Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

First paragraph

I have recast the first paragraph to take account of the criticism that has been expressed. Most of the text is now sourced from peer reviewed articles. The exception is opposition to sex reassignment surgery which is mentioned by some activist organisations. This has been documented from three websites, and I believe that this conforms with Wiki policy about the use of such sources. If there are any rremaining issues with the first paragraph, please let me know. Michael Glass 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement, Michael. Jakew 11:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Remaining issues:

• 'They question "the tendency..."[1]' -- this appears to be original research - the source does not indicate that this viewpoint has anything to do with 'genital integrity'.
• The three self-published sources you mention. Jakew 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The segregation of discussion about male and female genital cutting has been noted by Hanny Lightfoot Klein [2] and Margaret Somerville [3] as well as by Darby and Svoboda [4]' though the term 'segregation of discussion' is perhaps not the clearest way to express this different way of thinking about male and female genital cutting. I would like to go into it further, but I would prefer to discuss it here so I have removed the sentence pending further discussion. As for the activist organisations, they have websites that display their official policy, so quoting or referring to part of their official policy should pose no threat to the integrity of the article. Even by the [WP:SELFPUB] policy these points should be noted.

• These are websites of organisations, not individuals.
• There is nothing contentious about the statement being the policy of the organisations referred to.
• There is nothing self-serving about mentioning the policy.
• It doesn't involve claims about third parties, only the organisations' policies.
• It doesn't involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
• There is no reasonable doubt that these sources refer to the official policy of the four organisations named and linked.
• The article is not primarily based on these sources.

Of course, the article does not say that the opinion expressed is right, only that it is held by the four organisations referred to. Please let me know if this answers your concerns. If it does not, please suggest a remedy. Michael Glass 11:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I don't dispute that some authors protest what they see as a "segregation of discussion about male and female genital cutting". However, that isn't the subject of this article. The topic here is "genital integrity", and we must stick to what reliable sources have to say about "genital integrity".

Regarding the four activist websites, these currently constitute 80% (4/5ths) of the distinct sources cited in the lead section. Given that the lead should effectively act as a mini-article, this violates the spirit, though perhaps not quite the letter, of the "not primarily based" requirement. And as I have commented previously, once the sources used as original research are removed from this article, it would in fact be based primarily on self-published sources.

Because I have severe doubts that the sourcing issues in this article can actually be solved, however, I think it may be more productive to ignore this problem for the time being and instead continue our search for reliable sources that have something substantial to say about the topic. Jakew 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, While 4 out of 5 of the references are to activist websites, these 4 references are there to document one fact only. The rest of the introduction, which forms the great bulk of the paragraph, is based on a peer reviewed article. The other sentence has multiple references because it needs to be documented carefully, so simply counting up the number of references gives a distorted picture, in my view. Michael Glass 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If multiple references are needed to support one fact, that's often an indicator of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Can we not use a single reliable source that comments on this fact? Jakew 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the multiple references are needed to demonstrate that the policy of opposing genital surgery on intersexed children is not confined to one or two organisations. Why do you accuse me of advancing a cause? I am not. I have no opinion about this policy and I have not expressed an opinion about it. Why, then, do you imagine I might agree or disagree with it? I myself find the policy challenging enough to record in a neutral way that neither endorses nor criticises it. Your charge that I am trying to advance a cause is utter humbug.

Nor is it a synthesis. it is not a case of A + B = C. There is nothing like the synthesis in WP:SYN. It's simply stating that several organisations oppose sexual reassignment surgery for children with ambiguous genitalia, something that is easily verifiable by following the four links that are supplied. This information does not need to be assessed and analysed by experts to understand it. Any member of the public can verify the information by following the links, Therefore any charge that this information is unverifiable is nonsense. Michael Glass (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the position that appears to be advanced is that opposition to genital surgery on intersexed children is characteristic of genital integrity organisations, and the implication that this is significant.

One can easily verify that all four of the cited pages contain the word 'the'. But to remark on that would imply that it was significant. Jakew (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, the wording of the sentence is that several genital integrity organisations take this position, not most or that this policy is characteristic of genital integrity organisations generally. Nevertheless, it is a policy of the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, MGM Bill, Students for Genital Integrity and Nocirc. I would say that this policy of the four organisations is notable. Do you feel differently? Michael Glass (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this fact more notable than the fact that these policies contain the word 'the'? Jakew (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy statements say something notable about the organisations' policies. I don't want a word game. I want to understand your reasoning if you don't consider this information notable.Michael Glass (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, this isn't supposed to be a survey of websites that we think are part of a 'genital integrity movement'. It's supposed to be a scholarly article, summarising information that has been written about genital integrity.

I think this information is only notable if it tells the reader something about genital integrity. To put that another way, I don't think a point on which four policies coincidentally agree is notable, but I do think it would be notable if this was characteristic of a position shared by the organisations. Jakew (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The four organisations are amongst the most prominent of the genital integrity organisations. To say that the policy is coincidental is a guess; to say that the policy is characteristic of genital integrity organisations is also a guess. However, to note that these four organisations have this policy is simply a statement of fact, and I believe that this fact is worthy of note in the article. Michael Glass (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What source describes them as the most prominent of genital integrity organisations, Michael? Jakew (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Googling "gential integrity" and see which organisations come up first. Michael Glass (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph refers to "Hammond" without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkovnat (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections to be deleted

On the basis that they are original research (the sources being indirectly related to the subject at best) and constitute little more than POV forks of the referenced main articles, I propose to delete:

1. The first four paragraphs of 'Background'
2. All of 'Sexual Functions of Intact Genitals'
3. The first paragraph of 'Legislation'.

Obviously, there is no reason why similarly-named sections could not be recreated with appropriate sourcing. Jakew 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem to sorted out first is what we mean by genital integrity as a political or moral position. Under the heading, "the genital integrity movement" Hammond discusses organisations and also individuals who regard the genital cutting of children as a violation of human rights. [5]. I believe that this emphasis on human rights is the thing that distinguishes a genital integrity position from other positions that might be critical of circumcision on other grounds. For instance, Gardiner [6] was critical of circumcision, but he did not state, as far as I know, that it was a breach of human rights. Margaret Somerville, however did take this position [7]. I think that would be in order to point out these facts. Michael Glass 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, we don't need to sort out this problem first, if indeed it can be solved at all. We can and should remove OR, bearing in mind that content can always be added to the article.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, "genital integrity" means whatever reliable sources use the term to mean. We can't decide which meaning is 'correct'. As WP:NEO notes: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. ... The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we don't do that here at Wikipedia." (emph added).

Hammond describes the 'genital integrity movement' as "non-governmental and professional organizations [formed] to protect the rights of children to their genital integrity" (a curiously circular definition), but it is far from clear that he's making a distinction between a "genital integrity" position and a "opposed to circumcision but not genital integrity" position: "genital integrity movement" may simply be his preferred way of saying "movement opposed to circumcision". Neither Gairdner nor Somerville mention 'genital integrity', so unless another source has interpreted their views in this context ("Smith comments that Gairdner's views are not representative of the genital integrity position, whereas Somerville's are"), we cannot do so. Jakew 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm asking for. It's just a matter of pointing out the arguments that Gardiner and Somerville used as background to the information on the genital integrity movement. Michael Glass (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, WP:NOR requires that sources are directly related to the subject. Since neither Gairdner nor Somerville mention the subject, we need a third-party source that establishes the relationship by discussing them in the context of genital integrity. Otherwise they cannot be included. Please remember that a Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of what others have said about the subject in scholarly sources. If reliable sources have not documented the background to the genital integrity movement, we can't either. Jakew (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, are you saying that a source has to use the precise phrase, genital integrity? What if a writer used the term bodily integrity instead? What if the writer used the term genital integrity to refer to something different?

