Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:35, 18 August 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Body Modification (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification

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, 85

Archive guide Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Definition of circumcision

According to the current dictionary citation used, circumcision includes females. I made an edit to make the article reflect this, but User:Jayjg reverted my edit. I disagree unless we are going to change the title. It seems User:Jayjg has assumed ownership of this article. Many dictionary references support my definition : and and dozens more Someone65 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages currently states that;

male circumcision = circumcision

female circumcision (see link) = mutilation

This is biased in favor of circumcision. Someone65 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're a bit too late to comment on the latest requested move, but yes, this argument has been made and repeatedly found to have no consensus for or against. Thus the dispute continues. It's unfortunate that in the meanwhile the article does not appropriately reflect the fact that it is disputed with a tag, but such is the interpretation of policy by those on one side of the dispute, who keep removing any tags they say "deface" the article. The editors on the other side of the dispute have apparently accepted that the disruption caused by editwarring over the tag (despite its clearly being appropriate, according to policy) possibly outweighs the benefit of the tag; and have chosen to be the side that does not editwar their preferred version despite a lack of consensus for either position (to their credit), nor even editwar the tag clearly shown to have community approval in these circumstances (to their outstanding credit). Blackworm (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone65, please review the discussion in the section immediately above this. In that discussion, as in previous page move discussions, the consensus was that "circumcision" alone signifies "male circumcision", as in common and academic usage "circumcision" alone is overwhelmingly used to mean "circumcision of the penis". Jayjg 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time you repeat this, despite my pointing out that no consensus (for or against) was reached in that discussion. This is clear to anyone simply scrolling up to the top of the highlighted text on this page. Your invalid argument is common to several editors supporting your position, but I again claim it is incivil behaviour as it misrepresents community consensus in support of a disputed position. Blackworm (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, 11 editors with a combined total of over 358,000 live edits supported the view that "circumcision" commonly means "circumcision of the penis", while 5 editors with a combined total of over 63,000 live edits opposed that view, and 3 editors were neutral or unclear. So yeah, there was a consensus for that view, as "is clear to anyone simply scrolling up to the top of the highlighted text on this page". Therefore, if it is indeed "incivil" to "misrepresent community consensus in support of a disputed position", then you should stop doing so. And, as I've mentioned before, the correct word is "uncivil", not "incivil". It's "incivility" but "uncivil"; that English is inconsistent is an unfortunate but well-recognized truth. Jayjg 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As I point out elsewhere, you were not the closing admin, and the closing admin didn't appear to find a consensus in that discussion. Your original research regarding numbers of edits, even if accurate, is irrelevant. Your !vote count, I dismiss as inherently biased, but even if it were completely accurate and neutral -- would again to irrelevant to the question, which is whether a consensus was found that this article is titled appropriately for the topic it discusses. WP:UCN does not override WP:NPOV, anyway, so even if editors agree it's "common" (I'm sure some on the other side do, too) doesn't mean they support the continued organization here (nor the desired changes that you, Jakew, and Avraham have currently editwarred into Circumcision and law). Blackworm (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've pointed out that the closing admin in no way disagreed with what I said, which was an accurate summary of the clear consensus. As for that other article, someone has finally undone the changes non-consensual changes you've edit-warred for many months to keep in it. Jayjg 12:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin never commented on what you said after the RM, so his agreement or disagreement with your claim is unknown. I never claimed the closing admin disagreed with you, in fact I suggested asking them directly whether they agree with you. Can you address that suggestion, please? My view is that the uncontested fact that male circumcision is commonly referred to as circumcision does not make it appropriate (nor does a consensus exist) to make the edits you support, either here or in circumcision and law. No wider consensus against that position has been shown to exist. Finally, your assessment of consensus is clearly not neutral nor uninvolved owing to your high level of involvement in the dispute and prior disputes.

As for your claim regarding the other article, I claim it to be patently false, as evidenced by that page's edit history. Blackworm (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed by the suggestion that the word "circumcision" as used in this article conflicts with NPOV, since the established lead clearly aligns with standard English usage by specifying that the article is talking about male circumcision, with a link to the procedures sometimes performed on females, with profoundly different consequences for the females. So, if I am not too late, would Jayjg please make that 12 editors who support the established view. Misplaced Pages should not be used to promote some view about male/female circumcision. By the way, WP:OR applies to proposals for articles, not a tally of views expressed on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the dispute. Hopefully someday there will be a consensus found in it. Blackworm (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note, since you seem unfamiliar with the topic, that some of the procedures performed on females and called "circumcision," or less often, "female genital cutting" are analogous or even less invasive than a typical male circumcision, for example the removal of a tiny portion of the clitoral hood. See the female circumcision article for details. Blackworm (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Johnuniq did you come here to oppose me by sheer coincidence or as a result of my disputing your arguments here? Why must editors follow editors with whom they've had disagreement to other disputes they happen to be involved in, and accusing them without evidence of using Misplaced Pages to promote their views? Isn't that frowned upon? Blackworm (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely you frequent more pages than this and WP:WQA (I haven't looked)? This article has been on my watchlist for several months following a report I saw on some noticeboard, but I have been ignoring it since everything seemed under control. When I saw "Definition of circumcision" on my watchlist I decided to have a closer look. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So it wasn't when you saw my user name next to it. Okay, fair enough. I still don't appreciate the accusations of using Misplaced Pages to promote views about male and female circumcision, but then accusations have flown time and time again from both sides regarding that, so it seems you are fitting into the dispute quite well! :) Blackworm (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am on blackworms side. The article is named circumcision but then in the opening says male circumcision. That is a load of garbage in my opinion, and the lead is pretty stupid. Thats why i changed it here; . But User:Jayjg reverted me. His intentions are pretty clear. I'm not the type of editor who is hard-headed and jumps in to rewrite stuff mercilessly, but the current lead is way off. Someone65 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted the personal part of your comment; don't make it again. Jayjg 12:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not on my "side." You're an editor who apparently shares my view regarding the better outcome of this dispute. I am glad to see other editors feel the same way about the content (as if it wasn't already clear, despite attempts to paint the opposite picture). However, I will speak for myself and let others speak for themselves. Blackworm (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

New Statistics for United States

${\displaystyle \infty }$ In the United States, circumcision rates fell from 56% in 2006 to 33% in 2009. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ http://www.acep.org/MobileArticle.aspx?parentfeedid=4&feed_id=imn080420101635228885&parentid=742 POV Detective (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment on this, which I've already reverted once and will soon revert again.

Please note that news sources are not usually considered to be good sources for academic subjects. See, for example, WP:RS#News organizations, which states: "For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." Also, see WP:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Popular_press.

I obviously have no objection to including this information once it can be verified through a published paper, but it is not appropriate to cite such a poor source in support of a rather exceptional claim. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ An "extraordinary claim?" Such a characterization might be true if it were, for example, "disappointing" news. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You left out the part about how circumcision supposedly results in a significantly reduced risk of HIV/AIDS. I expect that's "disappointing" news to the anti-circumcision activists. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the degree to which something is "extraordinary" (or "exceptional", to use the word I actually used) is largely unrelated to whether it is considered good or bad. If I were to discover that that an unknown relative had left me a very large inheritance, for example, it would be extraordinary but not disappointing. In the case of this article, the very fact that it is reporting such a dramatic change in a short time interval is extraordinary. That doesn't mean that it should be excluded, of course, but it does mean that we should be careful to find a solid, reliable source. Jakew (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ Given such rigorous academic standards, it's inconsistent that other Users support I Maccabes as "evidence" for the broad claims about the cause of the Maccabean rebellion in the article Circumcision and Law. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are better sources. The CDC presented the statistic at AIDS 2010 in Vienna, Austria last month. I have photos of the presentation slides showing that the US circ rate in 2006 was 56.4%, and 32.5% in 2009, El Bcheraouis in front of the dias, and CDC clearly shown on the slides. MDconsult interviewed the lead CDC presenter El Bcheraoui, where he expanded on the topic. See: http://www.mdconsult.com/das/news/body/214800087-2/mnfp/1038842761/220621/1.html?nid=220621&date=week&general=true&mine=true and http://pag.aids2010.org/Abstracts.aspx?SID=438&AID=4529 Since the CDC felt comfortable announcing these statistics at an International medical conference I say this is verified. Frank Koehler (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank, the first of these two links is another news source and hence suffers from the same reliability problems as the original acep.org page. And I'm not sure why you mention the second because it doesn't seem to say anything about the circumcision rate. Jakew (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ Some Users apparently question the authority of the American College of Emergency Physicians. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, some users have said news sources (e.g. Elsevier Global Medical News, the service quoted on the ACEP site) aren't good sources for this. Misrepresenting the cite as "On August 5, 2010, the American College of Emergency Physicians reported..." is pretty dodgy, too. Elsevier Global Medical News reported it: ACEP simply posted the EGMN news release. TFOWR 15:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ Users are comfortable with the outdated WHO statistics? ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably more comfortable than having a news source passed off as the American College of Emergency Physicians. You didn't even have the decency to correct your error before blindly reverting. Incidentally, you're now at three reverts - consider this your WP:3RR warning. TFOWR 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ Personal attacks and hysterical warnings are inappropriate on this page. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you've been subjected to a personal attack, WP:WQA is that way. You might prefer WP:ANI if you like. Now, about that edit of yours. Are you going to revert it or correct it? TFOWR 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ trusts the authority of the American College of Emergency Physicians and Elsevier Global Medical News, which has been cited in Footnote 9 in another Misplaced Pages article. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"TFOWR trusts" the ACEP, too. What I'm saying is: ACEP hasn't reported what you claim they have reported. The report was from a news source, and as you can see above, several editors have expressed concerns about news sources. So, to summarise: your edit states that the ACEP reported something. That is not, in fact, the case. Your edit cites a news source, which - fair enough - you seem quite happy with. But several other editors aren't. Do you see the problem? TFOWR 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ Re: Nandesuka "Reverting per discussion on the talk page."

There was no such consensus in the discussion. (btw, what happened to that Symbol +++ you claimed to have adopted the other day?) ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, apart from you, everyone else seems to think that (a) a news source is unsatisfactory, and (b) your edit misrepresents reality: you're claiming erroneously that ACEP reported something. Which I note you still haven't reverted or corrected. TFOWR 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, that'll be why - because you've just been reverted. I wondered why you'd popped back. TFOWR 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Starting over. OK, instead of wasting all our time edit warring, why don't you (POV Detective) try and find a decent source? You've been told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources: instead of ignoring that why not just try and locate a good reference to use? TFOWR 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. POV Detective, please review the objections of multiple editors here regarding this source and its claims (Elsevier Global Medical News). A 50% drop in 3 years is unprecedented, particularly as no mainstream sources seem to have noticed this. Per WP:REDFLAG, this will require much better sourcing. Jayjg 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times published an article on the CDC scientist's presentation at the AIDS 2010 conference stating that the circumcision rate in the United States in 2009 was 32.5%. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=1 - DanBlackham (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and let's see some quotes from that article:

Last week, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautioned that the figures in the presentation were not definitive.

The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance.

“C.D.C. was not involved in the collection of the data that was cited, nor has C.D.C. undertaken any review of this particular data for the purpose of calculating rates,” she wrote. “As such, we cannot comment on the accuracy of this particular estimate of infant male circumcision.”

Here's what the company itself says about them:

Andrew Kress, the chief executive of SDI Health, cautioned that the data had not yet been published and was still being analyzed, but he confirmed that the trend had been toward fewer circumcisions each year. He added that measuring the circumcision rate was not the purpose of the study, which was designed to measure the rate of complications from the procedure.

And yet, various editors feel the need to push these numbers as unqualified fact into the lede of every circumcision-related article, despite the fact that everyone, including the company that produced them, is strongly qualifying them. I wonder why that is? Jayjg 04:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Shaza-um! :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the study being a biased sample, as you suggest; and hence, unreliable; here are a couple more interesting quotes:

"Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining."

"Opponents of circumcision hailed the trend as a victory of common sense over what they call culturally accepted genital mutilation. For federal health officials, who have been debating whether to recommend circumcision to stem the spread of AIDS, the news suggests an uphill battle that could be more difficult than expected."

I'd like to know how increasing one's risk for AIDS qualifies as "common sense".

Also, I bet the anti-circumcision lobby doesn't like this factoid, which has to do with the main reason they conducted the study:

"The study found a very low rate of complications associated with newborn circumcisions; most were considered mild and no babies died."

←Baseball Bugs carrots→

Interesting. The fragment "had not yet been published and was still being analyzed" seems to imply that there are plans to finish analysis and publish these data, so with luck we should have a reliable source before too long. Jakew (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the second sentence in the article, "A little-noted presentation by a federal health researcher last month at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna..." is rather telling. If I was unsure of my stats, I'd keep it low-key too. And it's worth pointing out, again, that they don't see this "precipitous" drop in circumcision as a good thing by any means. Apparent the anti-circumcision lobby does. What that lobby's motives could be, for wanting more men to get AIDS, is anybody's guess, although I wouldn't rule out that maybe they're just morons. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've learned that it's often best to avoid making statements about whether circumcision is good or bad (or, as a closely related matter, whether high circumcision rates are desirable or not), since such arguments tend to be unresolvable and also tend to result in upsetting editors with opposing points of view. I'm sure many of us have opinions about the anti-circumcision lobby, too (I certainly do!), but I wonder if you'd mind not mentioning them here, just to keep the peace? It would be much appreciated. Jakew (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ It would be shameful if a minority continued to oppose factual information in the Misplaced Pages article on circumcision. Despite the effort of some to hide the facts, the American public has made its choice, and the circumcison rate has declined significantly in the last five years. To conceal the abandonment of circumcision by the American people won't stop the decline . . . ${\displaystyle \infty }$

POV Detective (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • The numbers in the New York Times have significant issues, listed above, which make the phrase "factual information" meaningless. Please do not make any further comments here until you have read the comments of others here, assimilated and understood them, and responded directly to them. Also, please do not discuss other editors in any way going forward, including making false insinuations about their actions or motives. Discuss only article content. Jayjg 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I read no reason for the removal of this sourced information in this article. Arguments that news sources like the New York Times are not to be cited are invalid (WP:RS, WP:PSTS). Arguments regarding the methodology of studies are void (WP:NOR). Arguments regarding the qualification of the comments in the sources can be resolved WP:NPOV by attributing claims and by making those qualifications clear in the article text if editors feel it necessary. Blackworm (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see pointers to relevant parts of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS at the beginning of this section, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ Here's a compromise sentence if the circumcision devotees can't live with the new statistics: "Much to the chagrin of circumcision devotees, the rate of circumcisions in the United States has been reported on a dramatic decline." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=2

${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

prevent AIDS

Bertran Auvert study show that circumcision help against AIDS http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.156.246 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics