Talk:Prevalence of circumcision/Archive 1

Verifiability
This is completely unsourced and unverifiable. I doubt that sources can be found, and so I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion now, but I'll leave that for a week in case I'm wrong. Jakew 10:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Circumcision in Indonesia are only pigs supports circumcision. circumcision is the only pigs' culture in Indonesia at all. all cut males are real pigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.182.142 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a shot. --Trafton 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good start, but I've removed CIRP as it's not a reliable source. Jakew 08:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but if that is true, why does the main circumcision article cite CIRP as a source no fewer than 24 times? I am looking at the citations for the circumcision statistics, and they all seem to be based on governmental information.  What makes these numbers unreliable, and why are they still being used so liberally in the main article? --Trafton 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify for me: does it cite CIRP's original content, or do you mean articles originally published elsewhere, but reproduced by CIRP? Jakew 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The numbers are compiled by CIRP, but come from (as far as I could tell) governmental agencies and reputable studies. I would not be including it if I thought they were dishonest.  My personal opinions are much, much, much less important than me than accurate statistics.  Mis-quoting CIRP won't change reality, after all, so what's the point?  Don't worry. --Trafton 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubt the sources
I find it most unbelievable that the overwhelming Muslim populations of the countries of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc. are not circumcised; is the source aggregating the entire former USSR and then someone is extrapolating to its diverse constituent parts? Carlossuarez46 01:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What a little research brings: shows that the Wallerstein source is dated 1985 and if one reads the preface there quoted, he lumps the entire USSR together, with the mostly Eastern Orthodox (or atheist during those Soviet times) Russia dominating by population, the conclusion is likely right but not the extrapolations. I will tag the article accordingly. Carlossuarez46 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Less disputed
Since Wallersteing is now only cited for the relatively stable populations of Europe and Japan, I have taken the liberty of removing the disputed tag. Rich Farmbrough, 12:09 3 September 2006 (GMT).

Indonesia
On 7-Dec-2006 58.69.62.65 added Indonesia to "Majority of males uncircumcised", leaving it also in "Majority of males believed to be uncircumcised". On 20-Dec-2006 200.74.187.59 deleted the first occurence of Indonesia with the comment Indonesia doesn't have a citation. Then, the same user added reference http://www.circlist.com/rites/indonesia.html and ''[m]oved Indonesia from "believed uncut" to "believed cut". Indonesia: almost 86 per cent of Indonesians declared Muslim according to the 2000 census.''. The BPS is highly deceitful. In fact, it just 80% of the total population in Indonesia is Muslim. On 29-Dec-2006 203.87.182.142 moved Indonesia form "believed cut" to "proven uncut". However the reference a) doesn't prove anything, and b) states that the majority is cut:
 * ''As I told you for most Indonesians, both statistically [or nominally] Muslims and practicing Muslims, and in many cases for Indonesian non-Muslims too, circumcision is a very important tradition. Of course you probably know that for Muslims it is a

Therefore, the citation makes us believe (but doesn't prove) that most Indonesian males are cut. In fact, only non-Muslim males and liberal Muslim males in Indonesia are apparently uncircumcised. proving non-Muslim males in Indonesia are also circumcised is just the greatest lie in this site.

209.9.198.168 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced & messy
The article is largely unsourced and messy. I have begun a rewrite at Talk:Circumcision worldwide/Temp. Jakew 19:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now finished adding American and European countries. I have deliberately omitted countries that are too small to reliably determine on the WHO map (hopefully other sources can be found instead), or that are grey (no data) on the WHO map. I apologise for any accidental omissions.

If anyone wants to speed this along, useful sources, other than the WHO map, include:


 * http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm
 * A recent atlas.

Jakew 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed
Wallerstein is not a credible source due (1) to its age -- more than half the people born in most of the developing world weren't born when it was written, it's hard to see how it can crystal ball their circumcision status; (2) the misuse to which it has already been put, for by example claiming that because the USSR in 1985 had a majority of uncircumcised males the same is true for its formerly constituent republics -- especially after the shackles of Soviet suppression of religious observance were overthrown -- take for example, 2006 Azerbaijan with an overwhelming Muslim population and not a speck of literature of the post-independence era showing a massive departure from Muslim practice was one would expect if the extrapolation of the Wallerstein claim were true; (3) the methodologies employed have been superseded in more recent sources -- not surprising given that epidemiological and medical methodologies have rapidly evolved in the last 21 years. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Carlossuarez46 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The sexovida.com reference is inappropiate and extremely biased toward pro-circumcision. The article spends the whole time calling anyone who is against circumcision ignorant. It makes gross and sweeping statements and generalizations and has no business being a source of information.

I'm not sure how it is appropiate to have that as a reference since it is in Spanish and this is in the English page.Fan2001 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)fan2001

USA
The "fact" on the page says that the USA remains 90-100% circumcised, this is completely false...the WHO obviously has its facts messed up...:  The US, currently, is at an  averarge of 57.4%.
 * CIRP.org does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Even if it did, one cannot determine the circumcised percentage of the male population from the current rate of neonatal circumcision. National samples indicate that about 77% (Laumann, 1997) to 79% (Xu, 2007) of the male US population overall are circumcised. Jakew 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to 'prevalence of circumcision'
I think that the article's title should be changed to the more descriptive 'prevalence of circumcision'. Any comments? Jakew 12:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has objected in several months, I will move the page. Jakew 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving content here? Summary style proposal for Circumcision article
The Circumcision page is getting too long, and there is a proposal to shorten it. This proposal involves moving some content from that page to this one (or verifying that certain content there is already represented here). Please discuss at Talk:Circumcision. --Coppertwig 13:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Source re US may be of interest
There is a source (authored by myself) that may be useful for the US discussion. It analyses the differences between NHDS and adult prevalence data, and references Schoen's explanation. Ref: Waskett JH. Hospital discharge data underestimate circumcision rates. Sex Transm Dis. 2007 Aug;34(8):624 Jakew 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Details of moving content here
The page will need some fixing up. The countries should probably be in alphabetical order, at least within each continent. Europe now has a "Denmark" section and separate sections listing countries by percentage; that may need to be refactored somehow. --Coppertwig 00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the 'Denmark' section: the content was already in the 'less than 20%' section. Jakew 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I was thinking I should double-check whether I had added any repeat information, and will probably do so later re the other stuff I added.  I was more careful about that when I did the History section. --Coppertwig 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not moving the following to this article (re UK) because it appears to be superseded by more up-to-date 2003 data: --Coppertwig 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A national survey on sexual attitudes in 2000 found that 11.7% of 16-19 year olds, and 19.6% of 40-44 year olds said they had been circumcised. It also found that, apart from black Caribbeans, overseas born men were more likely to be circumcised. 
 * It's the same survey (ref 25 in this article at time of writing). The survey was performed in 2000 but the paper was published in 2003. Jakew 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the similar information here should probably be replaced by the way it's stated (as quoted above) on the Circumcision page, which seems better (i.e. better not to state that the survey was in 2003 if that was merely the publication date; and contains additional info re overseas etc.) --Coppertwig 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it in here the way it is at Circumcision. --Coppertwig 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A statement about Medicaid gave only this url to a map (no text) as citation; I put it here yesterday but someone removed it. . (I'm only noting this here so the transfer/checking of references from Circumcision to here is complete.) --Coppertwig 22:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked through the whole list of references for duplicates. --Coppertwig 01:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic changes
Recently, an addition has been made to the article. There have been a few variations, the first being "However, the citation used by the AAP to support this figure is weak, to say the least. The AAP cites a 1970 paper in an Australian journal,[ref] which in turn refers to a 1966 article in a Canadian journal,[ref] which found a circumcision rate of 48% at one hospital in Kingston, Ontario in 1961/62!"