And, if you were writing about slavery, would the same rule exclude sources that talked only about servitude or bondservant or bondage? And if we were writing about female genital cutting would we be limited to sources that used this exact term, and if a source used female genital mutilation or female circumcision are you saying this wouldn't be good enough? And if we were writing about the Catholic Church could we only refer to scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals and not to the Catholic Cathechism? Or if we were writing about gay liberation, what about sources which referred only to homosexual liberation or gay rights or homosexual rights?

Please quote the precise words that, in your opinion, preclude any use of anything on a website which says it supports genital integrity. Michael Glass (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, with many Wikipedia articles we are writing about well-defined, established terms that have a clear meaning and volumes of sources available. I believe this is true of the examples you discuss. With such well-established terms, there may be well-documented, uncontested synonyms.

In this case, we don't have this luxury, which is itself an indicator of a problem. In the case of this article, the central term has "recently been coined ... [does] not appear in any dictionary ... [is] not well understood ... not clearly definable, and [has] different meanings to different people". (WP:NEO)

And since we can't determine "which meaning is the true meaning", we clearly cannot determine that a source using a different term actually means the same thing. All we can do is report on sources that use the exact phrase.

The fundamental problem is that the topic of this article is an ill-defined term with little significant coverage in reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a reasonably clear definition of the term genital integrity movement in the Hammond article. We have a number of uses of the term in the scholarly literature as Google Scholar reveals [8]. As these are two plain English words it is not surprising that the phrase is used in different senses. Therefore it would be useful to note these other uses so as to clear up any ambiguity.

As I have stated before, the argument that gential integrity is a neogolism is doubtful. The literal meaning of the word neogolism is new word but neither of the words is new. Also, if we stretch the definition to cover new usages, it is hardly that, because the words are being used in the literal sense. I really can't understand what the fuss is about. And if someone uses bodily integrity to mean the same thing, what is the problem in that? Michael Glass (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, Hammond's definition of 'genital integrity movement' is just about adequate to explain what he means by the term, but it is far from clear that everyone else means the same thing, and we can't decide that Hammond's definition is the correct one. In principle, I would agree to noting other uses, providing that definitions for these can be found. However, we should remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Although you may be technically correct that 'neologism' refers to single words, Wikipedia's policy explicitly applies to any terms: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." If there were a single, obvious meaning for the term, there might not be so much of a problem, but as you acknowledge, this is not the case. Jakew (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the usages in Google Scholar [9] are quite clearly connected to genital integrity as in the article. Seven of the first ten entries are clearly connected to the genital integrity movement. With the other three, the idea of genital wholeness or completeness is central to the way the words are used. In the next 30, 27 of them are connected, and in the next 10, 8 are connected. So in 50 citations, 42 are closely connected to the genital integrity movement, and all the others convey the idea of bodily wholeness or completeness. How much more evidence do you need to show you that the term genital integrity is used and understood? Michael Glass (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I fear you may be miscounting. The first is Hammond's paper. The second is unclear in the meaning ("the damage to bodily and functional genital integrity"), but apparently does not refer to a movement. The third, fifth, and sixth usages are not used in a descriptive manner, but merely form parts of a proper noun. The fourth reference is to "lower-genital integrity", which is apparently related to the immune system. The seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth do not appear to refer to a movement; the former two may refer to some physical quality, while the latter two appear to refer to a psychological quality.

I am not suggesting that it is impossible to guess at the intended meaning (or more accurately, meanings) in these examples, but sadly all we can do is guess. In contrast, consider as an example the term 'slavery'. It appears in pretty much every dictionary, has wide usage in scholarly sources (Google Scholar finds 610,000), and there is little doubt about its meaning. Jakew (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, all the references have some connection to bodily wholeness or completeness. As you have pointed out, some of the references form part of a name or title (a proper noun is one word). Let's look at what the words at [10] say:

• "... The genital-integrity movement impugning any race or religion. ... educating their respective societies about genital integrity and the rights of children; ... " Clearly refers to the genital integrity movement and to bodily wholeness
• "... of the medical literature as to the harm of circumcision from complications and otherwise, including the damage to bodily and functional genital integrity. ... " Clearly refers to bodily wholeness
• "International Coalition for Genital Integrity" A name that is clearly connected to the genital integrity movement
• "Effect of prenatal vitamin supplementation on lower-genital levels of HIV type 1 and interleukin... status is associated with the integrity of epithelial linings as well as with systemic and mucosal immunity, including lower-genital integrity" "Clearly refers to bodily wholeness"
• " Appendix 1: Declaration of Genital Integrity" Clearly a declaration about bodily wholeness," The text of this declaration can be found at page 505 of Male and Female Circumcision etc... [11]
• ".. The Association for Genital Integrity reports that only 13.9% of male infants in Canada were circumcised in 2003. ..." Clearly refers to a genital integrity organisation
• "... As we enter the twenty- first century, appropriate action must be taken to safeguard the physical genital integrity of male children. ... " Clearly refers to genital wholeness or completeness
• "... Episiotomy has been routinely used since the middle of the 20th century, in the belief that it facilitates birth and preserves women's genital integrity. ..." Clearly refers to the idea preserving the genital integrity of women in childbirth by means of episiotomy.
• "symbol of the phallus to be reintrojected and reaffirm the genital integrity of the fetishist." Unclear, though it is clearly about the feelings of the fetishist towards his or her bodily and genital wholeness
• "... Time of di- agnosis and treatment, restoration of genital integrity, personality stability and famil- ial interactions are considered as elements affecting ..." Unclear. Hard to see how it can be literally true."

Apart from the two psychoanalytical papers, eight of the references are to genital integrity in the literal sense of the words. With the exception of the psychoanalytical papers, the meaning of the words is abundantly clear. If you don't get it by now, then it's pointless to spend any more of time on trying to get you to see it. Michael Glass (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, when a term is "used widely or within certain communities" and "has different meanings to different people", it should not be a surprise that those meanings are related. Even if there were clear evidence of "some connection to bodily wholeness or completeness" (not that I agree that there is), that is a case of several meanings with related themes; it is not the same as having a single, well-defined meaning. The literal sense of "genital" and "integrity" is barely relevant - we don't have articles about pairs of words unless the term is well-established in its own right, and has itself received scholarly treatment (as opposed to mere usage). Jakew (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Reassignment Surgery

If opposition to SRS is a plank of the genital integrity movement, as stated, then there needs to be more information on that. It is - without argument - a much more invasive and irreversible procedure than circumcision. As such, it deserves some more description. I don't have the knowledge to do that (I was hoping to find it here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.64.110 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research Tag

Which sections of the article are presently thought by consensus to contain original research? They should be remedied so the tag may be removed. Tomyumgoong (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the long explanation in the section above. Jakew (talk) 11:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The question was regarding consensus, not your claims as previously stated. For my part, I think the current article is sufficiently referenced to remove the tag. Other editors should opine, so we may resolve the matter. Tomyumgoong (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An article can have references yet can still be original research. To quote from WP:NOR: "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) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence the need for consensus. Tomyumgoong (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One cannot have "consensus" to ignore original research, which this article clearly contains, as outlined by Jakew above. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see an explanation of "original research" in this article. Michael Glass (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid a circular discussion, I refer you to my comments in #Problems with sources.

