details of the Holocaust were swept away on the ground that they might shock the reader. I wonder what you would say to someone who alleged that details of the Holocaust were retold to tittilate the reader. I think you would find that offensive, and I am certain that you would note that the comment reflects badly on the person making the claim.

I'm also interested that you dismiss the account of the violence on the grounds that it is tabloidesque. Here's another way to brand and dismiss a report of violence and abuse: call it tabloidesque and toss it aside without further thought. You say that we need to stick to themes, not incidents. I agree. The theme that this incident illustrates is that of violence, which is an intrinsic part of forced circumcision. Michael Glass (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving Godwin's law. Now, back to the point; is being "frog-marched to a river" a common theme in forced circumcisions? How about being "covered with clay"? Or are these merely the details of a specific incident? Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayig, as you have not got my point, I will phrase it directly. I find your accusation that I provided details of the assault to titillate the reader offensive. I also find it offensive to read your off-handed dismissal of accounts of other people's suffering. The details that you mention above show the violence of the mob towards their victim. I repeat, violence is the theme in forced circumcision. The specific assaults may and indeed do vary in these attacks, but these are variations on the theme of violence that is an intrinsic part of all forced circumcisions. Therefore these acts of violence are not merely the details that can be swept aside as if they do not matter, but a record of the abuse and suffering endured by a man who was the victim of mob violence when he was circumcised by force. in fact the actions that you mention suggest that it was part of a ritual that was imposed upon the man. Michael Glass (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, your personal theory that violence is an intrinsic part of forced circumcision is not a valid basis for claiming that it is relevant. If a reliable source asserts such an argument then, by all means, cite and quote that source.  But you cannot use your personal theory of forced circumcision to demand inclusion of material that does not directly pertain to forced circumcision.  This article is not about random acts of violence that happen to include forced circumcision; it's about forced circumcision.  Jakew (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you cannot force circumcision on someone without violence. Once again you have resorted to wikilawyering to minimise and conceal the violence of these attacks. Michael Glass (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, Michael, the article is about forced circumcision and what WP:RS have to say about forced circumcision. Jakew (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jake, the article draws on reliable sources. Why are you so determined to truncate what they reveal? Michael Glass (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with including properly sourced material as long as it is about forced circumcision, Michael. Jakew (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you have stated that you have no problem about including properly sourced material about forced circumcision. However, you remove information about how the forced circumcisions happen. This is neither logical nor consistent. Michael Glass (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael, you're just repeating claims that have been refuted above. As Jake points out, you need to find reliable sources that support your theories. Jayjg (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayig, removing information is not refuting a theory. Michael Glass (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, but you haven't addressed the issues raised above, specifically that this article should be about the general topic, not a list of incidents complete with tabloidesque details. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tabloidesque detail is a handy way for you to denigrate and dispense with information that you object to. Where is the objective standard that defines something tabloidesque? Of course the article should be about the general topic. Why then the jihad against specific details and background information? You object to the article being a list of incidents, but the more detail you remove, the more like a list it becomes. Michael Glass (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

sexism against men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Selective_Service_System

"Legal Issues"

Does any serious person or group contend that the draft is equivalent to slavery or involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment? Especially given that, as the article points out, the Supreme Court has ruled on that exact point? This sounds like one of these crackpot theories like that the income tax is illegal or that fringes on a flag make a court a military court. --Max power 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep some serious people sure do I sure do As the US Government didnt arrest my parents when they had me circumcised I do not feel beholden to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.110.161 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought about it this way but makes sense--military service and circumcision mandatory for men. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Other
Im not sure how to do this but the link "the other" in the article goes to another article about the movie "The Other" which I don't think is the intent. Someone should change the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.164.249.87 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Forced circumcision most frequently occurs in neonates and minors.
I'd like to reference the widespread circumcision of minors in the USA, the Middle East, and parts of Asia--these circumcisions are all forced, as they are carried out without the consent of the owner of the genitals in question. Indeed, the worldwide prevalence of consensual circumcision is quite small, consisting only of adult men who undergo the procedure for elective reasons or to treat an otherwise incurable condition. The article should reflect that the vast majority of all the world's circumcisions are, in fact, forced. Tobias8844 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hell yeah. Surely we can find several sources for this.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While this seems fine, it needed a little retuning to be under the heading of "Violence Against Men". Original wording seems inflammatory and too political, rather than objective per our duties here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.229.14 (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No link at all at all to main WP Circumcision article !
It is remarkable that the widespread practice of Forced Circumcision of males catalogued in this article has no mention, link or reference in the main Circumcision article on wikipedia(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision). It is sadly predictable that some of the same editors who prevent such a link are also here making accounts of this horrific practice more bland.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not use Wikipedia article Talk pages to air your personal opinions about article topics. Please do not use Wikipedia article Talk pages to discuss other editors.  See WP:TPG.  This article does indeed have a Wikilink to the referenced article, it is the first Wikilink in the lead.  There is indeed a link to this article from the referenced article, in the Circumcision series template at the bottom of the page.   13:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion expressed above is not on the article topic as you mistakenly suggest Zach. It is on an administrative matter-please read it agin more slowly. While there may be a link at the end of the  Circumcision article, Forced Circumcision, as it is so widespread, should  be mentioned within the article. This is also not " airing an opinion about an article topic" but a suggestion to improve WP. Sheesh !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 22:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: first paragraph, consent
What is "informed consent" and how is that different from consent? 73.180.32.63 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forced circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118122152/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=32822&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=32822&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Do small children/babies consent?
Isn't 99% of circumcision forced? Small children are not able to consent to the procedure and are inevitably goign to have to be sedated or restrained in some way, as is the case for any surgery on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.234.135 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

13 and fourced to have it done
I was nine years old when my mother died. Me and my dad lived in a small apartement together, and i am not circumcised. One day when i was 13, i went to my dad and i told him that i had a concern about my penis. He told me to pull down my pants and show him the problem. He told me that i should get circumcised, i knew what that was. I told him that i did not want to have that done, and he said that i did not have a chouse. He fourced me to be circumcised. Two weeks later i had it done and he said that i would never would have a problem with my penis ever again.

Hi, why FGM?
Hi Folks,

Why is there a reference to FGM?

No seriously. The issues are totally different. Hear me out.

I cannot have children because of what was done to me. Additionally, because it was done in the USA, there is no accountability.

I just get to live in physical pain for my whole fucking life. Thanks.

Where is FGM legal?

I can name a place where somebody can mutilate sombody's genitals and if there's no physical problem that a 2 year old infant can identify there's no legal problem and no legal recourse.

Where is that true of FGM? Where, when a cisgendered female is mutilated at birth, do we give her any sympathy? Oh, I forget, that's EVERYWHERE.

Here is my suggestion that never gets listened to: we talk about this in the context of my body, my choice

What the fuck is wrong with demanding my body my choice even though I was assigned the male gender at birth and thus had no choice in what was done to me.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Forced circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623041759/http://www.arabwashingtonian.org/english/article.php?issue=4&articleID=71 to http://www.arabwashingtonian.org/english/article.php?issue=4&articleID=71
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006225806/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkiZSdchTFFEy7rFhYWAK4z6Zc8Q to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkiZSdchTFFEy7rFhYWAK4z6Zc8Q
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719205026/https://www.givengain.com/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=2137&news_id=79313&cat_id=1580 to https://www.givengain.com/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=2137&news_id=79313&cat_id=1580
 * Added tag to http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-03-23-voa58.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605141700/http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/17/520821 to http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/17/520821
 * Added tag to http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-03-23-voa58.cfm
 * Added tag to http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-03-23-voa58.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716081104/http://www.sundayvision.co.ug/detail.php?mainNewsCategoryId=7&newsCategoryId=132&newsId=636069 to http://www.sundayvision.co.ug/detail.php?mainNewsCategoryId=7&newsCategoryId=132&newsId=636069
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120914155859/http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/635938 to http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/635938
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622061202/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/sdrpt4b.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/sdrpt4b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Where to write on "Forced circumcision of children"?
The "Forced circumcision" article in Wikipedia is categorized under "Violence against men". But the entire article talks about forced circumcision of adult men in different areas of the world. And the "Forced circumcision" article doesn't address forced circumcision of children. The Wikipedia article "Circumcision" categorized under "Surgical procedures" doesn't address forced circumcision of children either.

Most of the forced circumcisions are committed against child, pre-teen and teen boys rather than against adults, where the children are either physically forced or are tricked to undergo the procedure. And in many cultures, these circumcisions are done by non-medical traditional operators with non-surgical instruments, and often with no anesthesia.

Video evidences provided below-

Video evidence 1 – Forced circumcision of Muslim boy in Asia by illiterate traditional operator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkyjZ1kTNU0&t=6s

Video evidence 2 – Forced circumcision of child/teen boys in Africa by illiterate local operators: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jziT0kK_t-8

Video evidence 3 – Bangladeshi Muslim child boy try to defend physically but no luck to prevent his forced circumcision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMe7lTc8PQM

Video evidence 4 - Forced circumcision of an Indian Muslim boy (boy screaming loud in extreme pain, but everybody surrounding is laughing, having fun): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISXDzw3DN5I

Video evidence 5 - Bangladeshi Muslim boy can’t bear the pain of his forced circumcision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3JV1s61b4o

Video evidence 6 - The scream of this boy seems to be very funny for Bangladeshi Muslims, so they were all laughing during the violent ordeal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTAlXGQoXkw

Video evidence 7 - Video of forced circumcision being taken against the wishes of the Indian Muslim boy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWoUHZ_gX0Q

The above videos are disturbing. Voices of the boys are clear. Attacks on them are brutal.

Lots of forced circumcision videos have been uploaded to Youtube and many are being uploaded everyday.

In Video 3, we see a child is trying to physically defend himself from forced circumcision, but his family members are shouting at him and physically forcing him to undergo the procedure.

In Video 7, the boy who was being forcibly circumcised requested his family members not to take video of the violence. A female family member promised not to take video of the offense. But actually they filmed the entire operation and uploaded the video to Youtube. Even though it’s illegal to upload such video of a child in internet, the offenders made it clear that they are not afraid of law or court.

About the “Video 1”, the title of the above video in Youtube is “Funny Khatna 2016”. In Islam, “Khatna” means “Circumcision”. And for “UBAID UR REHMAN”, a fundamentalist Muslim, the uploader of the video, the screaming of the boy during his un-anesthesized circumcision was so funny. So he titled the video as “Funny Khatna 2016”. Also, about the Video 6, Monoar Bin ahmed, a Bangladeshi Muslim, the uploader of the video, titled the video as "fun:......"

Often in a forced circumcision case, we see a boy is screaming and people surrounding him are laughing. For example, in video 4 and in video 6, we see a boy is screaming loud in extreme pain during his forced circumcision, but everybody surrounding him is laughing and having fun with this.

Now the question is that where to write on "Forced circumcision of children" in Wikipedia?

1. Is it appropriate to create an additional article titled "Forced circumcision of children"?

Or, 2. Is it appropriate to write on "Forced circumcision of children" in the Wikipedia article "Forced circumcision"?

Or, 3. Is it appropriate to write on "Forced circumcision of children" in the Wikipedia article "Circumcision"?

2017lalaba (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Male genital mutilation
"Forced circumcision refers to circumcision of males who have not given their consent to the procedure." = all infant boys.

This article is missing North America, aka USA from the list.

I would also like to see the phrase MGM or male genital mutilation.

And then this article should be merged to the official circumcision, but it seems to me that it is being protected by some pro circumcision people, probably people benefiting money from this crime against humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.233.199 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Shafer cite re death penalty for circumcising slaves

 * Legislation under Constantine, the first Christian emperor, freed any slave who was subjected to circumcision; in the year 339, circumcising a slave became punishable by death.

The reference listed for this is:
 * "Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews, p. 185."

I am looking to improve this reference with a URL and quote and year of publication.

Over at Constantine_the_Great:
 * They were forbidden to own Christian slaves or to circumcise their slaves.

This is related, but while it mentions forbidding circumcision of slaves it does not refer to a death penalty. Two sources are listed there:
 * Stemberger, Gunter. Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, A&C Black, 1999, po. 37–38, ISBN 0-567-23050-3
 * Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World, Routledge, 2003, p. 182, ISBN 1-134-40317-8

Regarding the second, page 182 sounds pretty close to 185 and there is a resemblance in the title. Is it possible that "in the Greco-Roman World" got left out by accident? After that 2003 book it appears Shafer also published a 2013 book called "The History of the Jews in Antiquity" too, so that could be another candidate. I'll check both to see.

There is no mention of circumcision at either history of the Jews in the Roman Empire or Constantine the Great and Judaism presently so once we sort out the facts we should consider making coordinate mention at both locations. 70.51.193.44 (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Original research / POV
"The most common form of forced circumcision is performed widely in Israel and the United States, where it is known as neonatal circumcision. This form of circumcision involves the circumcision of a male newborn. Although their parents may consent to it, the males themselves do not, therefore making it forced. "


 * Really? This sounds like pure WP:OR In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Forced circumcision → Male Genital Mutilation – :Just as female genital mutilation is the phrasing used for involuntary modification of a female's genitals, regardless of historical or religious context(Islam), so too should be the case for involuntary male genital mutilation, regardless of historical context or religious affiliation(Judaism).Ethanpet113 (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose circumcision is not mutilation. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, I disagree with In ictu oculi's opinion in his oppose above, but we can't change the title to mutilation until reliable sources do. Iffy★Chat -- 21:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per COMMONNAME as well. Also WP:POVTITLE Genital cutting is a global phenomenon and there are various terms to describe it. While i consider non-consensual genital cutting, including routine male infant circumcision, abhorrent, nothing done to the penis compares to infibulation and it should be a major POV violation to try to get wikipedia to suggest so in its article title.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Editors have also tried to move the Circumcision article to "Male genital mutilation." You might want to check the archives there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY with the main topic. I'm sympathetic to the cause, but unfortunately the opponents of male circumcision haven't been as good at changing the language as the opponents of female genital mutilation. Try again in a decade or two. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several issues here. Firstly, "Male Genital Mutilation" is not the common name for this topic. Secondly, this seems part of a broader push (often linked to the "men's rights movement" and the anti-feminist movement) to liken female genital mutilation to circumcision. While from a personal perspective I view routine cutting of the penis without consent as morally wrong our job is to assume a neutral point of view. Likening the two also serves to effectively downplay the horrific nature of female genital mutilation. AusLondonder (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.