Such tracing of sources is perfectly appropriate for a paper. If such a paper were written and published in a reliable source, it would be proper for us to cite it in a neutral manner (eg., "However, this was criticised by X, who stated ..."). It is not appropriate, however, for Wikipedia to present such criticism ourselves, since this constitutes original research. Nor is it appropriate (as in the latest version) to present these sources in order to, through their arrangement, undermine the AAP's report. Indeed, taking the text of the most recent addition at face value, these sources do not in fact contain information about the prevalence of circumcision in Canada, but only in a single document, and thus should not be cited at all. Jakew 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the individual hospital figures, along with an extra report that was added. There are hundreds of thousands of hospitals in the world: these data are too specific, too detailed for this article. If reliable sources have used these figures to estimate summary data for a wider geographical area, then by all means let's cite those secondary sources. Jakew 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Swampcritter expressed a desire in previous edits to present references in chronological order. The same editor previously misrepresented the AAP as stating that the rate in 1970 was 48%. When this was corrected, and the AAP inserted in true chronological order, Swampcritter now decides, for no logical reason, to "group the 2 paediatric society statements together". The unfortunate effect is to confuse the reader as to the date of the AAP's statement.
 * Furthermore, Swampcritter presents an original synthesis of sources, without attribution, to present a trend. Worse, some of these sources are merely pages at an unreliable website which itself lacks a proper citation.
 * Once again, if you have a source that criticises the AAP, please present it. Jakew 19:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Labelling sources as "unpublished" does not, unfortunately, change the fact that they do not conform to policy. I have reverted to my previous version, in effect removing these unreliable sources, and restoring chronological ordering. Jakew 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1970 Leitch reported a Canadian circumcision rate of 48%. The Canadian Paediatric Society statement of 1996 and the AAP statement of 1999 both peg the prevalence of circumcision in Canada at 48%. Both cite Leitch. Those are the facts. No reasonable person would conclude from these facts that the Canadian and American paediatric societies differ substantially in their view of circumcision practices in Canada, necessitating separate presentation. It is misleading to treat the CPS’s 48% and the AAP’s 48% as though they were independent assessments relating to different time periods 29 years apart.

