Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:05, 13 April 2009 editCoppertwig (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,281 edits →Compensation for botched circumcision: Concur with Jakew's points in this section← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:32, 13 April 2009 edit undoTremello (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,999 edits →Compensation for botched circumcision: replyNext edit →
Line 210:		Line 210:
	::This article is a very brief summary of all the available information about circumcision. The information has been moved to the circumcision and law article; it's reasonable to have it there. Here, it isn't of comparable notability to the other information in this article.		::This article is a very brief summary of all the available information about circumcision. The information has been moved to the circumcision and law article; it's reasonable to have it there. Here, it isn't of comparable notability to the other information in this article.
	::Tremello, in the interests of keeping the subarticles up-to-date and in line with this article, I suggest that in future you add information to the sub-articles first, and then afterwards, if you think it appropriate, add the same information or a brief summary of it to this article. I encourage you to follow ] rather than re-adding material to which opposition has been expressed before there has been time for a good amount of discussion. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)		::Tremello, in the interests of keeping the subarticles up-to-date and in line with this article, I suggest that in future you add information to the sub-articles first, and then afterwards, if you think it appropriate, add the same information or a brief summary of it to this article. I encourage you to follow ] rather than re-adding material to which opposition has been expressed before there has been time for a good amount of discussion. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

			::: Coppertwig, it isn't about the complication per se and how rare it is; it is about the massive pay out as a result of the botched circumcision. You copy Jake's weak point about it not being related to circumcision. Seems like you are clutching at straws there. You also make a point about quality of source which I have already expressed my concerns about. The point is: you go with the best source available ''to improve the article''. Maybe next time you can read the whole discussion before commenting? Otherwise, it might seem like you are looking for reasons to remove information. I realise you and Jake both share a pro-circumcision point of view, that differs from mine, but compensation due to botched circumcision is notable and in this instance particularly notable due to the size of the payout and because it may set a legal precedent. Following ], I am willing to leave it at Jake's version because I find arguing and being pedantic over minor things tiresome. ] (]) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 13 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Effect of circumcision on HIV infection & other STD's

There's a large new randomized prospective trial that was published in the latest New England Journal of Medicine on male circumcision and its effects on prevention of HSV-2, HPV and syphilis in Uganda. I'll post the link as soon as the site posts what's already been printed on paper.

Also, I was looking at the intro paragraph to the HIV:

"The origin of the theory that circumcision can lower the risk of a man contracting HIV is disputed. Since the idea was first mooted, over 40 epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection. Reviews of these studies have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV."

At this point, with several well-designed experimental studies published, the epidemiologic data seem less relevant. Any objections to condensing the paragraph to the following?

"Over 40 epidemiological studies, with contradictory conclusions, have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection." Wawot1 (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the basic idea, Wawot1, but not with the proposed edit. I think it would be misleading to say that these studies have had "contradictory conclusions", which might be interpreted as meaning that the results of these studies were highly inconsistent. Observational studies generally find a negative association between circumcision and HIV infection. With the exception of Van Howe, authors of meta-analyses were generally in agreement on this, but disagreed about whether observational data alone were sufficient to support a recommendation of circumcision as intervention.

How about this instead: "Over 40 epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection; reviews have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV." Jakew (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wawot1 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. The U.S. has the highest AIDS rate and highest STD rates of any indutrailized country in the world, although in most industrailized countries near 0% of males are circumcised. Dozens of studies show that circumcisions do not reduce the risk of males getting AIDS. So especially outside of the U.S. many medical organizations state that there are conflicting evidences if circumcisions help protect against AIDS and STD's or not. I think it is very misleading to cherry-pick evidences and claim that circumcisions help protect against AIDS and STD's when there are so many conflicting evidences. You guys are doing a good jobJew1000x (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please cite some reliable sources for your claims?Wawot1 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, Rwandan men are more likely to have HIV if they've been circumcised: 3.5% of intact Rwandan men have HIV 2.1% of circumcised Rwandan men have HIV (figures from http://www.measuredhs.com/hivdata/reports/start.cfm) Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Tanzania. That's at least seven African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised, and yet we see health organizations promoting circumcision to prevent HIV. What will it take to stop this madness? I'm mot an epidemiologist, but I am a doctor and incomplete justifications are nothing more than guessing and often lead to misdiagnoses. I don't know why this bias exists, but for once there are a lot of those of the Judaic faith in medicine, especially in the U.S. As a member of the Judaic faith myself, I can attest bias may be at hand. Ambiguity is the only safe argument Jew1000x (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"As a member of the Judaic faith myself"? LOL! Nice try. Jayjg 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great website. I couldn't find your statistics about circumcision on it though. Regardless, all of the data there are from sample surveys and are observational. Those kind of data can only demonstrate correlation, but not causality. The three randomized studies showing that circumcision reduces HIV incidence were randomized prospective trials and this type of study can say something about causality. Wawot1 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

