Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 20 August 2010

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Change to lead

I've reverted a recent change to the lead, for three reasons. Firstly, the addition of the words "According to custom" at the beginning of "male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue..." is incorrect. Custom has nothing to do with it: circumcision is by definition the removal of tissue (the foreskin). Secondly the reference to the "healthy infant's penis" is inappropriate, as the scope of this article is the ethics of circumcision at any age, not just circumcision of infants. Finally, "are sometimes controversial" is preferable to "have become controversial", since the latter implies that controversy is always present, which is not necessarily the case. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"According to tradition" succinctly highlights the "ethics" under discussion in the article, i.e., the conflict between custom (the customary procedure on infants) and modernity (modern ethical standards of surgery & informed consent). There can be no real debate of "ethics" regarding an adult's decision. To minimize the ethical controversy with the qualifying adverb, "sometimes," reveals a shallow & uninformed understanding of the ethical debate... (or a cynical agenda). Historys Docs (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not permit us to assert that a conflict exists between custom and modernity; we can say that some authors have argued that there is a conflict, while others disagree. While it's true that most sources focus on infant circumcision, there is some debate regarding the ethics of adult circumcision. I don't think that the word "sometimes" can really be said to minimise the controversy, but it does avoid the implication that circumcision is always controversial. Jakew (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that "According to custom,"

POV Detective (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say, because that isn't an English sentence. Could you try again? Jakew (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that this article in stuck in the mud. Some people will never understand the power of custom in their lives. The disputed phrase, "according to custom," is footnoted in the edit with the appropriate citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Feast of the Circumcision.

POV Detective (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is an appropriate (or indeed relevant) citation. The Feast of the Circumcision celebrates a single circumcision: that of Jesus Christ. So it's completely irrelevant when talking about circumcision of anybody who isn't Jesus Christ (approximately every circumcision that has ever been performed, in other words). Jakew (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ is reminded of the adage: "You can put an ant in front of a telescope, but it will never see the stars." ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$

POV Detective (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

especially as the child

The third paragraph of the article makes it clear that the "Ethics of Circumcision" is about infant circumcusion. The opening sentence, as reverted, is quite weak because it makes that assumption without stating it. Historys Docs (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that paragraph is about infant circumcision, but it was organised poorly. I've reordered the sentences to improve matters. Jakew (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that the user seems to view sentences as furniture to be rearranged.

POV Detective (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence makes no sense

It isn't clear why removing tissue from the body is controversial. The lead sentence reads, Male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the human body, so the ethics of circumcision are sometimes controversial. This is apparently introducing the topic by framing opposition to circumcision as being "opposition to any cutting into the body." We cannot misrepresent one side of the controversy in this way. That it's done so blatantly and in the lead sentence seems to be particularly disastrous. Blackworm (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what would you propose instead? Jakew (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The suspense is killing me. POV Detective (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would this be an improvement in your opinion, Blackworm, as a version of the first sentence? "The ethics of male circumcision, which involves the excision of genital tissue from the human body, are sometimes controversial." Since the word "genital" is there (in the current version as well), I don't see it as implying that any cutting into the body is controversial. Cutting of genitals could be more controversial than cutting some other parts of the body. Excision could be more controversial than cutting that doesn't remove tissue. Cutting that heals with little or no scar could be less controversial. Neonatal or child cutting tends to be more controversial. I'm not sure whether "neonatal" can be easily fit into the first sentence since not all the controversies involve neonatal. How about this version? "The ethics of male circumcision, which involves the excision of genital tissue from the human body, are sometimes controversial, for example when it is performed on infants or children." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A subtitle to the article might clarify its focus. Here are two possibilities:

• 1. Ethics of Circumcision: Enlightenment vs. the Tenacity of Belief
• 2. Ethics of Circumcision: Science vs. Tradition

POV Detective (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

First, Misplaced Pages articles don't have subtitles, and second, neither of your proposals are compatible with the neutral point of view policy. Jakew (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem!

• 1. Enlightenment vs. the Tenacity of Belief in the Ethics of Circumcision
• 2. Science vs. Tradition in the Ethics of Circumcision

A neutral point of view does not require deference to superstition. POV Detective (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're being sincere, please review WP:NPOV. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it -- I thought Sincerity was a given on Misplaced Pages! POV Detective (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One generally assumes so, yes. Jakew (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apology for questioning my Good faith Now let's get back to work! POV Detective (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

An inquiry into the Ethics of Circumcision assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism. POV Detective (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What about this for a leading sentence:

• Male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the human body, and there is controversy about the ethics of this procedure. Michael Glass (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the statement that male circumcision is "sometimes controversial" is puzzling. Should "sometimes controversial" be read as "controversial for some," "controversial in some instances," "sometimes controversial - and sometimes not." When analysed, the wording is open to a range of interpretations. That is why I think that we should consider a change in wording. Saying that there is controversy about the ethics of this procedure is a neutral and non-judgmental way of describing the controversy. Michael Glass (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should overstate the degree of controversy. I'd accept "some controversy": "Male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the human body, and there is some controversy about the ethics of this procedure." Jakew (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that Conflict avoidance of Controversy is itself a POV. POV Detective (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ suggests a new approach: "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 ethics more difficult." POV Detective (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Such a statement is obviously incompatible with both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, so I presume you're not proposing to include it. However, we can certainly quote or paraphrase arguments made in reliable sources, provided that they are properly attributed. Jakew (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I think that your wording would be better than what is there at present, though I am unsure about adding the word some to what I proposed. I feel that tends to understate the degree of controversy. By way of evidence, there is to be a public forum in Sydney, Australia, run by a Jewish organisation, the title of which is "Infant Male Circumcision - A Dilemma for Parents"]. Why this should be a matter of concern for Jewish parents I do not know, but there it is. The wording "there is controversy" doesn't imply a great controversy but "there is some controversy" suggests that the controversy may be marginal. Michael Glass (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and it's about time the controversy surrounding this subject ceases to be understated in every related article. Or diluted -- presented as a series of small "controversies" involving things like an adult choosing male circumcision for himself, etc. No, the major controversy is regarding infants and children, as clearly reflected by the sources. I support Coppertwig's proposed text which reads (I changed Wikilinks), "The ethics of male circumcision, which involves the excision of genital tissue from the human body, are sometimes controversial, for example when it is performed on infants or children." That makes it clear that it is controversial in that case, and not in such a matter as to overstate the controversy. I do not support Michael Glass's proposed text, as it fails to focus on the specific example for which the vast majority of the controversy accounts. Blackworm (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that the proponents of circumcision apparently deny that its persistence as elective surgery is a medical or ethical controversy POV Detective (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding infant circumcision as an example of where there is controversy about circumcision. There are, however, other controversial areas, such as dangerous tribal practices as in South Africa and the forced circumcision of men, which happened in Indonesia and in East Africa. These other areas should not be overlooked. Michael Glass (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ Misplaced Pages article traffic statistics

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that a weak cup of tea attracts few customers.
• Misplaced Pages article traffic statistics
• http://stats.grok.se/en/201007/Ethics%20of%20Circumcision
• Ethics_of_Circumcision has been viewed 668 times in 2010/07.

POV Detective (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC) POV Detective (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOVs from hypothetical 1859 Misplaced Pages

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that Slavery is a system in which people are the property of others, so the ethics of slavery are sometimes controversial. POV Detective (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship, so the ethics of gay marriage are sometimes controversial.

POV Detective (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that Female Circumcision is any procedure involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs "whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons," so the ethics of female circumcision are sometimes controversial.

POV Detective (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that Cannibalism is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh of other human beings, so the ethics of cannibalism are sometimes controversial.

POV Detective (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of replies

• +++ POV Detective, there seems to be a problem with your editing client - it is prepending the string "+++" to each line you write. Since this is obviously an error, and since it makes your text difficult to read, I've taken the liberty of stripping the "+++"s from the talk page. You might want to take a look here for some basics on proper indentation, and of course I'm happy to help you if you have any questions about wiki-markup.

+++ (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that a certain user has been editing ${\displaystyle \infty }$ comments. POV Detective (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• +++ Yes. I noted it too, when I informed you that I was doing it. Not to worry, though - I'm being very careful to not adjust the substance or text of your comments at all, and am simply reformatting them to reflect Misplaced Pages best practices on indentation.

+++ (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• +++ While ${\displaystyle \infty }$ considers allegations of POV abuse on this page, ${\displaystyle \infty }$ will construe all edits of ${\displaystyle \infty }$ to be evidence in the case.

POV Detective (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• +++ +++ does not understand. Is POV Detective asking +++ to stop refactoring his replies to be correctly indented?

Nandesuka (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ has adopted the Symbol ${\displaystyle \infty }$ as the positive spirit of NPOV. No other user is authorized to edit the comments of ${\displaystyle \infty }$, nor to provide punctuation in a case where ${\displaystyle \infty }$ has made a comment under a Section Heading but not in reply to another user.

POV Detective (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• +++ has also adopted the Symbol +++. That's a great idea. From now, on, User:POV Detective, please refer to me only as +++. Thanks! +++ (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that the user should adopt a symbol of his own, rather than imitating ${\displaystyle \infty }$. There are several possibilities that would work for the user such as !!! or ??? but ??? should really devise his own symbol.

POV Detective (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• +++ notes that +++ is in fact his symbol, and thanks +++ for honoring his request. +++ 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ takes honor in gifting the coveted symbol to +++. Now +++ would do well to emulate ${\displaystyle \infty }$ in conscience as well.

POV Detective (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and the art of censorship

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that some contributors to this page would benefit from this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wikipedia-and-the-art-of-censorship-462070.html "It was hailed as a breakthrough in the democratisation of knowledge. But the online encyclopedia has since been hijacked by forces who decided that certain things were best left unknown." POV Detective (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC) POV Detective (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ethics of Female Circumcision

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that the avoidance of Female Circumcision on this page may violate the NPOV. "Female circumcision victims seek out Colo. doctor" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSMnS303G8Z5t4-z8cXMviLcyO6QD9HGI8S80 POV Detective (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Detective (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

New Lead Paragraph

${\displaystyle \infty }$ requests that other Users not revert this paragraph without giving editors the appropriate time to reference the facts therein, as such consideration has been shown for lengthy periods of time on these pages for unreferenced statements.

An inquiry into the Ethics of Circumcision assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism. According to custom, male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the healthy infant's penis, so the ethics of circumcision have become controversial in modern times. 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 ethics more difficult. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request denied: apart from violating most, if not all, of Misplaced Pages's core content policies, that paragraph is completely unreadable along nearly every possible axis. Is this a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm sure someone will ask, I went back and counted: that lede violates WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. So 3 out of 5. Impressive, in its way. Nandesuka (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ points out that reverter has backed down from reverter's earlier affirmation on this page: "From now, on, User:POV Detective, please refer to me only as +++. Thanks! +++" (Nandesuka) Would that be the reverter's change of heart, identity crisis, or cynicism? Such vacillation would normally make a reverter's opinions both unreliable and worthless.

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ notes that reverter apparently holds self to no consistent standards. Impartial observers will discover that reverter has revised and/or deleted reverter's own hasty comments under this section, perhaps because the reverter's initial comments were the equivalent of sticking out the reverter's tongue. Observers will also notice that the reversion itself was just as hasty, thoughtless, and puerile as the reverter's purported critique and justification.

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$

POV Detective (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• As such, ${\displaystyle \infty }$ will revert the ${\displaystyle \infty }$ change; moreover, any reversion by the usual suspects should document in particular, and address in detail, each purported violation of policy. Will the reverter give it 5 minutes of thought, or five hours, or five days, or five years? ${\displaystyle \infty }$ shouldn't ask ${\displaystyle \infty }$ such ridiculous questions.

${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your inability or unwillingness to address the shortcomings of your proposed lede speaks for itself. Nandesuka (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ That was five seconds of thought... that's progress for you I hope. It's the reverter's job to specify in detail the reverter's objections. Lazy don't work here, friend. Are you still using that Symbol you borrowed from ${\displaystyle \infty }$? POV Detective (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My objections remain the same as I already indicated above: (1) The paragraph is completely unsourced (which you explicitly acknowledge) and thus violates WP:V. (2) The paragraph violates WP:NPOV by ascribing opinions to imaginary people, and expressing judgment on them ("It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism"), and (3) The paragraph violates WP:NOR by, as near as I can tell, consisting mostly of your personal opinions. ("Their dismissal of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on ethics more difficult.") Since you made no attempt to remedy those defects -- or, indeed, even to discuss them on the talk page, choosing instead to advance straight to ad hominem -- deep reflection was not required. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a trivial application of policy I fully support. Detective, your edits so far have mostly only disrupted and drawn attention away from more contested and more nuanced issues. Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely stunned that this material was actually included after I have already pointed out above that it violates WP:NPOV. What a waste of everybody's time. POV Detective, please don't do that again. Jakew (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ nope, no violation except censorship from the usual suspects, for whom, apparently, thought is a waste of time. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$

POV Detective (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no question that that paragraph must stay out of the article until the fact tags are taken care of. The claim attempts to connect the practice of circumcision with broad philosophical trends, something which, as an exceptional claim, needs very strong, reliable sourcing. Furthermore, the sourcing you did include doesn't support your claims, as it comes from a very POV source--which can be used as a source, but only to represent it's own (Catholic) viewpoint.

And now that I looked at the second link, I see you're actually just being WP:POINTy. As such, if you continue to add that statement, you will be reported for disruptive editing, as that 3rd link clearly has nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with your opinions about the value of Misplaced Pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ The third link merely points out that[REDACTED] is subject to control by an uneducated group that has no desire or capability for philosophical discourse. This abhorred link was not cited in the article revision but merely as a starting point for some discussion & introspection on this page. Unfortunately, some people with an agenda may threaten to "report" and "ban," etc, to discourage dialogue they find challenging to their beliefs. ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$ ${\displaystyle \infty }$

POV Detective (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to Censored Introduction for Scholars & Historians

Historians & Scholars may click on the Symbol ${\displaystyle \infty }$ to find an archive of the censored introduction.

An inquiry into the Ethics of Circumcision assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism. According to custom, male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the healthy infant's penis, so the ethics of circumcision have become controversial in modern times. 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 ethics more difficult. ${\displaystyle \infty }$${\displaystyle \infty }$${\displaystyle \infty }$ POV Detective (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:POV Detective has added (twice) some material that does not belong. The edit adds the words "however, while a minority debate the issue, the American public continues to abandon the practice" to the first sentence. There are four problems:

1. It's an unreliable source, as I've previously explained at Talk:Circumcision#New Statistics for United States
2. The source doesn't support the claim. It says nothing about a minority debating the issue; in fact it doesn't even mention the issue of the ethics of circumcision.
3. As an obvious consequence of (2), it is not "directly related" to the subject of this article, and is consequently original research to include it in this article.
4. It's US-centric. The scope of Misplaced Pages is larger than just the United States, hence even if the material belonged somewhere it should never appear as the first sentence. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ User may be right in this instance, but User's inconsistency at the Bible's disputed & unsourced statements of purported "fact" in Circumcision and law makes such claims arguably parochial & dubious. ${\displaystyle \infty }$

POV Detective (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \infty }$ The recent edit does have the virtue of explaining the "sometimes" qualifer in the sentence before the semicolon. ${\displaystyle \infty }$

POV Detective (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

The disruptive editing on this article has been raised at WP:ANI#User:POV Detective engaged in disruptive editing on circumcision-related topics. If you agree or disagree with the claims, your comments are welcome there. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• ${\displaystyle \infty }$ Good luck with your half-cocked accusations.

POV Detective (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Template:Title=Feast of the Circumcision
2. Template:Title=Feast of the Circumcision