To illustrate my comments, however, I would like to make a suggestion. Make a copy of this article in your sandbox. Now, go through each 'source' in turn, and answer two questions. First, does it say anything about the subject of the article (a prerequisite to which is that it actually mentions the subject of the article), and are we discussing what it says about the subject? If not, its use constitutes OR, so delete it. Second, is it a reliable source or is it self-published? Make a note of the answer to this.

Having done this, delete every section which lacks sources. As I outlined in #Sections to be deleted, this means deleting quite a lot of material. If the majority of the remaining sources are self-published, there is yet more work to be done before the article is verifiable. Jakew (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds so neat and easy. However, it's a trick. It's like asking about Right to Life or Gay Liberation and ruling out any source that doesn't use those exact phrases. It's a way of stifling information. Michael Glass (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever disputes there may be about the rest of the article, I believe that the first paragraph would pass muster. Does anyone have any objection to moving the warning below the first paragraph? Michael Glass (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some OR in the lead itself, Michael (eg., "Some use the more general term bodily integrity"). Moreover, these tags are intended "For placement at top of article or section" (Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes) and that is what readers will expect. Placing the tag below the lead might confuse readers into thinking that it applied only to the section immediately below it, rather than most of the article. Jakew (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jake, the easiest way to fix this is probably a little at a time. Start in one section (it doesn't really matter which), and remove any sentence sourced to an article that doesn't mention "genital integrity". This will both show the issues, and start the cleanup. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A consensus needs to be reached on the Talk page before making changes to the article. There is no consensus yet for Jakes proposed changes. -- DanBlackham (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan, policy (in this case No original research) exists because of widespread consensus. There is already a consensus that original research should not be included in articles, and that where present it should be removed. Please feel free to add material to the article that does conform to policy, but remember that per WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Jakew (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dan, there's no such rule, and policy demands that original research be removed from articles, not "discussed" for a year. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I've now removed most of the original research from the article, and have moved the tag to the only problematic section. I've also tidied up some of the refs. Now, as we can clearly see from the references, the problem is the need for reliable sources independent of the subject. Jakew (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have removed quite a bit that was referenced from reliable sources. Is it your contention that all such instances did not accurately reflect the content of their references? Tomyumgoong (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as explained above, was the fact that numerous sources had no direct relationship to the subject of the article, and their use therefore constituted original research.

Per WP:NOR: "...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." (emph. in original) and "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research; see below."

Clearly, then, to avoid original research we must reference reliable sources that are directly related to the subject of the article (ie "genital integrity"), and we must not go beyond what they say about "genital integrity". Jakew (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this argument can be seen in the editing done to the Background Information section. To trace the background of the Genital Integrity movement you have to include some material from before the time that this term became current. Otherwise, the term 'Original Research' simply becomes a means of deleting relevant background information. Michael Glass (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael, to "trace the background of the Genital Integrity movement" sounds rather like an aim that one might find in the "purpose" section of a social history paper. If such a paper exists, then we can (and should) make use of it in the article. If such a paper doesn't exist, then we should not engage in original research by trying to write it on Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise what others have written about a subject, after all. Jakew (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work so far, Jake. Maybe after this you can tackle Circumcision advocacy, which still suffers from this problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "noharmm" :
  • [http://www.noharmm.org/#ribbon]
  • [http://www.noharmm.org/#ribbon National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males]

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New Heading - Opposition to circumcision

The genital integrity movement relates to an individual's rights to choose for himself. But this is only a recent phenomenon and there are many other reasons people have opposed circumcision in history which cannot be listed under this heading. This broader topic heading means that the opposition to circumcision in days gone by can properly be outlined. The article at the moment is obviously still focused on the Genital Integrity movement so I'll add some more stuff in the future to reflect the more general topic "opposition to circumcision" while still including "genital Integrity" as a subheading. Tremello22 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just what is opposed?

I invite someone to incorporate into this entry some or all of the following ideas.

In an advanced nation, a variety of circumcisions are possible, each giving rise to its own ethical concerns, and hence to its own flavor of opposition:

1. Routine circumcision of infants younger than, say, 6 months, without local anesthesia;
2. Same as the preceding, except with local anesthesia;
3. The circumcision of anyone between infancy and the attainment of majority, because an unretractable foreskin was misdiagnosed as phimosis;
4. The circumcision of an adult, at his request, for cosmetic or perceived sexual reasons;
5. Circumcision when there is a valid medical reason;
6. Jewish and Moslem circumcision.

The North American intactivism began as opposition to (1) in the 1980s, when almost no doctor gave an injection of lidocaine prior to circumcising and infant. As American doctors have made (2) the norm, intactivism now opposes (2) as well.

(3) is an issue in nations, such as the UK, that used to circumcise, and where doctors persist in diagnosing phimosis when all that is going on is a foreskin that remains tight for longer than expected. In the UK, although (1) and (2) are immaterial, about 4% of an age cohort is eventually circumcised, mostly for alleged phimosis. The relevant professional association has set a target of halving that rate.

Intactivism often deplores (4) as well, but should steer clear of it out of respect for the autonomy of consenting adults, except for two things:

• Insurance companies and the public purse should not subsidise it;
• Those who wish to go under the knife should be reminded that the sexual role of the foreskin is still not well understood. Moreover, the enervation of what circumcision discards suggests that its sexual role could be an important one.

(5) is surely the least controversial form of circumcision. (6) is possibly the most controversial. Fortunately, Jewish intactivism is a powerful current in the USA, and has established a toehold in Israel. Moreover, many European Jews born in the last 150 years have been spared bris. Bris does not make you a Jew, but only marks you as one. The mark no longer singles Jews out, and can be reversed.123.255.62.229 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true that opposition to circumcision has varied over the last 50 years or so. Gardiner in England opposed circumcision because of the death rate. Others opposed circumcision because of the cruelty of circumcising boys without pain relief. This criticism made such an impact that pain relief became standard by the end of last century. Lately, the opposition has been cast as a human rights question. All of these things could be mentioned. However, all such points would have to be very carefully documented. Michael Glass (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism in "History" section

I have identified a number of sentences which have clearly been copied verbatim from the source. The sentences are not quoted, but are presented as Wikipedia's prose. In addition to being plagiarism, these likely violate Wikipedia's WP:COPYVIO policy.

The following two sentences were present in the article:

"The Greek historian Herodotus (484–420 B.C.E.) ascribes circumcision to the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Macrones, as well as to the Egyptian priestly caste. He also reports, however, that the salutary influence of Greek culture induced the Phoenicians to abandon circumcision."

And are identical, from the word "ascribes", to those in Hodges:

"Herodotus ascribes circumcision to the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Macrones, as well as to the Egyptian priestly caste.38 He also reports, however, that the salutary influence of Greek culture induced the Phoenicians to abandon circumcision.39"

Similarly, the following sentence in the article reads:

"Other people, he says, unless they have been influenced by the Egyptians, leave their genitals in their natural state."

And in the (same) source:

"Other people, unless they have been influenced by the Egyptians, leave their genitals in their natural state, but the Egyptians practise circumcision.40"

Finally, the words "primitiveness, barbarity, backwardness, superstition, and oppression" are taken directly from the same source, but are neither quoted nor attributed.