New African study conclusive, unless we turn against science itself

The new African study is so conclusive that people who questioned circumcision can take pride in having demanded scientific data in support of circumcision's health benefits. That data has been supplied. At this point, the only way to deny circumcision's health benefits is to deny the scientific method, or to impute deceit by our most respected news organizations. "When reason is against a man, a man will soon be against reason." Well, let's hope not.Profhum (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"March 25, 2009 — Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HIV and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection and the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, suggesting potential public health benefits, according to the results of a randomized controlled trial reported in the March 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine."

"Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of...HIV infection among men in three clinical trials," write Aaron A.R. Tobian, MD, PhD, from Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues. "We assessed the efficacy of male circumcision for the prevention of...HSV-2 and...HPV infections and syphilis in HIV-negative adolescent boys and men." ...

"Male circumcision has now been shown to decrease the rates of HIV, HSV-2, and HPV infections in men and of trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis in their female partners," the study authors conclude. "Circumcision also reduces symptomatic ulceration in HIV-negative men and women and HIV-positive men. Thus, male circumcision reduces the risk of several sexually transmitted infections in both sexes, and these benefits should guide public health policies for neonatal, adolescent, and adult male circumcision programs."

Circumcision May Reduce Incidence of HIV, HSV-2, HPV Infection CME

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD

CME Author: Charles Vega, MD, FAAFP

Disclosures

Release Date: March 25, 2009; Valid for credit through March 25, 2010

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/590110?src=cmemp

-- Fyslee (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's the one turning against science?

Your claims regarding the scientific method and reason are classically mistaken. First, the countries with the lowest HIV rates in the world do not practice circumcision. This alone is scientific proof (a la scientific method) that circumcision is entirely unnecessary to achieve the lowest rates of HIV infection. It would thus be completely folly to suggest that men in countries with low HIV rates (European countries, for example) should cut the tips off their penises based on the evidence you've presented. Further, the studies you cite could actually lead young people towards the FALSE belief that they could avoid HIV infection by circumcision with the result being that young circumcised males might not use condoms. Or perhaps an HIV positive man who is circumcised would be less likely to tell a partner with the FALSE hope that there is a low(er) risk of spreading infection. This could lead to an increase in HIV. Again, the lowest HIV rates in the world are in countries that do not circumcise.

Having said that, I'm curious why the issue of cleanliness and access to fresh water is not discussed in this article. The nations that circumcise all arise from relatively arid cultures (israel and Palestine, arab countries, and sub-saharan africa) where regular bathing was not always possible in ancient times. This may explain the historic practice. After all, the scientific consensus appears to be that circumcision is unnecessary and thus not recommended so long as you practice good basic hygiene (and have access to the fresh water that is necessary).

Catholic Church view on circumcision

Reading the section on the Catholic's view on circumcision, I checked the source material for the cited sentence. However, from what I can understand from the source, what is said on the Wiki page is not the same as what is said in the source. The page currently states that anyone who observes the act of circumcision commits mortal sin, yet the source says that anyone who observes it as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally.. I believe the two sentences are worded differently and should be changed to reflect the intent in the source. Big Samus (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No this is not a correct reading of the cited text, "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.". This is a clear prohibition on circumcision for those who hope for (Catholic) salvation.

However a source more recent than the fifteeth century would be desirable! Circumcision is currently requested by many Catholics for their children for the secular reasons of health, tradition and culture and it would be desirable to include this point with a reference. I will see if I can find one. Dr-zt (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As is so often the case, multiple interpretations exist; for a couple of sources see History of circumcision#Male circumcision in the Renaissance. Jakew (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision is also currently rejected by many Catholics on the grounds that it is an unnecessary infliction of great pain and mutilation upon a helpless infant. It would be desirable to include this point with a reference. I will see if I can find one. Blackworm (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MgmBill etc

I'm reverting this edit, which has several problems:

A bill known as the Genital Mutilation Prohibition Act seeks to amend the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 so that boys, intersex individuals, and nonconsenting adults may also be protected from genital mutilation.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://mgmbill.org/usmgmbill2009.pdf |format=PDF|title = Genital Mutilation Prohibition Act}}</ref>

Several problems here:

unreliable sources. MgmBill.org is a self-published source, and hence is unsuitable for use as a source.
Accuracy. It's questionable whether the word "bill" can accurately be used. Until adopted and sponsored by a legislator, it is merely something that a private individual would like to see as a bill.
Questionable notability. The existence of a pdf file, purporting to be a "bill", on a privately held website is not a good reason for it to be mentioned in Misplaced Pages. We would need evidence that this bill is notable, and sufficiently so to warrant inclusion.
Lack of neutrality. The phrase "may also be protected from genital mutilation" implies that circumcision is a form of mutilation. Some hold this opinion. Others do not.

The US Federal Law states that whoever knowingly circumcises any part of a female who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined or imprisoned. No such law exists pertaining to male circumcision.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC116 |format=HTML|title = U.S. Code Laws}}</ref>

Again, some problems here:

This article is about circumcision of males, which the source does not even mention. This violates WP:NOR, which requires that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (emph in original)
Since the source doesn't mention circumcision of males, it should be blatantly obvious that the source does not support the claim that "No such law exists pertaining to male circumcision". Again, this is original research.

Jakew (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

MGM Bill

As the rules state, it must been previously published by reliable third-party publications. It has been re-published on the following reliable third-party publications.
The bill has been adopted by numerous legislators as you can easily find here
See responses to one and two.
That is a direct quote from the bill itself. We can edit it, or you can censor what you don't want others to see. It appears you have chosen the later. Let's set bias aside please.

US LAW

The law is regarding the bill, which pertains to male circumcision. Regardless of the fact that it was probably the most relevant entry under the section of Consent, and the most balanced and neutral of all views under this section by nature of it's inclusion of both sexes, unlike what is there now (which is besides the point, because it was pertaining to the bill which is about male circumcision).
We could edit it, or you can censor what you don't want others to see. It appears you have chosen the later. Let's set bias aside please.

--201dan (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being helpful, Jake is being deliberately difficult trying to stop this information being put in. A quick google search shows that the MGM bill is real: CNN, A proposed bill to ban male circumcision. It is obviously relevant to the topic of male circumcision. Tremello22 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

201dan, let me address your points in order:

First, if reliable third-party publications have published something about a website, then those may be reliable sources. However, the page to which you link appears to be a list of anti-circumcision websites (most of which are also WP:SPS). The CNN link cited by Tremello is better - that is at least a reliable source, though of course that doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be included in this article.
Second, the search page to which you link does not support your assertion that the "bill" has been adopted by numerous legislators.
Third, material can be edited for neutrality, but there is no point to doing this unless it is clear that material belongs in the article. As I noted above, the notability of the "bill" is questionable.
Fourth, you've failed to address the fact that policy prohibits inclusion of material that is not directly related to the subject of the article. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset you Jake- it was merely a valid observation. I think I am allowed that. You do make it difficult. One big problem with your way of looking at things Jake. From what I understand, when a statement is questionable then it is helpful to provide a source. Otherwise you could have the earth article reporting that the world is flat. When it is not (which is clearly the case here)- it isn't a big deal. Your objection is that there is no source to state that there isn't a law against Male genital mutilation. Well there obviously isn't a law. Tremello22 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Tremello, it's not "a valid observation", and you are not "allowed that". Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert Jake. Source is valid and on topic. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted your revert. The material is dubious, and in any event not on topic. Jayjg 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In contrast, I believe as the others here do that when CNN reports about a proposed bill in the U.S. to ban male circumcision, it is quite on topic for the male circumcision article. It seems to be self-evident. I have restored the CNN material, as there seems to be absolutely no argument about the reliability of the source, nor are any OR-based arguments applicable, despite the seemingly inaccurate edit summary left by Jayjg referring to this material as OR, when Jayjg deleted the material in this edit. Blackworm (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed no question as to the reliability or relevance of the CNN source. However, as noted above, there is a question of notability or, put another way, undue weight. Presumably you would not argue that every single news article out there warrants mention in this article, and would agree that some are notable enough to warrant inclusion and others are not. The fact that CNN begin by saying that the proposal has "not yet found a Congressional sponsor and is therefore unlikely to go anywhere in the near future" does not exactly give one confidence that it is of earth-shattering importance. I would think it questionable whether it even belongs in circumcision and law, where there are fewer space limitations. I can see no compelling case for its inclusion here. Indeed, there seems to be a compelling case for omitting it, since inclusion would imply greater significance than is actually the case, and would hence paint a misleading picture. Jakew (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is notable that that there is an organisation that wishes to prohibit male genital mutilation, especially considering they re-submit it every year. It is not relevant what their chances of success are. It is also notable that there exists a law that prohibits female genital mutilation but not one that prohibits male genital mutilation. Tremello22 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, as a hypothetical, consider the following. I register a website called anticircactivistbill.org, in which I propose a "bill" making it illegal to be an anti-circumcision activist. I send it to a bunch of legislators, none of whom express any interest. Undaunted, I send it to them again the following year, and so on. According to your reasoning, it it "notable" that my website (or "organisation") exists, and especially so because I persist in spite of the fact that no legislators have adopted my bill. By that standard it seems that just about anything is notable enough to be in WP. I think we need to set somewhat higher standards than that... Jakew (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you stick to the point Jake and stop making straw man arguments. If you want to convince me you will need to come up with a better analogy. The difference is that nobody would take seriously your hypothetical organisation. It also not part of a wider movement. It is plainly stupid and everyone would see that. CNN obviously takes this seriously - they would not report on your hypothetical organisation unless it was to make fun of it. Tremello22 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This information may be suitable for opposition to circumcision, but given that it has no legal legitimacy (at this point), I don't think it is notable enough for the main article or circumcision and law. If it finds a sponsor and is submitted to the legislature (i.e. becomes an actual bill), I would favor inclusion. AlphaEta 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some more links. Here is an article in the Washington Post that mentions the bill : Here is an article in the British medical journal as well: Another article: Tremello22 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also AlphaEta I disagree with you putting it in the law section. It would be more appropriate in the ethics section. The reason for the bill is that "male circumcision violated the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights." Tremello22 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it notable. If the above sources including CNN find it notable it should be good enough for Misplaced Pages. These objections would be more realistic if it wasn't just pro circumcision editors objecting. This needs to stop. I would be happy to open this up to everyone else through request for comment if necessary. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather incivil to describe editors as "pro-circumcision" (or "anti-circumcision"), and especially so to insinuate that this is the sole basis for their position. Opening a Request for Comment isn't a bad idea, though. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Many apologies Jake if I offend your delicate sensibilities but if your suggesting this being a coincidence I find that laughable,unrealistic and insulting. I'm trying to showcase a demonstratable bias and your illustrating the point. Yes its sad state of affairs but ignoring the situation will not make it go away. All of us need to be as neutral as possible and accept the fact that we have personal bias that flavors our POV. Yes I'm commenting editors and not content. All I'm asking is to stop the petty bickering and wiki lawyering. I revert con and pro sources alike when improperly sourced or clearly OR. If there is notable information pertaining to circumcision it needs to be in this article regardless of our POV. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Period. Jayjg 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see your on board with trying to get everyone to work together Jayjg. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) It is clear that there is no consensus for this addition. I have therefore removed it. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jakew that the material is not sufficiently notable for this article. I saw on my watchlist that it had been deleted, and went to insert it into the Circumcision and law article, but see that essentially similar information is already there. It's just a proposed bill, not actual law, and just in one country. It isn't even being promoted by a congressperson, apparently: it's just a proposal to congress by a group. If it gains a more official status (e.g. if congress is voting on it) then a very brief mention may be appropriate in this article in my opinion (not sure: I'd decide later depending on the situation). Garycompugeek, please see remedies C1, C4, C5, C6 and C7 here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee what a surpise. I will open a request for comment. Let us see what others think who are not involved. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: MGM Bill

Template:RFCsoc

Is this | notable? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article? Similar material is already in the subarticle Circumcision and law. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, like i said above, it also has to do with Ethics. It should go in the Ethics section. "Mr Hess pointed out that “in the real world circumcision is forced upon helpless children.” He said he found it ironic that the UN condemns female circumcision as a human rights violation but encourages male circumcision as a preventive health measure." A short sentence is all that is needed. Alternatively, we can create a new section about the anti-circumcision movement and put it there. The wider anti-circumcision movement is notable and yet there is little mention of this. So a new section is probably best. Tremello22 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the question is not whether the source is notable, but whether what it describes is sufficiently notable that it can be discussed in this article without giving undue weight. The existence of the source simply means that a WP:RS could be cited if the subject were judged sufficiently notable. Jakew (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The CNN article talks about legislation proposed by an advocacy group that was never adopted by any legislator and never made it to the floor of Congress. The other references in the legal section discuss actual laws and court rulings. The CNN editorial is NOT notable enough to be included. --Wawot1 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a quote of a CNN reporter's opinion about ethics is not notable here, but that a quote of Hess (the head of the activist group) may just possibly be marginally notable in the ethics section, of similar notability to the quote of J.M. Glass in the pain section; I suggest that both or neither of these quotes be included in the article, unless good arguments can be made for retaining one but not the other. Following Wawot1's argument I don't think it's notable enough for the law section of this article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of its content, at this stage the document is simply a proposed bill that has been posted to the internet and unsuccessfully sent to members of Congress. It isn't an actual bill (law) and doesn't seem notable enough for the main article. AlphaEta 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact the Bill is not Law is a red herring and irrelevant. The fact that it is about circumcision and talked about by multiple sources is relevant. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Compensation for botched circumcision

Foxnews: Family Awarded $2.3 Million for Botched Circumcision and Law.com: Jury Awards $2.3 Million for Botched Circumcision

Other articles on same story here: http://news.google.co.uk/news?um=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=1323186198

This article gives more info: Prweb.com: $2.3 Million Dollar Jury Verdict for Mother and Son for Botched Circumcision

Should be mentioned in the legal section. The size of the payout makes it notable. Tremello22 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this addition and have moved it to circumcision and law, where there is more space. This personal injury lawsuit occurred as a result of a botched circumcision, but it isn't about the legality of circumcision per se. Jakew (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. That is why I changed the title to legal issues and put it under compensation. Tremello22 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that changing the heading to "legal issues" helps, Tremello. The problem is that this lawsuit is only tangentially related to circumcision. If a doctor botches a surgical procedure, especially in the US, then a lawsuit is not uncommon. This one happened to involve circumcision, but I'm sure that you can find similar personal injury lawsuits involving practically any procedure. Also, given the subject of this article, "compensation" is a poor choice of sub-heading, since it would suggest compensation for circumcision rather than compensation for a botched circumcision. Jakew (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tangentially related or not - it is relevant to the article on circumcision because it was the circumcision that was botched. It is a surgical procedure that doesn't have to be performed. Therefore taking into account the legal considerations when it goes wrong is relevant. In regards to the title I disagree with your assumption. When people read the article they will see that it is compensation for a botched circumcision. Tremello22 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a persuasive argument, Tremello. It's not, strictly speaking, necessary to visit a dental hygienist either, but to litter that article with "legal issues" about personal injury lawsuits resulting from gum injuries would reduce the encyclopaedic value of that article, too.

I agree that people who have already read the section will understand what it discusses. However, that is not a reflection on the heading itself. If a good heading is chosen, however, its meaning will be clear and unambiguous before people read the content.

And while I remember, please would you not use PRWeb press releases as sources. They are self-published sources, and as such are unsuitable for use in Misplaced Pages. Please see WP:SPS. Jakew (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using bad analogies and using them as staw men arguments. What real harm will come from a trip to the dental hygienist? There is a difference in terms of severity. There have also been many documented cases of circumcisions gone wrong. Not just severe complications either. Circumcision is damaging by it's very nature. In regards to PRweb see WP:SENSE and WP:IAR. It improves the article because it provides additional info. I also provided another source so the content is not contentious. Also see WP:WL and WP:GAME.

I can't think of a better sub-title. Here are some additional suggestions: "Compensation payout for botched circumcision" , "Medical malpractice compensation payout". Considering these are quite clunky I suggest we leave it as it is. It may not be perfect but it is the best title I can come up with. Tremello22 (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what harm can come from a visit to a dental hygienist, but I am quite prepared to believe that considerable injury can occur. If I was sufficiently interested I'm sure I could find some sources, but they aren't necessary to make my point, which is that personal injury lawsuits that happen to involve a given procedure are basically trivia within the context of an article about that procedure, and littering an article with such trivia reduces the article's encyclopaedic value.