As for tracing of sources, if an organization such as the AAP cites a source for a statistic, I see no reason why that source should not be disclosed on Wikipedia. Circumcision rates, like rates of home ownership or rates of endovascular surgery, change over time. The more context that is provided, the more meaningful the statistic becomes. If organization A provides statistic B citing C, what is wrong with saying “A reports B citing C?” Does that constitute “original research,” as suggested by jakew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swampcritter (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The AAP, using the present tense, state that the circumcision rate in Canada is ~48%. The CPS explicitly state a historical rate of 48%. These are two different statements. Any attempt to argue or imply, through reanalysis of their source material, that they meant the same, or that one is incorrect, is original research. Jakew 12:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The AAP do not state that the circ rate in Canada is ~48%. They state that “~48% of males are circumcised,” which could mean either that the incidence is 48% or the prevalence is 48%. Citing the source of the AAP statistic helps to clarify what is meant. I do not believe that simply citing the source for a statistic, without comment, constitutes POV or original research or synthesis or analysis. On the contrary, treating the AAP statistic as a current rate and hiding the source constitutes POV. Swampcritter 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're incorrect. We simply include a direct quote from the AAP's statement, and attribute it to the correct source. Presumably you do not actually dispute that the AAP made this statement? I'm afraid that while you might object to the viewpoint expressed by the source, that doesn't mean that it is not presented neutrally.
 * And I'm afraid "hiding the source" is hardly the case: we do not (and should not) include detailed analysis of the evidence used by every source referenced in the article, and there is no reason to make an exception here. Again, if a reliable source addresses this issue, it is legitimate to cite that. Jakew 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fundamental issue is how to present a statistic that uses the present tense, relies on a supporting reference that is 29 years old, and can mean either incidence or prevalence. I think that in the interests of clarity the primary source for this statistic should be cited, as provided by the AAP. I do not believe this constitutes POV or "detailed analysis." Swampcritter 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The obvious thing to do is to find a reliable source supporting your contention that the evidence used by the AAP "is weak, to say the least". If you can find such a source, cite it. Otherwise, the issue has not been raised in reliable sources and therefore raising it would be original to Wikipedia. Jakew 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you deleted the Leitch reference, which is the primary source for both the AAP and CPS statistics? Swampcritter 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I haven't checked the paper itself, but according to the text you inserted it supplied figures for Kingston General Hospital. As I noted above, there are hundreds of thousands of hospitals in the world, and it would be unhelpful for the reader for us to document the rate at all of them (and unrealistic for us to try). Instead, we need to rely upon reliable sources that estimate figures for wider geographical areas. Jakew 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Do you think that presenting Leitch would "undermine the AAP's report?" (2) Does a letter to the editor of Pediatrics constitute a reliable source? Swampcritter 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Overgeneralization
I believe the AAP statistic for Canada suffers from overgeneralization. The evidence for this belief is that the statistic relies on the rate at one hospital in 1961/62. When I cite the evidence, it is deleted by jakew because it is “unhelpful” to document the rate at one hospital. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I have some difficulty following this logic. Swampcritter 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me explain. Surprising as it may seem, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (see WP:V). This means that we do not concern ourselves with whether the reliable sources we cite are correct, but only with whether we represent them accurately. Our role is not to evaluate the accuracy of sources, but to report on them. Jakew 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting 2 other Wikipedia guidelines: (1) "Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_statistical_data). (2) "Articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" (WP:NOT) Swampcritter 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Swampcritter, not only is the quote in question self-explanatory, but "should be treated with considerable care" essentially means "ensure that the source is sufficiently reliable and not, for example the erroneous interpretation of a random, unqualified journalist." In this case, this is a direct quote from a policy statement published in a peer-reviewed journal. As WP:RS notes, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable publications in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Jakew 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the quote in question is ambiguous (could mean either prevalence or incidence), it is hardly "self-explanatory". Swampcritter 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That ambiguity is common to many sources, as is effectively explained in the first paragraph ("The prevalence of circumcision (or circumcision rate) refers to the proportion of males that are circumcisised in a given population. It may also refer to the proportion of newborn males that are circumcised."). Where the source itself provides clarification, we should certainly take advantage of the fact, but we can't work out what they must have meant, as that is original research. Jakew 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the AAP quote is ambiguous and that it relies on a 29-year-old source. I’m surprised to see this quote being defended with such vigour, tenacity and passion! Swampcritter 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I presume from the fact that you are now discussing our discussion itself, rather than the subject, that you've nothing further to add? Jakew 23:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe what Swampcritter is saying is that if the quote is ambiguous on whether it is describing prevalence or incidence ("rate"), it should not be quoted under "prevalence." Blackworm 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious. According to the first paragraph, this article is concerned with "the proportion of males that are circumcisised in a given population" and "the proportion of newborn males that are circumcised". Are you suggesting that the quote does not pertain to either? Jakew 12:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's interesting. I wasn't aware "prevalence" was used as often to refer to the circumcision rate; do you have a source for this?  Otherwise the first paragraph may need to be rewritten.  In any case, in cases where it's unclear which is meant, it seems silly to repeat the ambiguity. Blackworm 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph definitely needs to be rewritten. "Prevalence of circumcision" cannot be equated with "circumcision rate" nor can "prevalence of circumcision" refer to the proportion of males that are circumcised. I think the title of the page needs to be changed to "Prevalance and incidence" or simply "rates". Swampcritter 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may misunderstand 'prevalence' and 'incidence', Swampcritter. Prevalence simply describes the proportion of people in a given population that are affected by a given condition (see here, and also consider, as an example, "Prevalence can be expressed as the number of HIV-positive people, but is more often expressed as the percentage of people who are HIV-positive within a given population."). Now, if that population is 'all living males in country X', you've got one prevalence, and if the population is 'all newborn males in country X', you've got another prevalence. Jakew 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be correct technically, but the number of _new occurrences_ of a condition in a population over a period of time is commonly referred to as "incidence" and a newborn circumcision is a new occurrence of circumcision in a population. Swampcritter 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly I'd agree that these data could be expressed as an incidence (new cases / population size), but I think that most - if not all - sources in this article express a prevalence (total cases / population size), often in the form of a percentage. Can you think of any notable exceptions? Jakew 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nelson, CP.; R. Dunn, J. Wan, JT. Wei (March 2005). "The increasing incidence of newborn circumcision: data from the nationwide inpatient sample". Swampcritter 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok, they're certainly using the word 'incidence'. I have to say that I think "Prevalence and incidence of circumcision" is a very awkward title, though, and I'm not too keen on "circumcision rates". How strongly do you feel that it needs to be changed? Jakew 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be called "Prevalence of male circumcision," with "prevalence" defined. Nothing stops us from also defining and discussing incidence in the same article.  As for "male," note how WHO repeatedly and specifically uses "male circumcision" in the main source for this article -- implying that circumcision only refers to male circumcision is something I know you support, Jakew, but it is debated.  (Interested readers can see recent Talk:Circumcision discussion for a long debate on that subject.)  Blackworm 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Re edits by User:75.35.3.244: The source does say "men", not "boys", so that change is good. The sentence with "increasing births among Latin Americans" looks OK to me as it stands. Changing it to increasing percentage of boys sounds as if more boys than girls are being born, which I don't think is intended and is not supported by the source. Inserting "although that is not necessarily true for..." is original research. If it's obvious, the reader can think it up themselves; if it's not obvious, it needs a reliable source to back it up. Re the commments about declining insurance coverage: we would need a reliable source for that. At least one of the edits messed up the tags. Changing "in part, reflects" to "may partly reflect" etc. was changing the contents of a quote, which should stay in the original words of the author. Re "explanation why" versus "explanation for why", either way of saying it seems OK to me. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis
To quote from WP:NOR: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Example: Source A, authored by X, states something relevant to the article (for example, "the prevalence of circumcision is decreasing"). Source B states that author X is an idiot. We cannot say, "X, described as an idiot, states that the prevalence of circumcision is decreasing". Jakew 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I believe you misinterpret that guideline. The sentence you suggest we "cannot say" is not an argument of the form "A and B, therefore C" nor is it in fact an argument in any form.  It is merely the succinct phrasing of several facts.  This is similar to sentences you approve of such as, "In one study, criticized on technical grounds, Source A says this [potentially negative thing about circumcision]..." and "One study, funded by this [apparently partial] group, says this [potentially negative thing about circumcision]."  It seems you have forgotten your support of such phrasings.  Nonetheless, I have edited the article to match your request. Blackworm 22:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, no original research is not a guideline, but official policy.
 * Secondly, the synthesis of two or more sources to advance a position may take place whether or not the word "therefore" is used. Indeed, the mere juxtaposition of two sources can serve to advance a position through the implication that they are connected.
 * Thirdly, if you wish to assert that the facts are unrelated - and, indeed, if you wish to defend your edit - you will need to justify the independent inclusion of this fact (as well as its placement, but the latter is a small problem in comparison). Specifically, you will need to explain how a newspaper's characterisation of Edgar Schoen as a proponent of circumcision is directly related to the subject of this article: prevalence of circumcision. Please recall that: "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article" (WP:NOR; emph. in original).
 * Finally, if you are concerned about other sentences in this or other articles, please raise your concerns on the appropriate talk page and I will be pleased to discuss them with you. Jakew 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "First of all," I stand corrected, of course.
 * Re: "Secondly," I do not disagree with you. Based on our interactions and my observations of your article edits, I believe you are an expert on the use of juxtaposition and arrangement of multiple sources to advance a position.  However, you often manage to fall short of violating policy in my opinion because there is no explicit position being advanced; that is the point I made in my previous remarks.
 * Re: "Thirdly," I believe the inclusion of this fact is relevant to place Schoen's cited commentary in context. His opinion is being presented as that of an impartial expert; it is notable that others have described him as a "proponent," indicating possible bias.  This is similar to the relevance of disclosing the source of funding for a study, for example, if the study's financial backers have an apparent interest in the outcome.  I believe I remember you yourself making the argument that the latter disclosures were notable and directly related to the topic.
 * Re, "Finally," thank you, I will as appropriate and as free time dictates. The examples served their illustrative purpose, and since I do not oppose the phrasing you object to, I have no reason to attack these sentences you support.  I do, however, insist on pointing out your frequent contradictory interpretations of policy. Blackworm 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what you're telling me is that this newspaper is not directly related to the prevalence of circumcision, but it is related to another source. In this case, to demonstrate that you're not presenting original research, you need to cite a reliable source which links the two sources and speculates about possible bias.
 * In the case of funding for a study, generally speaking sources for this information are usually either a) the study itself, perhaps in a disclosure of conflicts of interest, or b) a third-party source that 'exposes' the funding. In the case of a), synthesis would not be involved because there is a single source. In the case of b), this third party source would itself be a (presumably) reliable source making an explicit link and (perhaps) speculating about bias.
 * A problem would arise, however, if a Wikipedian wanted to present original (that is, previously unpublished) research, exposing the (previously unreported) funding for a study and presenting previously unpublished speculation about possible bias. That, perhaps, is a better analogy. Jakew 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is the author (Schoen). In this case, the third party source makes an explicit link to the author, specifically referencing the topic the author may have bias about, which is the same topic on which the author is cited in this article.  (For example, if Schoen was commenting on the environment, it would be irrelevant to mention that he is a circumcision advocate.)  The direct link is clear, and the inclusion is justified.  Your "a problem would arise" case doesn't apply here, since there is no unpublished research in question.  Let me try another example.  If the president of Iran is quoted as saying there are no gays in his country, it may be relevant to quote another source which claims that he is the head of an extremely brutal homophobic regime -- even if the second source has nothing to say on the topic of the prevalence of homosexuality in Iran.  Blackworm 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to review NPOV_tutorial. Note in particular: "Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: [...] Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value."  Blackworm 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, if there is no unpublished research in question, then please cite the published research raising the issue of possible bias in the source: Schoen's article in Pediatrics, 2006 Jul;118(1):385-7. Otherwise, the unpublished research in question is that there may be a possibility that an article discussing the prevalence of circumcision may be biased because a newspaper alleged nine months previously that the author is a proponent of circumcision.
 * Please understand that you cannot use original research to demonstrate that you're not presenting original research; you must provide a source that explicitly makes the argument with respect to the specific sources.
 * Now, do you have such a source or do you not? Jakew 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the source of the information is Schoen. His reported advocacy of circumcision is relevant for placing his comments on circumcision in context.  Your action amounts to "Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value,"(ref) in violation of WP:NPOV.  No claim of bias on his particular article is made, thus none needs to be supported. Blackworm 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, in order to support your claim that Schoen's alleged advocacy is relevant, you need to present a reliable source that says so. All you have done so far is outline your personal "possible bias" theory as a justification, which is itself original research. "Directly related" actually means "directly related", believe it or not. It does not mean "indirectly related", and it certainly doesn't mean "an OR argument can be made that there is some kind of relation".
 * If/when you finally present a source making the argument that you wish to present, you can rest assured that it will not be suppressed. However, one can hardly conceal material that itself violates policy. Instead of uttering the typical POV pusher cry of 'censorship', I strongly recommend that you focus on finding a reliable source that makes the argument you wish to present. Jakew 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Ridged Band talk page, jakew argues that John Taylor should be characterized as an “opponent of circumcision” even in the absence of a reliable source. In the Prevalence of Circumcision talk page, jakew argues that Edgar Schoen should not be described as a proponent of circumcision, even in the presence of a reliable source. Swampcritter 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I remembered that Jakew and others were involved in a similar dispute, but arguing the opposite side, but could not remember in which article that took place. Thank you for the reference, Swampcritter.  Blackworm 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered that you both hold my words in such high esteem that you refer (if inaccurately - sources were in fact cited) to comments I made approximately two years ago and in a different context. Nevertheless, that characterisation has since been removed (by Swampcritter, interestingly), rendering the point somewhat moot. In any event, current policy seems rather more relevant. Jakew 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not mistake my interest in your words as holding them in high esteem. The interest is based on a desire to overcome your resistance to Wikipedia edits I support.  Demonstrating inconsistency in your arguments assists me in this goal.  Blackworm 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. I assumed you were concerned about Wikipedia content, rather than personal issues. Jakew 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your sarcastic ad hominem attack, I am stating clearly that my interest in your words stems directly from my concern about Wikipedia content, rather than any personal issues. I do not understand how you infer the contrary, but then unexplained contrariness seems to be a frequent theme in my discussions with you.  Your talk of flattery and "high esteem" improperly attributed to other editors personally is the unwelcome diversion here.  -- Blackworm (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jakew, I have not "uttered the typical POV pusher cry of 'censorship,'" and I advise you to refrain from further personal attacks. I do not believe your objection has merit.  I am not introducing any argument, either here or in the article, despite what you believe I am implying.  I am stating bluntly that Schoen's advocacy of circumcision is relevant (i.e., not to be suppressed) when presenting his claims regarding circumcision, especially when said claims are presented as unbiased, expert opinion.  That position follows directly from WP:NPOV.
 * You may also wish to review our rendering of Schoen's published commentary; what is said ("statistics from these national samples", "differ from higher rates [...] in individual centers") does not follow from the source. Blackworm 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, the argument that you introduced above is that "it is notable that others have described him as a "proponent," indicating possible bias". Yet the source you cite is not about the prevalence of circumcision (thus failing 'directly related'), does not suggest that Schoen is biased (which seems to be your own interpretation), and certainly does not suggest that an article which he would write nine months later should be viewed with suspicion because of any bias. Indeed, the synthesis - the combination of the two statements - appears to be an entirely original creation. NPOV certainly contemplates incorporation of balancing material of established relevance, but not to present original research. Jakew 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that "indicating possible bias" is my interpretation; that's why such a claim is not fit for the article, nor am I suggesting its inclusion. The source I cited does specifically discuss prevalence of circumcision, and also specifically addresses Schoen's claims on the subject -- the same claims we present (incorrectly, as I note above).  To quote: "Hospital-based statistics show approximately 55 per cent of American male infants are circumcised, though Schoen argues the rate is actually around 80 per cent because the numbers don’t include procedures done in doctors’ offices or during religious ceremonies."  Since we are not suggesting that Schoen is biased, nor suggesting that the article be viewed with suspicion, the remainder of your points also fail to apply.  It takes more than successive combination of multiple facts from multiple sources to fail the clause of WP:NOR you are citing; it takes the juxtaposition of sources combined in such a way as to form a new, explicitly stated, conclusion. Blackworm 23:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you acknowledge that "indicating possible bias" is your interpretation, and I accept that you are not suggesting its inclusion.
 * I also agree that part of the source in question does discuss the prevalence of circumcision. If we were quoting this part of the article, I would be so concerned. Unfortunately, however, we quote a different part of the article, which is not directly relevant to the subject of the article. I don't think that one can reasonably argue that any part of a source "inherits" relevance from any other part of a source; the consequences would be absurd (for example, "Chris Zdeb is a Journal Staff writer" would become relevant to this article).
 * I further agree that Schoen makes an apparently similar (in my admittedly OR opinion) argument in the article. However, it predates the Pediatrics article and cannot therefore be interpreted as a reference to it. The most that could be said (for the purpose of discussion, not inclusion) is "Schoen is quoted as making a similar argument in a previous news article; in an unrelated part of that article he is described as an 'outspoken proponent' of circumcision".
 * Now, since you acknowledge that we're not suggesting that Schoen is biased, and since you agree that such a claim is unfit for inclusion, we need to ask some questions.
 * Firstly, can the "proponent" part of the source be included in isolation? I think we can agree that if Schoen's Pediatrics article were not present, then there would be absolutely no reason for the inclusion of the 'proponent' quote: it is not directly relevant to the subject of the article.
 * Secondly, does the 'proponent' part of the source have any relation to the article? At best, if we accept your position for the sake of argument, it is related to the subject of the article via Schoen. This, by definition, is an indirect relationship.
 * Thirdly, for what purpose are we including the 'proponent' part of the source? The only conceivable purpose is for it to be read together with the reference to Schoen's Pediatrics article, and to imply that the two statements are related.
 * Finally, what is the reader likely to think when presented with these two statements? Is he likely to infer that Schoen's statements should be treated with some caution due to possible bias? I suspect so.
 * So, to review, we have a part of a source with no direct relationship to the subject, but which you interpret as indicating that another source may be biased. In spite of failing the "directly related" requirement of NOR, you argue that it should be included because it is "relevant". Yet the only relevance you've suggested is the "indicating possible bias" which, you acknowledge, is unfit for inclusion. There is no apparent purpose to the inclusion other than to hint at your interpretation, and a significant risk that the reader will infer that this is intended.
 * The obvious solution is to remove the OR and, in the same act, remove the synthesis-by-implication. Jakew 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline states, "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, [...]" This seems to be the the basis for your objection.  I claim I have shown that the source cited (the Edmonton Journal, and Calgary Sun article) is reliable, and provides information directly related to the topic of the article.  I claim I meet the letter and spirit of that guideline.  The guideline said nothing about "inherited" revelance, its language was clear, and quite lettered.  Since our dispute comes down to our different interpretation of guideline, I suggest we may be at an impasse.  You may wish to take it up on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research.   I believe your objections are without merit.  Of course, your remarks are well intentioned.  Now then, that same guideline continues, "the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately."  This is the basis for my objection with respect to the current rendering of Schoen's commentary.  How do you suggest we address it?  Its source says he's arguing the birth center's numbers are lower, not higher than the national infant circumcision rate (incidence) estimates, which it (incorrectly in my OR, and/or, HO) labels prevalence.  That was, "humble opinion."  I believe to confuse prevalence, (a value that includes the older circumcised boys and men), and newborn incidence, a much lower value (correctly), and argue that they should be "actually" be the other, in a commentary by a circumcision advocate, and especially, as you would have it, without balance, is completely unacceptable.  It is plain wrong; a misrepresentation of its source.  We are saying Schoen is saying prevalence among all males is "not 80% but really higher," when the fact is, it is "80% and dropping."  It is urgent we address this issue soon.  Be bold and prosper, Jakew.  Blackworm 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, in order to ensure that our representation of Schoen's article is completely accurate, I have altered the text so that it directly quotes the source.
 * It appears that you are arguing that provided that a source includes information somewhere that is directly related to the topic of an article, you can use any piece of information from that source, whether directly related or not. That is not the case. You cannot use information from an encyclopaedia article about elephants in an article about monkeys just because that encyclopaedia also has an article about monkeys. What you must do is to demonstrate that the source makes the claims in the context of the topic of the article: "Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. ... However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research." Jakew 12:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you seem fond of quoting guideline that is absolutely met by the edit you are disputing. Your entire objection hinges on your interpretation of one sentence in WP:NOR, the one which contains "directly related," and which I've shown applies to the letter.  As to your interpretation of NOR, I believe it would make it impossible to quote any criticism of any article dealing with any subject.  For example, a critique of a study based on claimed methodological error would not be "directly related" to the subject in your view, and thus not "relevant."  I claim that is a legalistic argument, based on a misinterpretation of policy, and contrary to the goal of an encyclopedia, especially one supposedly based on WP:NPOV.  Please stop reverting my addition.  Blackworm 16:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, you have failed to show that the part of the source to which you're referring (the "proponent" part) is directly related to the subject of this article. What you are doing is taking a statement that was not made in the context of the prevalence of circumcision, and using it in a different context. That, like it or not, is original research. And you cannot justify it on the basis that in a different part of the same source there is a reference to the subject of the article.
 * Your belief that it would be impossible to quote any criticism is false. As an example, please consider ref 21 in this article, which was inserted as a result of a similar request for published arguments. This source, to heavily paraphrase, states "Because of Y, I disagree with source X about the prevalence of circumcision", thus establishing direct relevance to the subject of the article and tying together X and Y in this context. I have asked you to provide such a source on several occasions, and I repeat my request now. -- Jakew (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have succeeded in citing a reliable source that "[provides] information directly related to the topic of the article," per the letter and (in my opinion) the spirit of WP:NOR, as I have shown. This information is the source article's discussion of Schoen's ideas regarding prevalence combined with the article's description of Schoen as a advocate ("proponent") of circumcision.  Another direct relationship is clealy evident: "Proponent of circumcision" = "one who wishes the prevalence of circumcision were high, or increased."  Your objection is unfounded.  The information is directly related to the topic, and cited from a reliable source.  It further serves WP:NPOV well.  -- Blackworm (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, you have not succeeded in doing so because you have not used information presented in the context of the subject of the article. The fact that the source may contain other information, which you haven't used, is beside the point. The letter and spirit is perfectly clear: "using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research".
 * Your "possible bias" theory is, by your own admission, your own interpretation, and as such is original research. Your own theory of a relationship does not constitute evidence of a direct relationship. Even if it were true, it would only be indirectly related to the subject of the article via the person who wrote another source, not directly related as required by policy. -- Jakew (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your first claim, based on the fact, previously stated, that a proponent of circumcision is a proponent of a high prevalence of circumcision. This fact follows from the definition of "proponent."  Do you disagree?  Schoen's advocacy is thus directly related to the subject, as my previous sentence shows, and is thus relevant; further, his advocacy is notable given his credentials and his frequent publishing of commentary regarding prevalence in peer-reviewed journals.  The statement I include would stand on its own in the article even without the previous, huge paragraph we dedicate to his commentary.
 * My view you characterize as a "'possible bias' theory" is not used anywhere to support the inclusion of the edit, except to also point out that it serves WP:NPOV well. The evidence of a direct relationship is clear, with or without any indirect reference to Schoen's article, the latter being debatable.  Your objection has no merit.  -- Blackworm (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My view you characterize as a "'possible bias' theory" is not used anywhere to support the inclusion of the edit, except to also point out that it serves WP:NPOV well. The evidence of a direct relationship is clear, with or without any indirect reference to Schoen's article, the latter being debatable.  Your objection has no merit.  -- Blackworm (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

((<<<outdent)) The Zdeb article introduces Schoen as an "outspoken proponent", then talks for several paragraphs about his views on the benefits of circumcision, then immediately afterwards talks about his views about what the rates of circumcision are. It seems likely to me that Zdeb wanted the reader to know that Schoen was an "outspoken proponent" in order to set Schoen's remarks in context, so that the reader would have that information in mind while reading Schoen's views about rates. However, it's not certain. It could well be that Zdeb wanted this for the benefits-of-circumcison section and that it was only a matter of chance that this way of introducing Schoen came before the rates-of-circumcision discussion in the article. A proponent of circumcision is someone who wants the rate to increase; it is not necessarily a person who wants the rate to be believed to be high already -- in fact I can think of motivations for a proponent of circumcision to want to go either way on the knowledge-of-rates issue. So, the description of Schoen can be seen as being related in the article to the rates comments, or as not being related. I think it's reasonable to introduce a source as "so-and-so, the president of Iran" or "so-and-so, a professor at X university". But when the introduction is more controversial -- for example, we don't know whether he would describe himself as an "outspoken proponent", and we have to say "has been called" an outspoken proponent, not just refer to him as such -- then it's getting more POV and it's probably better to leave it out. If it said "who has been referred to as an idiot" it should certainly be left out, regardless of whether the article using the word "idiot" made it clear that it was relevant to this particular point. In this case, it's not clear whether there was such a synthesis intended by Zdeb. The only reason I see for saying anything about Schoen would be to influence the reader's interpretation of Schoen's statements. (If another reason was given, I missed it, so please explain it again.) So, including the word "proponent" would be equivalent to implying that his words should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think we can do that unless we have a source that clearly links the concept of him being a "proponent" with how one should interpret his words about rates. I don't think this source makes that link clear. Anyway, even if it were a clear link, that might allow us to include the word but it would not force us to include it. I'm not sure that it's a good idea in this case to take one person's opinion of another and elevate it to the status of something that should be extracted and published while we ignore the rest of the contents of the same article. We're focusing on circumcision here, not on what person X thinks about person Y. Such information can sometimes be sufficiently relevant but I don't see that it is in this case. One more thing, I presume Schoen may still be alive, so WP:BLP may be relevant. If it's controversial whether he can be described as an "outspoken proponent" or not -- that is, if we only have one media person's words to base that on -- possibly it needs to be left out for BLP reasons. Coppertwig (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument for inclusion does not depend on what the newspaper author wanted the reader to know. Since we are not explicitly linking Schoen's advocacy with how one should interpret his words about rates, we do not need a source to make this nonexistent link clear.  Again, in my most recent comments, I argue that the contested edit stands in the article on its own, based on the direct relationship of circumcision advocacy to circumcision prevalence.  I agree with you about what a proponent is; I am not arguing here that Schoen wants "the rate to be believed to be high already."  I am arguing that he wants the rate to either remain high (if indeed it is) or increase.  This establishes a direct relation between circumcision advocacy and prevalence of circumcision. WP:BLP may indeed be relevant, however the edit makes clear that we are not describing him as a proponent (which would require the claim to be undisputed), we are reporting on someone else's description (whose existence and publication in a reliable source is undisputed).  I believe it is fine.  Also, that no one is "forcing" us to include it is not an argument to suppress it.  In my admittedly OR opinion, I do not believe Schoen would object to the characterization, nor is the characterization contested to my knowledge.  -- Blackworm (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, you explained previously that the purpose of including the "proponent" claim is to provide 'context' for his Pediatrics article. To quote, you argued that: "I believe the inclusion of this fact is relevant to place Schoen's cited commentary in context. His opinion is being presented as that of an impartial expert; it is notable that others have described him as a "proponent," indicating possible bias." This appears consistent with the fact that you have repeatedly inserted the "proponent" claim immediately after the Pediatrics citation, and in the same paragraph, implying that the two are related.
 * Are you now saying that this isn't the reason for citing the 'proponent' claim? -- Jakew (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I discussed previously may be "a" purpose, but it doesn't have to be "the" purpose; correct. The positioning of the statement seems logical, since we already introduce Schoen.  There is no improper implication of a relation between the two claims, although it may be completely normal for an intelligent reader to deduce such a relation.  The statements are related to the extent they both involve Schoen, but nowhere are we explicitly claiming that the claims (Schoen's and the newspaper article author's) are related.  They are each independently relevant and notable.  Perhaps the notability of Schoen's advocacy should be further explored, as Coppertwig's comments seem to suggest; the Reuters article on his calling for universal male circumcision in Europe, for example, seems also directly related to circumcision prevalence.  -- Blackworm (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC
 * Perhaps if we were writing a biography of Schoen, it might be relevant to state (or quote someone stating) that he is a proponent of circumcision. But this is an article about prevalence of circumcision in general, not about Schoen.  If we had information that Schoen had had a major impact on causing the prevalence of circumcision to be what it is today, it might be relevant in this article.    As it is, it seems to me that he's probably just one of many people who are proponents of circumcision.  Mentioning that about him seems unimportant to this article -- unless, as I said, it's to influence how the reader interprets his words, which brings up WP:NOR.  The article is supposed to be a carefully written summary, not a collection of every possible fact that has something to do with prevalence of circumcision. I'm sorry, I just don't understand what it is about this fact that makes it look to you that it's relevant to the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, as I explained to Jakew, I believe the description of synthesis of sources in that section of WP:NOR refers to a position explicitly advanced in the text, not the synthesis a reader may potentially form in his or her head. To use its terminology, we are not claiming "A and B, therefore C," but merely "A. B."  I was not under the impression that positions inferred from text structured this way, even reasonably, fall under this section of policy.  As for the independent relevance of the mentioning of his advocacy, the answer is less clear.  I believe that noting that a scientist who publishes information on circumcision prevalence, and who also calls for universal circumcision (i.e. 100% prevalence), has been described as an advocate of circumcision, is relevant to the topic of circumcision prevalence.  I could understand someone believing it's not that relevant; I cannot understand how you can believe that it is totally irrelevant.  In any case, I believe the obligations under WP:NOR are met.  Blackworm (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, what you are doing (and I'm not suggesting that it is intentional) is to present two statements, one immediately after the other, creating the extremely strong impression that they are related. You've stated previously that the justification for this is for one to provide 'context' for the other, an argument that makes sense only if they are related. You cannot now wave your hands and say, "oh, well I didn't actually say they were related", as though there was a magic loophole in NOR. Jakew (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, I'm talking about the part of the synthesis section summed up in this sentence: "This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it." The idea that Jones did not commit plagiarism is nowhere stated explicitly in the example paragraph given there.  It is implied by putting two sentences about plagiarism (which do not mention Jones) immediately after the material about Jones.  Therefore, the synthesis section is telling us not to juxtapose two ideas, each of which might be fine in a different context, if the message the reader gets by the juxtaposition is some other idea which is not supportable by reliable references.
 * Suppose we weren't quoting Schoen or mentioning Schoen except to say that Schoen has been called a proponent of circumcision. This would be more relevant at the page circumcision advocacy than here, though I don't know if it would be important enough to mention there either. Here, it seems to me of approximately equal relevance to an item in a "list of TV shows which mention prevalence of circumcision":  i.e. not absolutely unconnected (and anyway, any two ideas can be connected somehow via a few links), but not important enough to actually include in the article.
 * It seems to me that if a scientist calls for universal circumcision, then it is no surprise if the scientist has been described as a proponent of circumcision, so providing that information to the reader is of very little value. Providing the information that there exists a scientist who has both commented on circumcision rate information and also been described as a proponent of circumcision seems to me to be of value to the reader primarily for the purpose of interpreting the comments on circumcision rates as possibly biased.  What other purpose do you think a reader might use that information for? --Coppertwig (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How a reader uses information is up to them. I believe you are resisting the inclusion because you see it as somehow wrong to document someone's advocacy when they are making a statement related to the subject of their advocacy, in their capacity as a supposedly neutral and unbiased scientist.  As a scientist, I wholeheartedly disagree with that logic.  If a leading doctor proposed that fetuses are not sentient up to 30 weeks of gestation, the fact that they owned a chain of abortion clinics might be relevant.  If a geologist proposed that no rocks have even been found that are older than 6000 years, the fact they are involved with creationist groups might also be relevant.  Maybe you're right and Wikipedia shouldn't mention these things, leaving the reader to believe there is no evidence of possible bias.  In any case, you and Jakew seem adamant, and Jakew has removed it (again), so I'm giving up (again).  I thank you both for illustrating what this element of Wikipedia policy means in practice; and I'll be on the lookout for similar edits from now on.  Blackworm (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Documenting someone's advocacy may be appropriate in some circumstances. Noting that someone owns an abortion clinic may be appropriate in some circumstances. Mentioning that someone else has said something about the person is less likely to be appropriate. How do we know how reliable the person is who said that? BLP issues might come into it, too, but regardless of that, we would need some basis for deciding whether the remark was soundly based. Generally, one person just saying something about another person won't be notable in most cases, IMO. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree BLP issues can come into it, and it's better to be cautious. Others have described Schoen's actions as advocating universal circumcision [].  He seems to have called for universal circumcision [].  He operates this  website [] which extolls at length the benefits, but not the risks of circumcision.  I don't quite think we need to prove he is an advocate, but enough note has been made of his advocacy to warrant mention in my opinion.  It may be a slipperly slope though.  If policy was clear in these cases it would be helpful, but I don't get the impression that it is. Blackworm (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wold Health Organization
I re-added this reference: which had been removed by 203.87.182.142 with edit summary "The men behind the World Health Organization's statement about prevalence of circumcision is very highly liar! We condemn them!"

As Blackworm said, "their estimate may be flawed, based on false assumptions, and serving their advovacy goals, but it's their estimate." We're reporting that the World Health Organization said something. They did actually say it. Readers can decide whether to believe what they said or not.

The World Health Organization is a notable organization. If you can find material published by another well-known, notable etc. organization that meets the definition of Wikipedia's reliable source definition, and that contradicts what the World Health Organization says, then you can probably have that added into the article too. That will help readers decide what to believe. But you can't just delete the reference because you don't agree with it. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In this edit, I changed "states [30-34%]" to "estimates." As I'm sure is obvious to any experienced editor, saying "states" makes it look like the WHO firmly believe in the estimate, which is interpretation at best, violating WP:V.  Of course, correcting this problem brings to light a previously obscured problem: now that it makes clear the WHO is merely estimating rather than stating, why are the estimates of the other groups presented secondarily, anonymously collected together as if to dismiss them?  Why is the WHO given special treatment, prevalence, and impression of authority (I'll note, both here, and in the Circumcision article)?  Is there WP:NPOV, or is there Wikipedia-wide consensus that the views of the WHO, an organization with documented advocacy goals on the topic of both male and female circumcision, are views to be presented more predominantly and with more authority than views of presumably neutral researchers?  Blackworm (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your change ("states" to "estimates") seems quite reasonable.
 * Per WP:NPOV, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (emph added).
 * Regarding the WHO, your argument as I understand it is that because the WHO recommend circumcision in the battle against HIV/AIDS, they are in some way non-neutral with respect to any factual statement about circumcision. That doesn't make sense to me, for two reasons. Firstly, they changed their position regarding circumcision in March 2007. There is no indication that this change reflects bias on their part, and indeed they explicitly state that it is as a result of expert consultation, which was itself arranged as a result of newly-available evidence. Secondly, I agree that they have expressed a point of view regarding whether circumcision should be adopted in the battle against HIV/AIDS, and this differs from their previous point of view. However, there is no indication that either point of view means that they are not neutral with respect to facts about circumcision. By analogy, as a result of the evidence, the WHO have taken a position that smoking is harmful to health, but it seems strange to suggest that they are non-neutral with respect to the prevalence of smoking as a result. It also seems odd to dismiss the WHO's information as that of "advocates", and to compare these with "presumably neutral" researchers (who doubtless have their own views on the subject of smoking). Jakew (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not shown how the WHO's estimate of circumcision prevalence (its "viewpoint") is more prevalent than other viewpoints. You have not explained why, as I mentioned in a previous, related discussion, we cite an internally inconsistent "DRAFT DOCUMENT" to make this claim.  (The document first states "males 15 and over," which is the subject of its analysis, then repeats the conclusion saying only "males," implying all males, which is the conclusion repeated in the media.)  You have not explained why the context of the topic of "prevalence of circumcision" is better introduced with an estimate which excludes males under 15.  Blackworm (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd think that the WHO's estimate is rather prominent, simply due to being that of "the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." Wouldn't you agree? Jakew (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I would not. Its authority within the context of the UN is irrelevant, especially as it is part of the UN.  Its prominence as an organization is unrelated to the prominence of the specific view under discussion.  Also, you have not address my other points.  Blackworm (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If, say, the AMA make a statement, it is prominent because it is in effect issued on behalf of their membership. Similarly, this document is issued on behalf of the WHO, UNAIDS (including member organisations), and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. I wouldn't say that it's a foolproof method of identifying prominent views, and ideally I'd prefer to see studies in which experts are polled for their views, but in the absence of those, it seems a reasonable approach.
 * Your claim that the document is inconsistent appears to be original research (and depends upon the belief that one cannot extrapolate from one estimate to the other). Unfortunately, your own claim is itself inconsistent, since you state that the document 'say[s] only "males," implying all males', and then state that it 'excludes males under 15'. Jakew (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that a "DRAFT DOCUMENT" speaks for the membership.
 * I have pointed you to the specific place in the document where the claims are inconsistent. If you cannot accept this, I am forced to accuse you of wikilawyering.  My statements are not inconsistent, because it is clear from a reading of the document that it only considers males over 15 in its entire analysis, and its logically drawn conclusion of 30-34% applies to males over 15, that conclusion being the one we are reporting.  The statement extending this estimate to all males is clearly an error -- not surprising in an unreliable "DRAFT DOCUMENT."  Draft: 5 c: a preliminary sketch, outline, or version  . Blackworm (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you are unable to discuss this in a civil manner. Jakew (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Utilising the rules in a manner contrary to their spirit in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community and will get you nowhere. Except, apparently, in all circumcision-related articles.  Blackworm (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The data in this entry lack credibility

 * I know of only one way of gathering fully credible data bearing on the topic of this entry. Construct a random sample of a country's male population, stratified by age, social class, education, and religion. Subject every member of that random sample to a medical examination. In order to detect men who are intact but have retracted foreskins, the examination would manipulate the penis of every subject that appeared circumcised or who was erect during the examination. The examination would also determine the status of the frenulum as well as that of the foreskin. I freely grant that a study of this nature would be quite costly and intrusive to carry out, and that to my knowledge, no extant study meets the standard I have just proposed. The one that comes nearest is Laumann et al (1997).


 * As a practical matter, I am willing to grant that most Moslem countries are effectively 100% circumcised. Exception: the Moslem nations carved out of the former USSR. Communist regimes opposed ritual circumcision, and many Muslims living under such regimes found it wise to let religious observance go by the boards.


 * Otherwise there are problems stemming from cultures that are thought to be overwhelmingly circumcised in fact are not. Israel, for example, is not 100% circumcised, because of the large number of immigrants from the former USSR. Only some of those immigrants have had themselves circed after settling in Israel. These immigrants will gradually die off, but are being replaced to a small extent by the children born to a few highly secular Israeli Jewish parents who decline to circumcise. Moreover, to be Jewish and intact is not at all rare in western Europe.


 * Likewise, there are other problems stemming from the fact that some nations perceived as not circumcising in fact do so to some extent. For example, in advanced countries, some are circumcised after infancy, often because of real or misdiagnosed phimosis. In such countries, if a boy's foreskin is found unretractable during a school hernia check, the parents are sent a letter urging that the matter be brought to the attention of a urologist. For this reason alone, circumcision is no longer rare among under 40s in much of continental Europe. Circumcision may be fairly common in the Latin American urban upper middle class, born in private clinics staffed by US trained doctors, to parents with American university educations.


 * Establishing the proportion of infants that are circumcised routinely is complicated by the fact that quite a few routine circumcisions are performed outside of maternity wards, such as in doctor's offices.


 * Was it Wallerstein (1980) who reported that around 23000 adult Americans underwent circumcision? That is a surprisingly low number, given how little medical and moral support intactness enjoyed at the time. I would be curious to know what is the situation in advanced countries nowadays. Offsetting the improved understanding the foreskin now enjoys, is that circumcision is less stigmatizing than it once was, and that is has even become fashionable in certain subcultures, such as body building. Some European women find the circumcised unit hotter, and some European mothers find it cleaner. While I happen to disagree, that is irrelevant to the subjec of this entry and this post.


 * When it comes to how the penis should look, the USA sets a powerful example favoring circumcision. I can think of two ways by which that example is diffused: visitors to the USA use USA locker rooms, and web porn. Thanks to the web, erotic imagery can be purchased anonymously and perused privately. Many of the men in such imagery are circumcised Americans; the USA dominates erotica like it dominates so much of world culture. I conjecture that this has done much to normalize the cut penis in cultures that once seldom circumcised. I am quite aware that there is a growing and eloquent chorus of American voices deploring routine infant circumcision, resulting in a gradual decline of the fraction of USA birth cohorts that are circumcised. But this foreskin-friendly message will reach non-American cultures only after some delay.123.255.61.246 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but per Talk page guidelines, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Do you propose to make any changes to the article? Jakew (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippines/90%
I removed the Philippines from the added 90% cat and added them back to the 80% one. Although it's true the reported figure is 92.5%, adding this category is a bad idea because it may lead to the implication that anyone in the 80% category is under 90% which obviously isn't true. The percentage in Israel is reported as nearly 100% and I presume the percentage in countries with a very high percentage of Muslims would also be very high. As long as our main data source only give the distinction between 20%, 20-80% and 80% then we should keep these as our categories with the actual percentage specified in the text, if sourced Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A wise decision. Jakew (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, there is no need for us to use the categorization the main data source (the United Nations' WHO) happens to choose.  We should remove these categories, and simply sort countries according to the prevalence (estimate, if applicable) stated, and state the source each time, (i.e. (WHO), etc.).  What do you think?  A long table seems called for.  I can see how this categorization serves the WHO's purposes, but I cannot see how it serves this article's.  Presumably more precise sources would be useful, and the current categorization may cause future editors to resign themselves to more vague, summarizing/categorizing sources.  Blackworm (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorting according to the estimated figure is not terribly realistic, unfortunately. Two obvious problems spring to mind. Firstly, in some cases we have multiple estimates, so which do we use for the sort ordering? Secondly, in many cases we do not have a point estimate, and all we have is the range classification (is 20-80% more or less than 55.7%?). Sorting by ranges makes the most sense in this case, and is already done for us.
 * Certainly the presentation in this article is sub-optimal, but I don't think that one big table is a good solution. Tabulating data works well in some cases, but not so well when there is a lot of information to convey. We could perhaps make better use of little tables, though... Jakew (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The first problem is addressed by presenting the range of estimates, or estimate ranges, for each source. The second problem is addressed by sorting according to an unweighted average of the midpoint of each source's estimate range.  If you consider that WP:OR, then a simple table with countries sorted by name with also address the problem.  The "sorting by ranges" is not "done for us," as you state, it is done by the WHO, who have advocate goals with regard to circumcision and do not follow Wikipedia's policies.  We cannot use their categorization without violating WP:NPOV.  My method ensures neutrality; your desire for the status quo seems to give undue weight to the WHO as a source by framing the discussion in their terms and categories, and also causes potential problems such as that caused by two sources stating estimates which would appear in different categories, (for example, if one source said ">80%" and another said "70%"). Blackworm (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Blackworm, your proposed "solution" is indeed OR, and it is largely intended to solve a largely non-existent "problem". While there are a small number of cases in which estimates from other sources fall outside of the WHO's ranges, these are relatively rare and can be handled effectively when they occur. Jakew (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, to confirm, you believe it neutral to frame an entire discussion according to one source, including using their categorization as our categorization, with any contradictions that categorization creates treated as exceptions to the WHO-based "rule?" Blackworm (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, this classification system is used in numerous papers (eg     ), in addition to WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, World Bank, etc. It therefore seems safe to say that it is reasonably well-established and a mainstream and conventional approach. Furthermore, to my knowledge, there is no competing classification system for global circumcision rates, and as far as I can tell, it is not in dispute. I recognise that we need to handle any situations where estimates fall outside of the ranges carefully, but in general it seems to be "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". Jakew (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF are the same thing (UN). The other sources you mention are following or repeating the UN/WHO data and convention, thus do not count as separate sources of prevalence estimates.  I have no doubt that many sources wish to frame circumcision prevalence in the same terms, definitions, and categories as circumcision's most outspoken advocates; that does not make the framing conform to the neutral point of view.  I'm not sure what "piece of information" you're referring to in your quote.  A categorization is not a piece of information we can use unless it is attributed to a source.  Our categorization here is not attributed to a source -- we have simply chosen to follow the UN/WHO circumcision advocate categorization.  Since I challenge the categorization on WP:NPOV grounds, and propose a neutral solution (alphabetized list), you must be arguing that the WHO's categorization is neutral.  How do you propose to argue this, given their pro-circumcision advocacy?  Blackworm (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, your argument is basically a form of argumentum ad hominem: you argue that the classification scheme is "advocacy" based solely on your opinion that WHO are "circumcision's most outspoken advocates". You have yet to effectively challenge the scheme's neutrality, for example, by demonstrating the existence of an alternative scheme, or citing authors who have argued that the scheme is biased in some way. If you personally disagree with this scheme, or if you think that the authors of all these sources must be up to no good, fine. But the real question is, can you cite any sources?
 * Second, I'm not quite sure why the origin of the scheme is important, since ideas common to multiple sources generally originate somewhere. However, if you check the dates on the papers I cited, you'll find that many pre-date WHO.
 * Third, the classification is used within the article to state, for example, that the prevalence of circumcision in Iceland is less than 20%. In the cases where there is disagreement between sources, I agree, we shouldn't treat WHO as gospel. But in the majority of cases, if there's no dispute (for example, if no sources quote a higher rate for Iceland or quote a different range), then the classification is clearly not OR, and appears to pose no NPOV problem. Jakew (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) No, my argument is not argumentum ad hominem; ultimately it doesn't matter who created, supports or repeats the <20%, 20%-80%, and >80% categories; the categories are still a way of framing the topic that is subject to the terms of WP:NPOV. Let me put it to you this way, Jake: would you think it neutral to place two hypothetical countries that practice female circumcision, one that has a prevalence of 20%, the other, of 80%, in the same hypothetical FGM prevalence category? In fact, as far as I know, FGM isn't categorized by prevalence at all, by anyone. The message there is clear: "any FGM is bad, so don't think of it in terms of low, medium, and high -- no rate is too low." The message with a "20%-80%" prevalence category for male circumcision (encompassing a percentage range three times wider than each of the other two categories) is, "it doesn't really matter... this country/region/group has a percentage of circumcised males somewhere in the irrelevant middle like lots of other countries/regions/groups." It is not neutral for us to repeat that message without recognizing that it is imposing a view, i.e., we must use attribution, at least. You've presented some sources using that categorization, but I posit that the opposing view to that view is to not use any prevalence categorization, as is done for female circumcision. I'm reasonably sure most sources on male circumcision prevalence do not use any prevalence categorization. Thus, I view the use of unattributed prevalence categorization in this article as silently imposing, without attribution, a minority point of view on this article, in grave violation of WP:NPOV. It needs to be fixed. I propose a perfectly valid solution, and I'm mystified as to your strong efforts here to resist a clearly more neutral presentation. Blackworm (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, I think you're over-analysing the use or non-use of categorisation, and if you read some of the sources, you'll find that the categorisation system developed over time as an effective means of understanding prevalence data while taking the lack of precision of estimates into account. Moreover, applying your own argument, the absence of categorisation would implicitly say "no rate is too low". The important thing to do, then, is to examine secondary sources that report on the prevalence in multiple countries. And when we do that, we find that with the notable exception of Williams et al., this categorisation is generally used. Consequently, we find ourselves in a position in which we're relying heavily upon these secondary sources, and it simply makes sense to use the same system of categories. Jakew (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Finland
Here is my suggestion to replace the emphasis on Shoen et al.'s disputable rate of 7.1% (Denniston and Wallerstein show more correctly that it is not even one per mille!):

In Finland, routine infant circumcision has never been practised. Denniston reported in 1996 that the neonatal circumcision rate is zero and that the rate of later circumcision is 1 in 16,667. Similarly, Wallerstein estimates that the Finnish rate of adult circumcision for health reasons is merely six per 100,000. (Schoen et al., however, reported in 2006 that data from 1996-1998 indicate that about 7.1% of Finnish males are circumcised. ) There has been debate in the country on whether public healthcare should, however, take responsibility of religious circumcisions of mostly Muslim boys. At present, the practice varies between public hospitals, in line with the suggestion of the Finnish Medical Association to the Parliament (6 June 2004): "Circumcision for non-medical reasons is not part of healthcare or considered to improve health, nor does it therefore belong to the Finnish health care system. Subjecting the patient to an operation that includes risks and leads to no health benefits is against medical ethics, and the doctor must be able to decline from performing the operation. The performing of a religious ritual is not to be part of a doctor’s office duties."


 * Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, our role is not to decide that the Denniston/Wallerstein (0.006%) estimate is correct, nor that the Schoen/Houle (7.1%) estimate is correct. Instead, we simply report the various estimates, and let the reader decide. Since there is no evidence that one view is more prominent than the other, there is no reason to reduce the emphasis on Schoen, and it should not be demoted to a parenthetical comment.
 * I have made a few edits to balance out the sources (by adding Houle), and to remove a few redundancies. I intend to remove the text from "There has been debate..." onwards, as it is original research, since the sources are not directly related to the subject of the article (prevalence of circumcision). Jakew (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not directly related to the subject of the article but it does shed light on what the general opinion is in the country and puts more weight on the lesser circumcision rate. NB Schoen bases his survey on data from two or three years alone. Circumcision is not a popular medical procedure in Finland. Other methods are favoured before one resorts to the operation as a final resort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schml99 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but per the applicable policy, we must not include material that is not directly related to the subject of the article, and this especially true when such material is used to advance a position. To quote from the first paragraph of WP:NOR:
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
 * Jakew (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, whatever you say... However, I found a report by Finland's Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2004) stating clearly and precisely (Finland has very good statistics on healthcare) that, "Some 500-1000 circumcisions are performed as a therapeutic measure annually in Finnish hospitals." (http://www.stm.fi/Resource.phx/publishing/store/2004/02/pr1075361153807/passthru.pdf see the English summary page near the beginning). This is a very small figure even in a country with the population of some 5.3 M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schml99 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you'd added it to the article. Good find! Jakew (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit
I oppose this edit. I see no reason why the Schoen material is removed. The ACEP statement isn't accurate; I don't believe evidence has been presented that they state this or endorse it. It seems to me it should be summarized from the New York Times article brought in support, and the sourced qualifications from the researchers and the CDC also briefly summarized. Blackworm (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Schoen's Lost Cause Marked For Deletion from This Article
POV Detective (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $\infty$ Schoen's opinion -- COMMENTARY: Ignoring Evidence of Circumcision Benefits http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/118/1/385 -- is marked for deletion from this article because it does not meet any standards of scholarship. $\infty$
 * I don't understand. How can it be "marked for deletion"?  It is a published journal article, so it can't be unprinted.  Do you mean that Pediatrics have published a retraction?  If so, where?  Jakew (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * $\infty$ "CDC: US Circumcision Rate Has Plunged to 33%" http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/17/cdc-us-circumcision-rate-has-plunged-to-33/ "Steep Drop in Circumcision in U.S." http://www.thebody.com/content/art58116.html  These latest statistics are marked for permanent inclusion in this article.


 * It's unfortunate that some devotees don't know the difference between a "commentary" published as an opinion in a journal and a peer-reviewed research article. Schoen citation is marked for permanent deletion from this article.

$\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: POV detective has added the words "from this article" to his earlier comment after a reply was added. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policy-based reason for removal? It apparently met Pediatrics's standard of scholarship...  Incidentally, please don't edit comments after replies have been posted, as it can be very confusing for later readers. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 20 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) 16:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
I have found a source for for saying that the current U.S. circumcision rate has dropped to 33%, but I can't work the reference link. Could someone help me?

Source: http://www.acep.org/MobileArticle.aspx?parentfeedid=4&feed_id=imn080420101635228885&parentid=742 Sbrianhicks (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, because it's not a sufficiently reliable source. Please see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67. Jakew (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

U.S. states
Jakew has reverted the inclusion of South Carolina in the count of U.S. states defunding circumcision three times, twice deleting its citation, referencing WP:SYNTH. This policy includes a WP:CALC exception: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers". Please explain your view that the inclusion of a citation specifying 16 and a citation specifying an additional 1 does not permit the article to state the sum of 17. (I am well aware of 3RR and am prepared to request WP:THIRD following discussion.) AV3000 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If a source said, hypothetically, that "a dozen and five" states had defunded circumcision, then WP:CALC would apply. However, that clearly isn't the case, and there is no one source that provides the figure of 17.  WP:SYNTH specifically disallows combining sources to make a claim not stated by either: '"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.'
 * In addition to being an obvious violation of policy, there are other reasons why this is a poor edit. First, it misrepresents the cited sources: the CDC, for example, state that 16 states have done so.  To claim that 17 states have done so, while citing a source that says otherwise, violates the reader's expectation that sources directly support claims.  Second, we have no way of knowing that the derived figure is actually correct.  The figure might be more than 17 if, for example, other states have also defunded.  Or it might plausibly be exactly 16 if, for example, the CDC had prior knowledge of South Carolina's decision (so adding that state might effectively count it twice).  It might even be less than 16, if states have restored funding.  If we calculate the number of states then we're responsible for those mistakes; something that policy is intended to avoid. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's obvious is that we disagree on interpretation of the policy; you may be correct about the degree to which CALC trumps the rest of SYNTH, which is why I'd request additional opinion. Regarding correctness, we also know that the CDC source is actually incorrect (out of date), demonstrated by the additional citation.  As an alternative, are you open to substituting the word "some" in place of an exact count, retaining both citations?  AV3000 (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I pointed out, we don't know that the CDC is incorrect, because they could have had prior knowledge of South Carolina's decision, and may have included that state in their count. (I'm not saying that this is the case, just that we don't know that it isn't.)  I'd be perfectly happy with saying "some" instead of a number. Jakew (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The number of circumcised males
Yesterday, I added the number of uncircumcised males worldwide, estimated at 2.33 to 2.44 billion. I provided notes explaining how those numbers were reached (the US Census Bureau's estimated global male population for 2011, multiplied by the WHO's estimate that 67-70% are uncircumcised). Jakew instantly reverted this, citing it as original research. I therefore removed the number of circumcised males (665 million) in the preceding sentence, as the source cited for that sentence mentions no such number, so it must have been calculated using the same, or a similar, method I used, therefore counting as original research. Certainly, as a pro-circumcision activist, Jakew would like to have such a striking number included in the introduction to this article; 665,000,000 sounds like a lot of men! But why does it appear to be one rule for him, and a different rule for everybody else? Tbmurray 12:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You were right to remove the figure of 665 million, as this figure cannot be found in the cited source. However, you were wrong to remove the figure of 661.5 million, which is explicitly stated by the source itself (see the row labelled 'Global total' in Table 2, page 8).  You removed this, with the edit summary "rv original research" &mdash; since it clearly is not original research, the appropriate thing to do would be for you to self-revert.
 * Finally, I remind you to Comment on content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)