I've deleted the most blatant plagiarism, and have quoted and attributed the "primitiveness..." quotation. Jakew (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done to whoever merged these articles!

Nice job on the merge. The next step is to organize it as Overview, History, Modern and so on and have in each section both the pro and the con. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, I'm concerned about the "history" section, as most if not all of this material is about the history of circumcision rather the history of the circumcision controversy per se. (Some material is actually cited both here and in the history of circumcision article.) To avoid redundancy and POV forkery (as well as potential OR), I suggest that the right approach is to carefully examine each source cited in this article. If it is also cited in the history of circumcision article, it can be deleted. If the source discusses the history of circumcision (rather than specifically discussing the history of the controversy) then it should be moved. I think this will make the article much more manageable in size. Jakew (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start at this, and have been able to remove quite a lot of material that is already present, to a large extent, elsewhere. Quite a bit of work still remains, however, and the "history" section currently fails to meet WP:NPOV, given that it focuses almost entirely on opposition. I'm not sure if we even need a "history" section, however, and I suspect that much of what could be said about the history of circumcision controversies would fit better in history of circumcision. So I think much of this material could be moved to a more appropriate home.

I've moved "overview" to a subsection of the (new) "opposition" section, as it is exclusively about opponents. Jakew (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions moved to archive

Could someone explain why certain discussions were put in the archive section and others weren't? I am not sure if this is done automatically or manually. Maybe someone could explain. Tremello22 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Circumcision advocacy talk was archived when the pages were merged. Archiving is done manually unless botdriven. Better to archive half of each old page to make new page in my opinion. This gives more accessible talk for what was transpiring on both pages before merge. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious removal of external links

Some of those websites are very informative. The article has suffered from their removal. Tremello22 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view. Jakew (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

News article

We'll see what the current meetings say: http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=95454 Joe407 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate article needed?

While I have attempted to make a number of alterations to improve this article, it seems to me there are a number of paragraphs that do not belong under this subject heading. These would seem to be better placed in a separate, short article on the Genital Integrity movement, its organisations and activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.25.155 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I think I've managed to incorporate most of the genital integrity stuff within the controversy framework. Still some tidying required, but at least it no longer reads like three separate articles put through a blender.203.214.25.155 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Penile sensitivity

A request for citations in one paragraph introducing this topic has been made. In the first, a full quotation with reference immediately follows the statement to support the statement. In the second, the following material shows clearly that circumcision proponents do not believe ablation of the foreskin affects sensitivity. So both statements are supported. I have reverted the request, and await further discussion.203.214.25.155 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re the first fact tag: maybe I missed something, but a quick glance at the ref suggests that it presents the views of Hutchinson only, not "proponents" (plural). Re the second tag: the following material is the next paragraph, which doesn't appear to present views of "advocates", as far as I know; if anything, Sorrells et al. seem to be perhaps opponents of circumcision. So I think the fact tags are warranted. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is largely redundant, as Coppertwig has already said as much, but since I've already typed it:

The first request for a citation was made after the following claim:

• Early proponents of circumcision had little doubt about the role of the foreskin in this regard

The quotation that follows does not support this claim. It supports a narrower claim — that Hutchinson believed this to be true — but the generalisation to "early proponents of circumcision" is unsupported, and I cannot see how it can be justified. It is like saying "Wikipedia editors have the IP address 203.214.25.155": we know that it is true of one editor, but we cannot say that it is true of all.

The second claim is equally problematic. It states:

• Modern advocates take a different position.

What follows, however, does not support this claim. Firstly, by "circumcision proponents" I can only assume you mean Waskett and Morris. Speaking as co-author of that critique, I can assure you that neither Prof Morris nor I described ourselves as circumcision proponents, nor as advocates, in it, so the label is unverifiable and, I presume, is original research. For the record, I consider the label inaccurate in reference to myself. Furthermore (and overlooking my first point for the sake of argument), this is an extreme generalisation that cannot be justified. Can you really say that every circumcision proponent rejects the belief that circumcision affects sensitivity? Of course not. Jakew (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

okay, I have no real horse in this race, except to make a better article and not make everything sound like it was written by a committee of constipated accountants who've returned from a long lunch. I will rephrase, removing the apparently offending statements. Thanks for the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.25.155 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) 203.214.25.155, thank you for your contributions to this article; many of the ones I looked over look good to me. And thank you for your flexibility. However, I see you've deleted the fact tag from the statement "Until Victorian times, circumcision was widely regarded with revulsion." I don't see how this could possibly be verifiable -- it doesn't even state what country or beginning in what time period it's talking about, and how could it be widely regarded with revulsion while it was being commonly practiced in some places? and I don't see an explanation as to what reference you think supports it (sorry if I missed it), so I think I'll delete the sentence (hoping not to cause yet another edit conflict in the process). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC) No, wait -- instead of deleting it, I'll insert "In England". However, it's not clear to me what the source is for that whole paragraph. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re [12]: Ooh. Well done. Thanks! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a lot better. However, I'm puzzled as to why the text says "The debate has moved on since then." There is no indication that any controversy existed in the 19th century — only one viewpoint (Hutchinson's) has been mentioned, and one viewpoint does not make a controversy. I would suggest either a) adding material to show that a controversy existed back then (preferably using secondary sources), or b) removing the Hutchinson quote, since if a controversy did not exist at the time then it doesn't seem relevant in the context of this article. Jakew (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully clarified via a reliable source. The point being that there was no controversy in the 19th century but there is now. I think this is an interesting and important point. 203.214.25.155 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "revulsion", I've restored the request for a citation, as I don't think it is supported even with the narrower geographical scope. I don't think that the opinions of two individuals (Bulwer and Gibbon) make a belief "widely regarded". I suppose we could rephrase as something like: "In England up until Victorian times, some authors regarded circumcision with revulsion", but I'm not sure if it helps. In fact, I'm not altogether sure why the paragraph is included. Two authors disliking circumcision isn't a controversy — it's just two authors who dislike circumcision. Jakew (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the original statement is an overbroad generalisation, so I've removed the statement and reworked that section. I think the point of this section is to show what while there was no controversy within the Gentile community, circumcision was a flashpoint between them and the Jewish community, in particular, and to show why -- namely the high value placed on the foreskin by Europeans at that time. 203.214.25.155 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting theory. Thank you for providing more appropriate sources. Jakew (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to restore the Hutchinson quote, since I believe it is usefully illustrative of the thinking of Victorian pro-circumcision doctors, among whom Hutchinson was perhaps the most eminent, in England anyway. The point is to try to frame the current controversy in a context that goes beyond yesterday. I know of no content guideline that says a quotation cannot be used to illustrate a point that is made by a reliable secondary source. The practice seems exceedingly common and adds interest to an article 203.214.25.155 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle quotations can be added as well as secondary sources, but in this case it is utterly pointless. If Darby is correct, there was no controversy about this issue in the 19th century, hence the material is off-topic in this article. It is questionable whether even a secondary source should be quoted on the subject of a non-controversy, but is is absolutely absurd to include a lengthy quote from a primary source to illustrate that absence of controversy. Jakew (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. It specifically goes to Young's point in the subsequent paragraph, and hence is highly relevant to the current controversy, and a point of contest between the two sides. The quotation is therefore both relevant and interesting, as well as being illustrative of Darby's point. btw, it occurs to me that we have no information about pro-circ organisations and their activities. The only one I know of is the Gilgal Society, and I don't know much about it. But in the interests of balance we should say something about these, if reliable (and non-pseudonomous) sources can be found. I thought you might have a better idea than me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.25.155 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the entire paragraph per WP:NOR, which requires that "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" (emphasis in original). Jakew (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I disagree on relevance (see above), I suggest you revert your change and seek a broader consensus. The notion that the original constitutes OR is laughable, imho. 203.214.25.155 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you believe it to be relevant, but you haven't made a case that it is directly related, and to be frank you cannot, since it isn't a controversy. At best, you've argued that it is indirectly related to the subject of the article as background for the actual controversy and via Young's argument.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood how Wikipedia's editing process works. The stable state of an article is generally assumed to have consensus support, and in general one obtains consensus to make a change. One can do this boldly, by making a change and waiting to see if it sticks, or one can do it less boldly, through discussion. But if consensus cannot be achieved for a change, that change is usually undone. You added that paragraph yesterday, in an edit dated 14:30, January 3, 2010. There was no consensus for your edit at the time, we have discussed it and have not reached agreement on it, and it has been reverted in accordance with policy. Now you are suggesting that, even though there is no consensus for your change, I should restore it and seek consensus to remove it? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

Incidentally, I'd like to make sure that you're aware of the three revert rule, which limits the number of reverts one can make in a 24 hour period. I'm not suggesting that you've violated the rule; I just want to be sure that you are aware of it. Jakew (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a fresh look at this and reworked so that both pars are clearly on-topic, which I gather is the gist of the earlier objection.203.214.25.155 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As a result, though, it's still original research. Where is the source for this: "There was apparent consensus in the 19th century that the foreskin contributed to sexual pleasure but disagreement about whether this was a good thing. The modern debate sees a reversal, with a consensus on the positive aspect of sexual pleasure but controversy over whether this is diminished by circumcision."? Jakew (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is a faithful rendition of the reliable source, neither OR nor Synth. To quote in full: In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief",10 and most of his contemporaries concurred.11 Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse",12 and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.

The second is an accurate characterisation of the dispute in the following paragraph, and would in any case be a valid factual assertion akin to "the sky is blue". I don't see a problem :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.25.155 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid it is WP:OR. Regarding the first sentence, I cannot see anything about disagreement about whether a contribution to sexual pleasure is a good thing. This seems to be an interpretation that you have imposed on the source, and while I'm not saying it's wrong, it isn't verifiable, either, hence it is original research. One cannot take a source that is phrased in terms of "agreement" and present that as a "controversy": that's not being faithful to the source.

The second sentence contains three examples of WP:OR. Let me address these in turn.

Firstly, "The modern debate sees a reversal" constitutes synthesis of multiple sources (Darby, together with Sorrells, Waskett & Morris, and Young), and hence again violates WP:NOR. To make such a statement, one would need a single source that brings together 19th century and modern views, and explicitly contrasts the two.

Moving on, "with a consensus on the positive aspect of sexual pleasure" is also WP:OR. Even if all three sources (Sorrells, Waskett & Morris, and Young) all explicitly stated that maximum sexual pleasure is desirable, would that seriously constitute a consensus? I think not.

Finally, we come to the last example of WP:OR: "but controversy over whether this is diminished by circumcision". Although it is true that there is a controversy over this (and I'm sure I could find a source for it), it isn't supported by the sources cited in the following paragraph. Certainly Sorrells claim that sensitivity (which is not the same as sexual pleasure) is diminished by circumcision, but Waskett and Morris did not say (at least in that particular critique) that sensitivity is not diminished. What we said, to heavily paraphrase, was that Sorrells' interpretation of their data was incorrect, and consequently that they had not proven their case. Jakew (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some specifics, for the record: 1. When Darby says "opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed ..." this can only mean there are two groups of people who disagree on circumcion, but agree on foreskin function. This is surely plain English. 2. "The modern debate sees a reversal" is simply a linguistic construct to connect the two ideas. It could be changed to "In the modern debate there is a consensus ..." without affecting the meaning of the sentence (although the original is clearer), imv. 3. The existence of a consensus (which is not the same as universal agreement) in the developed world that sexual pleasure is desirable is the assertion of fact as per WP:NPV, equivalent to "there is a planet Mars". What would need sourcing would be the claim that someone in the contemporary debate held a contrary view. 4. Sexual "pleasure" is the term most commonly used by all quoted sources, and Waskett and Morris explicitly link it to sexual sensitivity in the quoted excerpt. One doesn't need a thesaurus to see everyone is talking about the same thing. 5. Darby, our reliable source, specifically mentions "the assertion of most contemporary advocates of circumcision that circumcision makes no difference to sexual response", so this does not rely on some hair-splitting analysis of what Waskett and Morris thought they were saying. I have deleted my earlier rather intemperate comment, and hope we can still resolve this amicably. Another pair of experienced eyes may be helpful.203.214.25.155 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me address these points in order:

1. I do not disagree with your interpretation, but stating that opponents and supporters of circumcision exist simultaneously is not much of a controversy. It may well be the case that other sources document a controversy at the time, and if so there is no reason why those could not be cited, but Darby is not really discussing one. When we find ourselves adding "background" material that is not directly about a controversy, we must think very carefully about that material and whether it can be justified. In this case, there are some serious WP:NPOV implications associated with the Hutchinson quote in particular, since it skews the article away from neutrality by giving greater weight to the view that the foreskin does enhance sexual pleasure. Since it is not directly related to the subject matter, then, and is an interpretation rather than a point explicitly made by the sources, and has NPOV implications, it would seem most appropriate to exclude it.
2. "In the modern debate there is a consensus..." would be an improvement, but see the following points.
3. See following point.
4. Although they are related, sexual pleasure and sexual sensitivity are not the same thing. W&M raised this point, incidentally, questioning whether maximum sensitivity always led to maximum pleasure: "Surprisingly, the study omitted to address sexual pleasure. The existence of a market for lidocaine-based products to reduce penile sensitivity attests to the desire by some men for a penis with reduced, not heightened, sensitivity. Moreover, undesirable preputial sensations such as pain, discomfort and irritation must be considered. While results are somewhat mixed, one study found reduced pain in 69% of men after circumcision [8]. Thus it would seem that a more important question is whether sexual pleasure is affected. In two very much larger surveys, no association was found between circumcision status and failure to enjoy sex [9,10]." Regardless, there's no need to assert the existence of a consensus without a source - if it is truly obvious then it isn't necessary to say it. Jakew (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why you have been so keen to eliminate Hutchinson! We could have saved ourselves a lot of time shadow boxing over mythical OR had you made this clear in the first place. While I think it's a loss to the article, and its inclusion would have more fairly represented the historical balance of views on the role of the foreskin in sexual pleasure, what we are left with is at least adequate. I'm prepared to let things stand rather than waste more time. 203.214.25.155 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient/medieval section problems

I have fixed some of the most obvious errors, but there definitely remain some sourcing problems. Much of the text is cribbed from Remondino, who by almost any standard is not a reliable source and is itself based on very old scholarship. I've put in a couple of fact tags for specific claims that are almost certainly wrong. In addition to this cleanup work, which will take a couple of more goes, we need to add the changes in circumcision practice instituted by Jews to stop foreskin restoration during the Hellenistic period--203.214.25.155 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, The current article is very Jewish-oriented. We need to meaningfully cover controversies related to Islam, which was after all responsible for the main distribution of cir we see today. Unfortunately, I'm less familiar with the literature here, so any help on this would be much appreciated. --203.214.25.155 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done what I can on Islam, so that's pretty much most of content I had in mind for inclusion, though I might do a little polishing here and there over the next couple of days, including removing the last statement with a fact tag, unless someone comes to Remondino's rescue.203.214.25.155 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

aztecs

Not all sources are equal.

1. Not certain what the verification request was referring to, but the phrase is a direct quote from the reliable source which I have now put in quote marks.
2. The "sources" now mentioned as still saying the Aztecs practised circumcision are medical and on this question are effectively tertiary in nature, rather than reliable secondary sources. I am not aware of any source in the relevant areas (history, ethnography or anthropology) that has gone beyond Bancroft. If one existed, it would change the nature of the discussion somewhat. Hence the addition of the qualifier in that paragraph.
3. There is effectively a citation chain here where, as far as I can tell, all references actually return to the same two pages in Bancroft, although often one or two steps removed. For instance, Remondino's treatement is entirely a crib of Bancroft (and is referenced as such). Others then cite Remondino, who are in turn are cited by others ...
4. The reason for this peculiar state of affairs is that there are only about a dozen primary sources written in rather antique Spanish, and a complete absence of archeological data. So anyone wanting to come to a different conclusion than Bancroft would have have to read these documents and then publish their new interpretation somewhere. Or some new document may come to light. These things may have happened, perhaps in another language, but I can find no sign of it, so we effectively have only one truly reliable secondary source.
5. I may be wrong, of course, but in which case what is required is another reliable source in the relevant area of expertise. --203.214.25.155 (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is my translation of the relevant passage from the de Landa manuscript: "At times they sacrificed their own blood, cutting all around the ears in strips which they let hang as a sign. At other times they perforated their cheeks or the lower lip; again they made cuts in parts of the body, or pierced the tongue crossways and passed stalks through, causing extreme pain; again they hewed at the superfluous part of the penis, leaving the flesh in the form of two floppy ears. It was this custom which misled [engaño] the historian-general of the Indies to say that they practised circumcision."--203.214.25.155 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian West in lead

To avoid implying all people in the Christian West inherited Greek and Roman antipathy to circumcision, suggest this formulation:

"The Ancient Greeks and Romans valued the foreskin and were opposed to circumcision – an opposition inherited by the canon and secular legal systems of the Christian West."

Sourced, as is currently the case in the body of the article to Hodges: These restrictions on circumcision made their way into both secular and canon law and "at least through the Middle Ages, preserved and enhanced laws banning Hebrews from circumcising non-Hebrews and banning Christians or slaves of any religious affiliation from undergoing circumcision for any reason." Johncoz (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That still seems very problematic to me. Do we really know that all legal systems incorporated some form of opposition to circumcision? Also, this wording would seem to imply that this is still the case in the present day, which is not really the case. Jakew (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

On the second issue, our source is clear, so we could simply "up until at least medieval times". On the first point, the criteria is verifiability, for which our source must be reliable (peer-reviewed journal), our statement must be an accurate reflection of what the source says (it is), and there are no other reliable sources that contradict the our source (don't know of any). For what it's worth there are lots of specific examples in the literature of this eg death penalty reintroduced in Visigoth Spain, Italian city states urging Pope to take action under canon law to stop alleged circumcision of Christian boys, etc. Johncoz (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are lots of specific examples. However, one can easily find lots of examples of people who dislike eating brussells sprouts, but it would be erroneous to conclude that such a dislike is universal. I can see two possible solutions. First, we could make an attributed statement of the form "according to Hodges, ..." Second, we can avoid implying that this view is current or universal by tweaking the language: "... some secular legal systems of the Christian West, at least until the Middle Ages." Jakew (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The examples were for your info, not an argument. Statement will be attributed, by citation. Formulations such as "according to X" are only necessary when there is actual or implied disagreement in our sources. It's a lead, and the matter is covered in greater detail in the body. The issue is whether this is verifiable: ie is it an accurate reflection of a reliable and uncontested source. It is, so I can't see a ground for objection. You seem to be saying you don't think it's true but with respect, that's irrelevant. Johncoz (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:ASF, which requires us to distinguish between facts and opinions, and — most significantly — requires us to assert that an opinion is held rather than asserting that it is true. That Hodges believes it to be true is not disputed. However, the fact that an author has asserted something does not mean that we are required to assert it ourselves. As a practical matter, it is impossible to prove or disprove Hodges' theory, so it is logical to document the fact that he makes the assertion. (As an aside, the circumcision articles tend, as a rule, to err on the side of asserting that individuals state X rather than asserting X, even when not strictly necessary.) Jakew (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well in this case it is a statement about canon and secular law that Hodges is asserting as a historical fact, but even if one were to take a different view, an inline citation is surely all that is required. We are not asserting it, we are accurately summing up what the source has said. If there are no conflicting sources, then this is the preferred practice. The reason circ articles do so much "according to" is because the sources contradict each other and we need to attribute the different opinions in the text. That is not the case here. Johncoz (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

People frequently assert their opinions as facts, Johncoz, so we must be careful in assessing them. Sometimes there is a grey area in which the opinions might also be facts, but we don't have enough data to be certain. In such a situation, it is best to be cautious: rather than asserting that the Christian West opposed circumcision (which is asserting a fact) we state that "Hodges has argued ...". Finally, I should point out that the existence of conflicting sources, while important, is not the only issue. An equally important issue is the prevalence of the first viewpoint — that is, is the position held by just a single source, or is it "common knowledge", asserted by multiple sources? Jakew (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Indent cancel) WP:ASF says: By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." What is required then is a source that disputes the Hodges statement or a source that provides even a single counter-example. Most historical facts are not "provable", but they are subject to falsification. As for prevalence, all the historical works I have read that bear on this question show an implacable legal and popular hostility to the circumcision of Christians right through to the Early Modern period. If you are aware of any source showing something different, I would be very interested indeed. The evidence in fact is far stronger than for instance the rescripts of Antoninus or indeed Hadrian's ban, which have no direct documentary support, but are generally agreed by historians as being supported by indirect evidence. Johncoz (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For instance, John Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, p166) gives a list of proscribed practices in the early Christian West, which includes regular bathing,lending at interest, eating kosher food and practising circumcision. Hodges is no Robinson Crusoe here. (btw the Spanish were still appalled by regular bathing, particularly of babies, among the Mayans, and did their utmost to stamp it out). This is NOT controversial. Johncoz (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Johncoz, I am perfectly aware that it is, in principle, possible to falsify purported facts, but there is little point in trying to find such evidence here as it would constitute original research. WP:ASF implies that it is acceptable to use one's judgement in assessing whether something is a fact or an opinion ("There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions"), and you seem to acknowledge that it is unprovable so I think we must agree that it is an opinion. Furthermore, it is not the case that we must assert as fact anything that is asserted by a reliable source and yet is not (to our knowledge) disputed. In fact, if that were the case, it would have some detrimental consequences. Consider, for example, if Fred Bloggs asserts in a "reliable" source that he was abducted by aliens and nobody takes it seriously enough to dispute it — should Wikipedia also make such an assertion? Jakew (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of further arguments, I have made the change as amended by discussion and moved the Hodges ref up to support it.Johncoz (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As a hopefully final note, Hodges supports his statement with the following citation:

68. Amnon Linder, ed., The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997), pp. 28, 35, 38, 49, 52–58, 73, 84, 87, 104, 106, 113–19, 127, 133–36, 141–44, 147, 155–58, 170, 172, 213, 214, 226, 233, 238, 242–44, 248–53, 257, 260, 264, 268, 270, 274, 278, 285, 290, 295, 314, 351, 406, 409, 413, 416, 485, 488, 499, 519, 543, 576–77, 583, 587, 612–13, 617, 619–20, 636, 656, 658, 669, 670, 679. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncoz (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor changes for readability, and have added a prose attribution for neutrality. Jakew (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Image

Studiodan has repeatedly inserted Image:Fine Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis.gif into the article.

The relevance of this image is unclear. It is vaguely related to the article, in that one sentence of the article discusses an article by Sorrells et al., and the image shows the mean figures reported by those authors. However, the image does not illustrate a controversy (and because it shows only means and not confidence intervals it cannot even be said to allow the reader to make his/her own evaluation of what is controversial about Sorrells' data). So it is unclear why it belongs here. Jakew (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has undergone a major makeover in the past few weeks. The guiding principle in trying to cover three thousand years of controversies has been to only deal with the substance of the issues to the extent that is necessary to explain each controversy. This article is not for substantive discussion of the issues themselves, which is why for instance there is only a single paragraph on HIV. This is not the right place for the graph, which is extraneous to the purpose of this article, and would provide excessive coverage for a single issue that is already generously dealt with in the text. I have deleted the image. Johncoz (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The archives of this talk page

I've just re-shuffled the archives of this talk page. I discovered that there were two talk page archives at Talk:Genital integrity/Archive 1 and Talk:Genital integrity/Archive2; a former title of this page was "genital integrity" - see the earliest edit to this talk page for evidence. I thought that it made sense to move the talk page archives so they could be in sync with the history of the article, but there was a problem: while moving the article "Opposition to circumcision" to "Circumcision controversies", Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) also moved the talk pages of the former article "circumcision advocacy" to subpages of this talk page with this eventual result:

• Talk:Circumcision advocacy/Archive 1 and Talk:Circumcision advocacy/Archive 2 were moved to Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 1 and Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 2
• Talk:Circumcision advocacy was moved to Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 3

I reversed these moves before moving the archives formerly at the genital integrity titles. I believe the genital integrity archives would have been difficult to discover because they weren't moved when the genital integrity article was moved in September 2008. I discovered these missing archives when following up the move log of Joie de Vivre (talk · contribs), a user who often archived pages by moving them. Some of that user's archiving was over-enthusiastic and caused several other problems. I believe that a re-merge of the talk page archives at this point would cause extreme confusion, so it's best to leavve them as they are now. Graham87 15:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus to support a move here. Also per result at Talk:Circumcision, which also resulted in no move being performed. Taelus (Talk) 09:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Circumcision controversies → Controversies regarding male circumcision — There is a considerable amount of material that falls within the remit of this article as it is currently titled, but it not currently covered by it. I have also launced a requested move of Circumcision. FormerIP (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessarily wordy. "Circumcision controversies" is short and concise. Let's keep it. Jakew (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure the proposed title is a particularly succinct one. However, the article only discusses male circumcision, and makes no mention of female circumcision. The current title is not therefore appropriate. Suggest a move to Male circumcision controversies. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose that, too, as "circumcision" is the commonly-used term for penile circumcision. Jakew (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support As this article does not deal with the great deal of controversy surrounding female genital cutting, which if anything is more commonly considered controversial than that of men. I also personally think "Controversies regarding male circumcision" is very clear and precise, while "Circumcision controversies" and even "Male circumcision controversies" are vague and imprecise by comparison. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jakew. -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as "circumcision" properly can refer only to removal of the penile foreskin. A hatnote to Female genital cutting would serve to assist any readers led astray. Powers ^T 21:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a sub-article of Circumcision, so the scope and naming should match the parent article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support In cultures where male genital cutting is a common practice and female genital cutting is not a common practice, the term "circumcision" is used to describe male genital cutting. However in non-circumcising cultures the term "male circumcision" is used to distinguish male genital cutting from female genital cutting. Wikipedia articles should present the more global POV and not be limited to the POV of cultures that practice male genital cutting. - DanBlackham (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

There Should be more External Links for scholars to study in the future

Here's an archive of a few dead webpages that were in early versions of this article: http://web.archive.org/web/20050213190950/http://www.drjesin.com/brisResponsa.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20020607061535/http://circinfo.net/anti_circ.html ENJOY!!! Historys Docs (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Historys Docs (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've missed the point of the "external links" section, Historys Docs. Per policy, Wikipedia is not a repository of links that might be useful to scholars. Further, they should "they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article" (see WP:EL) In other words, we shouldn't try to provide an exhaustive set of links, we should just provide a small set of useful links. Jakew (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point at all, friend. I notice you've added your own self-created Vanity Link -- Circs.org maintained by Jake Waskett -- of Pro-circumcision articles to the "External Links/Circumcision promotion" in the Circumcision article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision ... yet you're running around deleting the historical & respected links that offend your stated personal view. I can only imagine why. Wikipedia's policy is not that there is a mandatory upper limit to External Links, nor does the Wikipedia policy disdain External Links, as you imply, "that might be useful to scholars." Take a look at the Milan Kundera article I've been editing -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundera -- it has nineteen External Links. Maybe you ought to run over there and set those scholars straight.

Historys Docs (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly (though I'm not sure why it's relevant to this article), I'm puzzled by your assertion that I added the circs.org link to the circumcision article. What evidence do you have for that claim? It seems clear from the history of that article that it was added by Tremello22 (talk · contribs), in this edit, so I am inclined to wonder whether you took the trouble to check your facts.

Secondly, I am also perplexed by your claim that I'm "running around deleting the historical & respected links that offend your stated personal view". What evidence do you have that deleted links "offend my stated personal view"? If you don't have any evidence, then how appropriate is it to make claims about my motives? (Answer: not at all. See WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.)

Finally, I have already explained and quoted from applicable policy above, and there seems little point in repeating myself. I would agree that the external links at the Kundera article seem excessive, but since Wikipedia has more than a million articles I clearly cannot take personal responsibility for all of them. Jakew (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

non-responsive & defensive, friend... your pro-circ link on the circumcision page... I'll link it elsewhere... is there a Wikipedia article on male youth raging against progress? Historys Docs (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that some self-proclaimed devotees of circumcision set their own standard for the acceptable number of External Links in this article. (You know who you are.) You'll see that the "Female genital cutting" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision,_female has nineteen External Links. Some of you readers could hustle over there and set things right with an edit... unless you just apply your "limited number standard" for personal issues.... Historys Docs (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sloppy Reader Edits

For the benefit of those who may not have seen the deleted sentence in Medical advocacy and opposition: "The first known public demonstration against the practice took place in 1980." [45] http://web.archive.org/web/20001204164500/sexuallymutilatedchild.org/carv.htm The hasty reader who glibly deleted it apparently does not understand the historicity of Web Archives. Historys Docs (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This material was removed for two reasons (as explained in the edit summary). Firstly, it does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources; in fact, since it was a private website, it was a self-published source and hence unsuitable for use as a source. (The fact that the site no longer exists adds nothing to its reliability.) Secondly, it failed to support the claim attributed to it: nowhere does that source claim that this was the first known public demonstration. Jakew (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

response fail Historys Docs (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

why would an AP article rather than a historian declare this to be the earliest example?

It would be the historian's job to find an earlier documented example. Good luck -- they won't find it. Historys Docs (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, does the AP article say? Jakew (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Verification Needed

What would be acceptable verification? Historys Docs (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the "verification needed" tag because I wanted to confirm that the source cited fully supported the claim attributed to them. However, after your recent edits, it now seems much more plausible and I am happy for the material to remain without further verification. It seems a little excessive to cite three sources, though: if they all support the claim then I would suggest picking the "best" (say the newspaper with a reputation for reliable, accurate reporting) of the three. Jakew (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Historys Docs (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction for Scholars & Historians

Historians & Scholars may click on the Symbol $\infty$ to find an archive of this introduction.

A thoughtful inquiry into the circumcision debate assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism. According to custom,[13] male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the healthy infant's penis, so the practice has become controversial in modern times.[14] It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism and human rights. Their dismissal of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on the infant's rights more difficult.[15] $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I fear you have the wrong talk page, POV Detective. You didn't propose that paragraph as part of the introduction to this article; you proposed it for another article, at Talk:Ethics of circumcision#New Lead Paragraph. Jakew (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ didn't mean to cause User to "fear." The Introduction For Scholars, as edited herein, works for this article as well, since there is so much overlap between Ethics & Controversy. (btw, no word yet on User's support of vague Bible citations as fact in the article on Circumcision and law. $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Celebrities section

I have removed the recently-added section, "Celebrity comments relating to circumcision", which is problematic for several reasons:

1. Several sources (http://www.colinfarrellfansite.com/k2news/Archive.php?Action=ShowNews&NewsID=69, http://www.circumstitions.com/Famous2a.html#leguizamo, and http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/baby-aguilera-circumcised_1057019) do not meet the reliability requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.
2. Once the above sources have been removed, what's left? A patron of an anti-circumcision organisation opposes circumcision (how unexpected), an American Actor opposes "routine infant circumcision", and an American Actress enjoyed her son's circumcision ceremony. Note that the last isn't even an opinion about circumcision in general. This is bordering on WP:TRIVIA.
3. In fact, an important question is this: if these people were not famous, would these views be of interest? Almost certainly not. And since this is an encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper, I suggest that they do not belong here. Jakew (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Redundant mention of Bayesian study

There is no mention of circumcision in the study cited on Bayesian study of comparative Semitic languages, and has no bearing on the subject whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.56.96 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Regional specifics

It should be noted in the article that the controversy around circumcision is just purely American thing. In the continental Europe it's not an issue at all, because the numbers of circumcised men are relatively low. People would be considered crazy if they protested against circumcision here. --Bangsa (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That circumcision is less prevalent in Europe doesn't mean it's not an issue here. Some countries have laws against it as a routine practice without medical need. It was recently a big issue (with jews saying things such as "this is no longer a country for jews") in Germany after a court decision that the circumcision was illegal over a case of a kid the jews had circumcised and he had a medical complication with it. --Imploder (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede consists of only one sentence, which is bad style. Is it worth adding a sentence clarifying that what is controversial in the U.S. is routine neonatal circumcision performed for non-religious reasons, whereas what is controversial in Europe is whether whether religious freedom should trump the right to bodily integrity? Circumcision is viewed so differently in the U.S. than how it is viewed everywhere else (except for perhaps South Korea) that this clarification would be helpful, I think. – Herzen (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

New York City regulation

Regarding the removal, [16], apparently the editorial writer of the New York Sun found it controversial. Why take it out? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason, thank you for taking this to Talk instead of reverting. There's a number of reasons why this article isn't the right place for this:

• It's off-topic regarding circumcision as used across the several Wikipedia articles regarding this procedure. Circumcision is the procedure that removes the foreskin from the penis. What the editorial is talking about is getting parents to sign informed-consent forms for metzitza bipeh, which is not part of the circumcision procedure, so it's off-topic here. This content, or something like it, might fit in at Brit_milah#Suction, metzitzah technique.
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is best if we don't rush to include everything the minute it comes out, only to have to change it later. We take the long view. I don't think this proposal has even been put in front of a vote yet, has it? Even if it does get voted on, there are still lots of things that can happen to it. Best to wait until there's a significant outcome that shows a lasting effect before adding it.
• Last, and probably most important, is that this article is WP:PRIMARY. This is one editorial by one paper. I read through a recent published secondary source on the topic of circumcision controversies, a paper by K Pinto (PUBMED ID 22857844), and metzitza bipeh is not discussed by this WP:SECONDARY source as one of the notable controversies. We as Wikipedia editors don't get to decide what's important or not, we have to use what secondary sources tell us is important.

Hope this is clear, please let me know if you have any more questions. Zad68 17:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. It is an editorial [17]. I don't see how that makes it primary since it is talking about the proposed actions of another actor, the NYC government. If it were a government document it would be primary. I don't see how it is off-topic since it is about part of the circumcision process and the title of the article "New York To Regulate Circumcision" shows the editor sees it that way. I'm sympathetic to the conservative sentiment to wait to see if this becomes significant. Wouldn't you like the reader to know this is being discussed in the USA? Jason from nyc (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The tough part about "Wouldn't you like the reader to know" is that it doesn't matter what we would like or not like. In fact, we must suppress our feelings on we would like the article to say. Our opinions on these things don't matter, and we must not edit with the goal of attracting attention to something or promoting an idea.

And the editorial is clearly primary. The editorial board is engaging in the debate, not discussing the debate, and so the editorial is primary regarding the general subject of this debate. If there were another source that surveyed the existing primary sources like this editorial and other primary sources, and made general observations about the debate, that would be secondary. We should not use primary sources. We have secondary sources on this topic and so that is what we need to use. Zad68 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, we can easily supply news reports instead of editorials, such as [18], [19], and [20]. However, I'll gladly deter to the long-term editors who has so painstakingly fashion a reasonable balanced article on whether this latest controversy is WP:UNDUE weight. I offered the item in good faith and leave it to the consensus here to take it or leave it. I have nothing more to contribute on this issue. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jason... as I mentioned earlier, discussion of metzitza bipeh is at Brit_milah#Suction, metzitzah technique and that is where this content could go most reasonably. It's really off-topic relative to the circumcision debate itself, which concerns whether or not the procedure of removing the foreskin should be done, and really doesn't concern itself with this rarely-performed (relative to the number of circumcisions worldwide) post-procedure religious ritual. Zad68 03:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

first occurrence of a term isn't linked, the second is.

i uncontroversially changed the first mention of Brian Morris (biologist) to the full Brian Morris from the current shortened, Morris, and added a piped link to the article. but i am going to (maybe controversially) leave the second mention of his name as the full Brian Morris, as it doesn't appear in the article, after the lead, until about 2 thirds of the way down. i think i'll also leave the link at this second mention too, again, as it doesn't appear until near the end of the article, and he's mentioned 7 times in 2 paragraphs. --Sensorsweep (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't this page linked to from the main Circumcision article?

See my comment on the main article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#Circumcision_controversies Hawkeye499 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye, it is linked, see the See alsos listed here: Circumcision#Ethical and legal issues. Zad68 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Genital integrity as a separate page.

Genital integrity refers to a the human right to be free of all forms of genital mutilation, not only male circumcision. This topic belongs in its own page. It is so obvious, that I am tempted to do make a new page to copy and paste it to right now, but I am a new editor, so I will wait to see who else might have input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 06:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)