Regarding your comments about PRWeb, WP:SENSE is neither policy nor guideline, and the purpose of WP:IAR is to apply the intent, rather than necessarily the letter, of policy. It should be used with great care, and certainly does not entitle you to ignore both the intent and the letter. In this case, the obvious intent of WP:SPS (and the letter as well) is to insist on high-quality, reliable, objective sources, and a press release from the law firm representing one of the parties is none of these.

Regarding the sub-heading, I agree that your suggestions are "clunky", but I think this simply reflects the clunkiness of the subject matter. Any accurate heading would probably be clunky, simply because the subject matter is such a poor fit for this article. I am surprised that you overlook an alternative, however, and that alternative is to have no sub-heading at all.

(Edited to add final paragraph.) Jakew (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) When 'complications' happen a lot , they are not trivia Jake. Circumcision isn't just 'a given procedure' as you euphemistically put it. Many complications occur as a result of circumcision. You can't really compare a controversial non-consental, invasive operation like circumcision to dental hygiene. You aren't making a good point, so no, sources aren't necessary.

The intent of WP:IAR is to ignore rules when they inhibit you from improving the article. The PRweb article provided additional information. Information within the PRweb article certainly matches information given in other more reliable articles. What is more, the information added by PRWeb isn't highly contentious. The intent of WP:SPS is to insist on high-quality, reliable, objective sources. This is a noble policy, specifically on a contentious issue, and when high-quality, reliable, objective sources are available. By being difficult you are violating WP:GAME which is a guideline and seems to be policy. Tremello22 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tremello, this particular complication, and resulting lawsuit, has happened once. I'm not saying that it is unique, but to argue that it isn't trivia because it "happens a lot" needs some justification and sourcing. Specifically, one would need a source that comments on the frequency of such complications. But here's the thing: if we found such a source, then it would be far more logical to cite that source instead (and probably in the complications section rather than the legal issues section).

Regarding PRWeb, it may have provided additional information, but it is questionable whether it is encyclopaedic information. How accurate do you imagine it is? How neutral do you think it is? Suppose (as a hypothetical) that lawyers representing the other side were asked to comment on it. Do you imagine that they would praise it for its accuracy and objectivity? I don't know, but I couldn't answer "yes" to that question with any confidence.

I am not "being difficult" regarding this source. I have explained my objections to it, which are sincere, and I resent the implication otherwise. By the way, WP:GAME is a behavioural guideline, not policy. In that respect, it has the same status as WP:AGF, which - incidentally - you might want to re-read. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the points Jakew makes in this section. If such a complication is rare, it probably doesn't need to be mentioned. If it's frequent, a good source would be a peer-reviewed review article assessing how frequent such complications are. When people make mistakes, the U.S. justice system moves large amounts of money around: that doesn't necessarily say anything much about circumcision per se, even if circumcision was involved in this particular mistake.

This article is a very brief summary of all the available information about circumcision. The information has been moved to the circumcision and law article; it's reasonable to have it there. Here, it isn't of comparable notability to the other information in this article.

Tremello, in the interests of keeping the subarticles up-to-date and in line with this article, I suggest that in future you add information to the sub-articles first, and then afterwards, if you think it appropriate, add the same information or a brief summary of it to this article. I encourage you to follow bold, revert, discuss rather than re-adding material to which opposition has been expressed before there has been time for a good amount of discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, it isn't about the complication per se and how rare it is; it is about the massive pay out as a result of the botched circumcision. You copy Jake's weak point about it not being related to circumcision. Seems like you are clutching at straws there. You also make a point about quality of source which I have already expressed my concerns about. The point is: you go with the best source available to improve the article. Maybe next time you can read the whole discussion before commenting? Otherwise, it might seem like you are looking for reasons to remove information. I realise you and Jake both share a pro-circumcision point of view, that differs from mine, but compensation due to botched circumcision is notable and in this instance particularly notable due to the size of the payout and because it may set a legal precedent. Following bold, revert, discuss, I am willing to leave it at Jake's version because I find arguing and being pedantic over minor things tiresome. Tremello22 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories: