Talk:Circumcision

Name

Isn't circumcision both male and female, therefore when circumcision is searched for it should link to an article about circumcision as a whole, including male and female circumcision in brief, and link to each of the main articles on circumcision according to gender. In a similar way searching for China will take you to the China article, which is about China as a whole and links to each of the main articles about the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China as both are equally China. Or similar to if someone searches for Ireland links them to the Ireland article about Ireland as a whole, which links to the main articles of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as both are equally Ireland.

I suggest an article called Circumcision, which is about both male and female circumcision, and the article links to a main article on male circumcision and a main article of female circumcision/cutting as both are equally circumcision. I can't see any better way of resolving the naming dispute than that and it resolves erroneous idea of circumcision being male only. Circumcision is both male and female, regardless of whether one is promoted and the other discouraged, or one is more popular than the other. This is an encyclopedia to state the facts, not to pander to certain political ideologies, pursuations, or be religiocentric to certain religions. Usergreatpower (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up many times over the past years (please see the 40+ pages of archives). In English, the term "Circumcision" is almost exclusively used to refer to the male version. We already have a hatnote at the very top of the article directing people to Female genital cutting for female circumcision. Recasting the article would be an WP:NPOV violation of WP:UNDUE. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Avi's analysis. If anything the current title is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This issue will never go away until it is corrected. We have recently had an attempt to change the name as you suggested Usergreatpower but were too split to reach any consensus. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that the current title is a violation of your POV, and that you will not stop raising the issue until we all agree with you. The current name is fine, and has been since the article was first created. Renaming it now to something else on the basis of NPOV would simply be the adoption of a different POV, this time one advocated by WP...which is a leap in the wrong direction. Tomer^talk 04:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as we are told, in the English language circumcision almost exclusively refers to male circumcision – how come then that OED makes no reference at all to 'female genital cutting' and only refers to 'female circumcision' under the 'circumcision' entry? In fact, in the current (far more popular) concise version, it goes further than that and under 'circumcision' only goes into the detail of what female circumcision is:

the action or practice of circumcising and (in some cultures) the traditional practice of cutting off the clitoris and sometimes the labia of girls or young women.

It sounds to me like someone is engaging in some very original research with that “almost exclusively” claim, because the OED is by far the most widely accepted arbiter of the English language. Finn (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Avraham ("Avi") has one opinion, but this matter is in fact disputed. I believe the article should be called "male circumcision," as that's what this article is about. You can read the views and policy presented in the latest Requested Move here and add your voice to the discussion about how we can resolve this dispute.

Finncalder ("Finn"), the compact OED defines "circumcision" as a derivative of "circumcise," which discusses the circumcision of both males and females.[1] Blackworm (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Blackworm, we know that you and I disagree on this issue, as we disagree on whether or not circumcision, as a whole, should be permitted or forbidden. However, as the most recent move request filed (that you linked to) has shown, and the others that proceeded it, there is no consensus to move away from the accepted current definition that the article now shows. As the first reference shows (and a perusal through the archives for the multiple times this has been discussed) I still maintain that the majority of definitions, and certainly the colloquial usage in the English language, associates the unvarnished term "circumcision" with the male version. We prevent any misunderstandings with the first hatnote. -- Avi (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Very pretty Avi. Anyone who uses colloquial gets points with me. Yes our viewpoints are known. The point is your initial statement encourages the status quo instead of pointing out a split debate that lacks consensus. The very fact that it is continually brought up should tell you something. Let's reverse things momentarily shall we? If the article's name was "Male circumcision" do you think people would continually come to the page and say hey this should be changed to just "Circumcision"?Garycompugeek (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed my vocabulary . Gary, the very fact that the article was created as Circumcision and not as "Male Circumcision" is extremely telling in and of itself, no? -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I am assuming one person started the article and numerous others joined in. That said then only one person made the initial decision and band wagon followed. Perhaps that is why we have 40+ talk pages with name change discussions? You also dodged my previous question with one of your own. I have tried to answer yours. Quid pro quo. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi, the fact that an article was created as circumcision tells us only one thing: that the person who created it thought it should be created as such. To suggest anything else is as bizarre as your constant, and quite tiresome, inference that only orthodox Jews can possibly have a true understanding of Judaism and be qualified to comment on it. Finn (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Finn, I have never said that Orthodox Jews have the only true understanding of circumcision. I do feel that if we are to discuss the Jewish traditional technique, we need to go to the Jewish traditional sources, and not the Catholic Encyclopaedia or a website of people who could not read the Jewish sources if they tried. That is all. I apologize if you were made to feel uncomfortable by anything I said. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the directors of circumcision.org are likely not Orthodox, and perhaps not even observant, they are not reliable for the purposes of traditional Jewish law. .. despite the fact that much of their information comes not from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, but from the Jewish Circumcision Resource Centre; who - despite having the support of many observant rabbis - on account of not being orthodox, I presume aren't qualified to comment either. I was simply commenting, not looking for an necessary apology. I'm a big boy, Avi; I can take it ;) Finn (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My meaning was that their non-Orthodoxy would indicate that they were not cognizant of the traditional sources in and of themselves. They remain an inappropriate source for the tradition in my opinion as they are unlikely to know the tradition and understand the source texts and legal case precedents, as well as their being less interested in tradition and more in modern interpretation. By all means, they are an excellent source to substantiate the fact that many Jews in the modern era no longer practice, or support the practice of, circumcision, but I do not believe that that particular fact is being contested. -- Avi (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gary, I was not trying to be facetious. It is a time-honored rhetorical practice to respond to a question with another question that itself points out problems with the original question. Back to the matter at hand, my point was that notwithstanding, and agreeing the existence of, alternative interpretations of the term "Circumcisison", the fact that the article was created as "Circumcision" ipso facto demonstrates the connotation of the term. The early discussions that compared this article to the practice of female genital mutilation did not call for this article to have its name changed (See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 2). The first discussions about this were in response to a non-consensual page move in 2004 (See Talk:Circumcision/Archive_5#Page_move). Since then the issue has been raised semi-regularly and the continued consensus each time was that the current title, with associated hatnote (my addition, if I recall correctly), is the most appropriate version. I understand that this is not very appealing to people who share your point of view, but each time, there has been no consensus to change. I understand consensus can change over time, but this has not happened over the past four years, and I do not see it happening in the future. I will ask you to step into my shoes now, Gary. If over a period of around 48 months it had been demonstrated that the consensus was for the article to be named "Male circumcison", and every few months, like clockwork, the naming issue was raised to move the article to "Circumcision," and every few months teh same arguments were rehashed, and no consensus was ever shown to approve the move, and yet it continues and continues, how would you feel? -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"...and the same consensus was shown to deny the move" -- Please rephrase or strike that comment, Avi, since there was "no consensus" to deny the move. The result was not "no move" but "no consensus," and here is the proof. Strike your false comment. Blackworm (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Blackworm, you are correct that the wording should be more precise. I have changed it. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Although to call it "false" is a pretty strong comment; 'twould be more civil to say "please rephrase it to more accurately reflect what occurred." WP:CIVIL is just as important aguideline as WP:NPOV -- Avi (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What's false is false. It's more incivil and damaging to play loose with events and discussions of what consensus was reached in a discussion, than to point out [ambiguity -BW] these falsehoods. Blackworm (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your dedication, Blackworm; it is commendable. However, please remember that wikipedia is not a vehicle for disseminating wp:The Truth. That may be an inherent flaw in wikipedia, but that's the truth (pun intended :) ). -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prolly pretty tired of defending it but don't you see Ari that's just the point. Its not the other way around and I do not believe I would have to incessantly defend it because the article is in fact all about male circumcision. Do I believe circumcision in the english language commonly refers to males? Yes. However circumcision is applied to both sexes regardless of the fact that the "Female circumcision" article title is "Female genital cutting". Why is there no mention of this in the article? This article should either talk about both sexes (we can always stub out to separate in depth articles for each sex) or change its name to "Male circumcision". To do less is to pretend female circumcision does not exist. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We do reference Female circumcision, immediately after the title, in the hatnote. The proper term for the procedure, be it FGM, FGC, or FC, belongs in its article, not here. -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right we give females a hatnote, how quaint. I think they deserve a little more than that. We call the article "Circumcision" with hatnote stating it is male and to see FGC for female circumcision. We don't even have the decency to call the article female circumcision. Looks pretty dodgy to me. Consequently "Female genital cutting" seems to have the same name change issues as this article. Now why do you think that is? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this article, Gary, that needs to be discussed in the FGC article. "Decency" is in the eyes of the beholder as well, Gary. What to you seems indecent to others may be a necessity; regardless, that discussion does not belong here, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh contraire. It is all part of a same cascading problem. It starts right here at Circumcision. This is exactly the kind of attitude that contrbutes to it Avi. I'm assuming good faith with you and not pointing fingers. Just trying to illustrate where a problem starts and how to fix it. We were talking about the hatnote on this page that leads to FGC and while I agree name change discussions for that article belongs on Talk:Female genital cutting the overall issue starts right here and encompasses both articles. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek is absolutely right. Avi has shown no compelling rationale for labeling male circumcision "circumcision" and excluding female circumcision from "circumcision." Circumcision means to circumcise, whether you are circumcising males or females.[2] Those who vehemently support male circumcision and have a disregard for encyclopedic, scientific, non-ambiguous language wish to present female circumcision as something that isn't "circumcision," in order to separate the ideas, and thus the norms and standards applied to circumcision. We should not allow that to happen in Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, you mean other than Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name, right? I wouldn't want you to accidentally say something false, you know . Although it is too late, in that your comments above contradict the evidence at Talk:Circumcision/Archive_34#Why only male circumcision?. I would be more than willing to believe that you forgot I had discussed this before, but I know you are someone to whom the truth is paramount and falsehood is an anathema, so I figure that you would want to adjust your wording above. In any event, let me remind you that w:The Truth is not something wikipedia strives for, for what that is worth. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the most easily recognized name. But "circumcision" isn't a name owned by those claiming it to only "truly" apply to males. (w:The Truth indeed.) The most easily recognized "name" for circumcision is "circumcision." Circumcision is the cutting off of the prepuce in males or the clitoris or other genital parts of females (including the female prepuce, the clitoral hood).[3][4]] The fundamental difference between our approaches is that you seem to believe that the circumcision of males is so universally and overwhelmingly more important than the subject of circumcision in general, that the general article about male circumcision should be called "circumcision" -- rather than being unambiguous while still using the common, easily recognizable term "circumcision" (a privilege denied about a year or two ago to female circumcision). It seems as if it's more important to you to implicitly claim the word circumcision as really only meaning male circumcision than it is for you to allow the universal English language reader to instantly understand what forms of circumcision this article discusses. That's not acceptable, and violates WP:NPOV and WP:UCN. Compare, for example terminology used in the UN: [5] [6][7][8] A political organization which is praised for its neutrality and sensitivity to differing culture, their consistent use of disambiguating terminology is a matter of record. Presumably, they would not do this were there no ambiguity in the term, circumcision -- or do you have an alternate explanation as to why they consistently say "male circumcision?"

Let me put it to you this way, Avi, if a native of Africa told you "In my village, they circumcised this child, and the child died," would you be inclined to ask the gender of the infant, or assume it was male, or not "truly" care which gender infant it was? (I would not care which it was, yes.)

And Garycompugeek's questions are right on point. Hey, here's an idea, let's try calling the article "Male circumcision" (with a redirect from "circumcision") for a while and see if we get more, or fewer complaints about the name of the article. If there's wide clamoring for a return to the old name, without any canvassing, and from editors who have read this discussion, we change it back. How's that for a compromise? Blackworm (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd be happen to clarify or discuss any apparent contradictions, but I need you to be precise about what, specifically, I said that contradicts what, specifically, in that thread, please. Blackworm (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi I asked twice for an answer to my question (If the article's name was "Male circumcision" do you think people would continually come to the page and say hey this should be changed to just "Circumcision"?) and also (Consequently "Female genital cutting" seems to have the same name change issues as this article. Now why do you think that is?) which you have ignored is an answer in itself. You know why. You just don't want to say it. The archives say it all. This problem will not go away until corrected. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question directly, yes. I think more people would clamor for a move from MC to C than are currently active in trying to move C to MC. In all seriousness, Gary, that was not clear to you from my answers above? Regardless, I reiterate, that the article's current name and the numerous discussions that may be found in the archive continue to show that there is no consensus for a move to MC, and that C is the more appropriate name for the article per WP:MOS, colloquial usage, and connotation. -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note also my reply above. Well, three editors against you isn't quite a consensus, no. I still believe discussion is how WP:NPOV wins over an old, "temporal default" consensus that is now shown to be genuinely in jeopardy -- whether that discussion results in new consensus for or against the change. That's why I'm not impressed by the authoritative tone you take here, claiming both implicitly (as in your first response above) and explicitly (in a later post that I forced you to redact) that the current consensus is opposed to the change. You are either talking about the old consensus which did not get replaced, in which case that's irrelevant (see e.g., WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV dispute), or you are asserting that a new consensus exists against the change, which is demonstrably false as the evidence shows. It would be nice if you made that clear. Blackworm (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi, All this nonsense about colloquial language looks like a bit of a diversion to me. If we were really addressing colloquial language, then I am pretty sure that 'cut' would be by far and away the overwhelmingly used term for male circumcision in casual conversation throughout the anglophone world. In a similar vein, the most common colloquial use of 'circumcision' is as part of the term 'female circumcision' - and when it is obvious that it is a female procedure that is being talked about, even the female' bit will be dispensed with. I will eat my yarmulke if I ever hear an absurd terms like 'female genital cutting' used in colloquial language. So, if you really want to push the colloquial thing, then I am quite happy to argue for the article to be renamed accordingly ;) Finn (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is nonsense and blatant violation of WP:NPOV. In my opinion this is done on purpose to distance male circumcision from female circumcision. "Circumcision" makes no mention of female circumcision (hatnote excluded) and female circumcision is called "Female genital cutting". Very convenient. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Previously, "female circumcision" was the term I was most familiar with, but it is a misnomer that inadequately describes many, if not most, of the cases. "Circumcision" does adequately describe the procedure as it applies to almost all men. That being said, I'm relatively neutral with respect to the title of this article. I use both terms (circumcision and male circumcision) interchangeably. If someone wants to propose a name change, they'll need to provide a factual basis for their argument, not personal opinions. Blackworm points to cases where the UN has used the term "male circumcision". There's no dispute that it is sometimes used by governmental organizations and appears in the literature, but is it the most recognizable term? That should be the basis for deciding this article's title. AlphaEta 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's more recognizable doesn't means it's not ambiguous. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Whether or not the current title is too ambiguous must be adequately supported, not simply declared. AlphaEta 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alpha the simple fact is the term "Circumcision" is not gender specific. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

However, Gary, that is acceptable per the manual of style (emphasis added is my own)

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

— Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name

The minor ambiguity is outweighed by the easily recognizable name. -- Avi (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not suprisingly.... I disagree. It would be a simple thing to rename this "Male circumcision" with a redirect from "Circumcision". This would clear any ambiguity and stop people from trying to rename the page. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would also clear up perceived WP:NPOV issue. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Finn, what brachah would you make on it? . The point about common usage is similar to AlphaEta describes above and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name states clearly. The term "circumcision" for centuries has been used to refer specifically to the male version, with the adjective "female" being added to refer to cliterodectomies only recently, and requiring the addition of the term female specifically because the unvarnished term is so associated with the male procedure. I understand that the genital integrity movement has a vested interest in changing that connection and linking the practice of cliterodectomies with that of foreskin removal, in order to have the natural European and Asian aversion to the former overshadow the latter and, thereby, try and subconsciously affect public opinion. That is their choice, but wikipedia cannot be the vehicle that is used for that purpose (See WP:NOT). While the term "male circumcision" is used, its usage is far, far outnumbered by using the term "circumcision" by itself to refer to a "foreskindectomy" (is that even a word ) and that is the most compelling reason why this article should not be moved. Political and sociological battles, as important as they may be, must be waged in a venue other than wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The term "circumcision" for centuries has been used to refer specifically to the male version [...]" That's because it wasn't known that females were also being circumcised: "An account of what he calls the circumcision of females as well as of males by some of the African tribes is given by Bowman in his 'Description of the Coast of Guinea,' English translation 2nd edit pp. 179, 180, 329, 414."Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge -- published 1837)

[...] with the adjective "female" being added to refer to cliterodectomies only recently, [...]" Not at all, it was never "added," it is only used to specifically refer to the female form. When female circumcision was shown to exist, discussion of the circumcision of females began, without judgement and without advocacy. Circumcision always meant cutting and removal of parts of human genitals, and it was written about 100 years ago in a medical context: S.L. Kistler, Rapid bloodless circumcision of male and female, and its technic, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 54, 28 May 1910, p. 1782-3.

It was discussed in a gender-neutral way a year later, in the definitive encyclopedia of the time: Most probably, however, circumcision (which in many tribes is performed on both sexes) was connected with marriage, and was a preparation for connubium. (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911 [9])

Of course, at that time, no one objected to the matter-of-fact, scientifically accurate discussion of circumcision in the context of mutilation -- which these days, due to widespread circumcision advocacy, is verboten: [10]

You see, Avi, I too know a bit about circumcision. The unvarnished term is only associated with male circumcision, it doesn't denote male circumcision. The UN and the UN's WHO, recognize the lack of universal strict association with male circumcision, and so they say "male circumcision" or "female circumcision" in the first few instances of whatever paper they publish on the topic of circumcision.[11] [12][13][14] This, despite being generally strong advocates against female circumcision and for male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gary, much of what I said to Finn, I would respond to you as well, except to emphasize that it is more that proponents of genital integrity are trying to conflate the terms than it is those not opposed to circumcision trying to intentionally separate the terms. -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Blackworm, I am still waiting for you to correct your remarks above, and as for authoratative tones, I think that deciding that someone was guilty of falsity as opposed to a less-than-optimal choice of words is rather authoritarian. Blackworm, I was impressed by the tone you had taken with Jake on your talk page, and I had thought that you had progressed to intelligent discussions on the issues. You do bring up reasonable points when you talk, but unlike Gary and Finn, in my opinion and experience, you seem to have a need to combine issues discussions with, sometimes subtle and sometimes overt, personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and other incivility that makes it difficult to continue issues discussions with you. You are obviously an intelligent and well-read person, and passionate about your beliefs, which is admirable. However, I believe that whatever benefits you add to these conversations may be outweighed by your style. I would like to continue to discuss issues with you as I have with Gary and Finn, but if you are going to continue to cast unwarranted (and as I pointed out above, hypocritical) aspersions, that makes it difficult. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The genital integrity movement? Give me break! I've never heard such blithering nonsense in all of my life. If this was about the genital integrity movement people would be asking for the article to be changed to what it really should be titled: Male Genital Mutilation – but no-one is asking for that. If you think this has anything to do with bias, then you are certifiably paranoid. The only bias is the blatant pro-circumcision bias of the article and the determination to maintain the current misogynistic article naming.Finn (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The simple fact remains as it has been for years with this article: Namely that certain vested interest parties are using Article Policy Poker to ensure that the article continues to serve as a propaganda toll and prevent it being developed along neutral lines. Finn (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Finn, may I suggest you read the contributions of TipPt, Nokilli, Dabljuh, DanBlackham, among others? I'm a relative newcomer to this article, having been working on it only from June 2006. However, if you would read the archives, paying attention to the contributions and edits of those I have listed, you will see this to be the case. It may not be the case from your perspective, but it exists, and, has been a factor in the discussions in this article from at least 2005. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if I recall correctly, which I may not, MGM has been posted as a title for this article before too, so you see you are correct -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Avi, you addressed genital integrity movement comments directly to me - and in so doing used passive-aggressive means to imply that I was supporting the title change in order to promote a vested interest. As for the archives, I have read them - I have followed this article for years and didn't think it worth getting involved in - and I have seen how you and Jake (to mention but a few) have relentlessly worked to skew this article. Simple fact is that YOU accused me, so now the gloves are off and I am accusing you with what I see. Cite whatever Wiki policies you like, but I can match you policy for policy .. so bring it on. You make it impossible for anyone to debate with you; so, fine, we can bring it down to your level if that is what you really want. Finn (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I am sorry you feel that way, as I did not think I was addressing any bias on your part, but what I have seen is a general issue, but, if you feel that way….

Speaking of bias, Finn, I went to your userpage and found something that I did not know before, which may account for the intensity of your response. Before your last post, I was ignorant of your profile; but now knowing so, I may I ask, based on your responses above, if you are categorically stating that your opinion that “…the ritual (and generally inept) circumcision of infants amounts to barbaric mutilation…” has absolutely no bearing on your position as to the name of this article? -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Point me to anything I have said that reflects an attempt to impose my bias .. go on, just one single thing. And if you bothered to read the rest (you probably did, but it probably wasn't convenient), you will also see that I find both extremes of the debate as detached as I find Jake's supposed neutrality totally laughable. I am a scientist - and like any good scientist I am quite capable neutrality, even where I have a strong opinion. So you didn't think you were addressing a bias on my part, yet you suddenly (and quite out of context) start talking to me about the genital integrity movement? Sorry, Your disingenuity really doesn't do you any credit. Finn (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to hear you say that . I'm not a scientist, only an applied mathematician, so perhaps I am less capable of neutrality. Regardless, I have no reason to believe that you are trying to push a political position, but that does not change the fact that those who are trying to push said position (you know the history of this article and its editors) are attempting to push the name change with more force than anyone else.

If so, am I correct in understanding that your main thrust for changing the name of the article is that you believe it is less ambiguous, similar to Gary's argument above? I believe that is addressed by the quotation from the manual of style I brought above. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the change would less ambiguous, a step towards neutrality and a big step away from the misogynistic undertones of the status quo. I am at a total loss as to how the proposed change could be seen as promoting, or a victory for, the genital integrity movement – and if I did see it as that, I would, as a matter of principle, oppose it with the same vigour that I would oppose a change to Male Genital Mutilation.Finn (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As for ambiguity, as I posted above, a reasonable small amount of ambiguity is preferred to none when the former is the more common usage, more recognized, and allows for easier linking, all of which I believe is true with the current article name. Secondly, how does this article promote misogynistic tendencies? There may be fundemental issues with the article currently parked at FGC, and perhaps it needs renaming, but that does not mean that we are allowed to make a WP:POINT about F(G)C/M or whatever it should be called by changing C to MC. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole point though, I don't think that ownership of 'circumcision' does reflect current usage - in fact far from it. I don't think the article promotes a misogyny; but I do think that the article title promotes a shamefully misogynistic view.Finn (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's likely more misogynistic (at the very least, offensive) to equate the removal of the male foreskin to FGM, a much more drastic and devastating procedure. The equivalent of FGM would be more akin to the removal of the penis, and medical experts describe "female circumcision" as a misnomer as it implies equivalent procedures, which they are not. While it is true the term "female circumcision" is often used, there is much current leaning away from the use of the term precisely to clearly establish linguistic distinction from male circumcision, and emphasize the gravity of the act in comparison to the milder practice of male circumcision. For this reason, many health organizations such as the WHO have now officially adopted the term FGM[15] instead of "female circumcision" in its documents. It is generally obvious (via google searches and research that's out there) that circumcision predominantly refers to "male circumcision"; however, I personally don't see a problem renaming the article to male circumcision and either (1) redirecting circumcision to male circumcision as the predominant meaning of the term, with the current disambigs at the top of the male circumcision article, or possibly (2) having a separate disambig page for Circumcision that includes male circumcision, female genital cutting, khitan, brit milah, genital integrity, etc. to provide the reader an index on the broader spectrum of the topic. --MPerel 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is misogynistic to refer to something by its correct term, rather than some loaded manufactured term which doesn't enjoy either widespread use, or understanding and doesn't even appear in most (any?) dictionaries of any standing? LOL! In both lexicographical and common colloquial use, circumcision unambiguously, and quite neutrally, covers both the male and female procedures – and what is more important, does so without judging. Those who deny it can say otherwise till the cows come home, but it still wont make their assertions true. If someone searches for circumcision, they should be presented with a disambiguation page which lets them select the type of circumcision they are interested in exploring. Any other position is desperate, totally irrational and (as this discussion shows) is entirely reliant on original research.Finn (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to tone down your emotion-laden conversation all over this talk page, it belies your claimed preference for non-loaded terms, along with your purported aversion to "desperate, totally irrational" positions. (Remember, you are the one who introduced "shameful misogyny" into the discussion to characterize a position perceived different than yours). It is disingenuous to feign concern for women, to pretend that women are somehow being hated if the two different procedures are not subsumed under one umbrella term, particularly in light of your stated opinion above that "female genital cutting" is an "absurd term" (your opinion in spite of the fact that the term is used in medical literature and government documents). Now your misguided arguments for renaming the article (based on misogyny?!) notwithstanding, if you take a step back, you'll see that I agree with you on a name change and disambig page. --MPerel 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And you might want to control your vivid imagination and your disgusting accusations about "feigning concern". Finn (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take imagination, vivid or otherwise, to see (and point out) the inconsistency in an argument by an editor who reacts against the term "female genital cutting" as "absurd", who then claims it is "misogynous" to not embrace the term "female circumcision". In that light, your accusation of misogyny rings hollow and invites challenge, which is why we've ended up where we have. --MPerel 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else I must congratulate you on your amazing capacity for (woefully unconvincing) misrepresentation - as witnessed by your responses to Blackworm and myself :) And yes, I stand by my comments about FMC – an absurd term which was concocted by a committee and which still has no significant lexicographical recognition Finn (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Finn I would not object to a disambiguation page. Ideally since circumcision covers both sexes (regardless of male being most pervasive in English) this page should cover both sexes and stub out to each gender in detail. For the moment since this page only covers male circumcision, that is what it should be called. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MPerel makes it clear that the term "female genital mutilation" is based in advocacy against the cutting of female genitals. "Female circumcision" is thus a more neutral term, since it is used by both advocates and opponents. The opinion that it is fundamentally different, drastic, and devastating to remove a pinhead-sized amount of tissue from the clitoral hood (one form of "FGM"), as it is to remove what is or what will become 7-15 square inches of erogenous skin ("male circumcision") is just that -- opinion -- and it's irrelevant. Through those Google searches, "Erection" predominately refers to a penile erection, yet the erection article properly and correctly discusses other bodily erections. The reasoning that states that a common, culture-specific observed or talked about case of a topic allows us to define the general topic as that one common case, is considered flawed everywhere else in Wikipedia except circumcision. I am glad MPerel recognizes that the name change or other form of disambiguation is appropriate, however; that's exactly what I suggested long ago. Blackworm (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your pure opinion and original research, which is case in point that editor opinions are irrelevant. Are we here to discuss a name change/disambig or trade personal opinions about the merits of the various positions on the topic? --MPerel 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. You write above: "The equivalent of FGM would be more akin to the removal of the penis [...]." That was a personal opinion about the merits of various positions on the topic. The stuff I write above about pinhead-sized tissue is not OR, it's in the FGM article and that *is* a common form of FGM. I was trying to show you that FGM encompasses a wide ranges of practices, some viewed as more severe and some viewed as less severe than a typical male circumcision. Please read the sourced evidence at female circumcision if in doubt. Blackworm (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah but your opinion that there is no difference between male and female circumcision (your very example demonstrates completely different procedures), is indeed opinion and OR, and why are we even continuing to discuss it? --MPerel 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was no difference in all possible contexts. I was responding to your OR claim that FGM is "a much more drastic and devastating procedure" than male circumcision. I believe I've made my point. Also, please don't engage in WP:OR, then turn around and cry "OR" when people seem to have stronger arguments. It is disingenuous. Blackworm (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My informed opinion is based on reliable sources (therefore not OR--you began the protests about alleged OR), for example the New England Journal of Medicine: "From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis."[16][17][18] It's actually a sound enough opinion to cite in an article. But I didn't come to this page to get in a contest about which gender's "circumcision" is worse. I came here to give my editorial two cents about the proposed name change, and the context of my informed opinion was in response to a misguided argument that we change the name based on the current title of the article being "misogynous". I agree/d the name change may be warranted, but not based on that argument. --MPerel 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that your opinion is informed -- however I have a reliable source claiming this about FGM (from the WP article: In Indonesia, the practice is not uncommon among the country's rural women; almost all are Type I or Type IV, the latter usually involving the pricking of blood release. Sometimes the procedures are merely symbolic, and no actual cutting is done.[19] Is it possible for both these sources' views, i.e., that FGM is more "drastic and devastating" than male circumcision, and that FGM is sometimes "merely symbolic," with "no actual cutting," to be true, in your view? Do you still believe that the first claim (the view you cite) is "actually a sound enough opinion to cite in an article," which I take to mean without proper attribution? Then the article text could read something like:

From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis. The U.S. State Department states in its Report on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC), that in Indonesia, the practice usually involves the pricking of blood release, and is sometimes symbolic, with no actual cutting done. Do you support that edit? Blackworm (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to again ask Avi specifically what remarks he believes needs correcting, and based on what specific evidence. I'd also like to point to Avi's statement, "that does not change the fact that those who are trying to push said position (you know the history of this article and its editors) are attempting to push the name change with more force than anyone else." I ask Avi specifically who he is referring to, i.e., which editors here are now currently pushing, as Avi says, "a political position." Finn nailed it -- Jakew, Avi, Nandesuka, and Jayjg worked as a team for years, unopposed, skewing this article into a POV mess, but eventually WP policy and the involvement of editors who refused to have their heads bitten off, and actually learned what Wikipedia policy rather than blindly taking the interpretations of these four, has resulted in a more neutral, more balanced, more encyclopedic article. It's only going to get better from here. Nandesuka is now leading the charge against the female circumcision article having its title changed back to "female circumcision", while Avi leads the charge here against disambiguating "circumcision," while suggesting the problem is at female genital cutting (but certainly not offering his support for a name change there). Their arguments, when actually about the content and not editors, are weak and based in misinterpretations of policy. I'm confident they will eventually realize this. Blackworm (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You still have not corrected your incorrect statements above, Blackworm. I am glad that you have this all figured out in your mind, and would like to politely remind you to remember that what you state is no more or less than your opinion. Once again your use of innuendo to cast aspersions on myself and others does not become you. I have not commented at F(G)C/M because I am rather ignorant about it, its history, its socio-political ramifications, etc. If I recall correctly, it is forbidden under Jewish law, which may account for my ignorance. Circumcision, on the other hand, is something I know much more about--thus my comments. Regardless, for someone who in the recent past has claimed that it is more incivil to leave "false" statements on talk pages, you have yet to practice what you preach vis-a-vis your representations of me and my actions. May I ask, are you fundamentally better than I am, that you are exempt from treating me the way you would like me to treat you? -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't told me what incorrect statements it was. I have redacted and moderated the "falsehood" talk, especially since I clarified the ambiguity in my comment of 04:08, 5 September 2008, and I hope that eases some tension, but I honesty don't know what else if anything you wish me to strike or rephrase. As far as I see it, in this thread you began the talk of "political position[s]" of editors, not I, so I'm at a loss to understand how I'm treating you any differently than you are me. I appreciate your cool-headedness, and your kind words, however. Blackworm (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of changing the name just to clear any amibiguity. Not everyone is aware that female circumcision is supposed to be called "female genital cutting" or "female genital mutilation". Circumcision is generally regarded as cutting something, and that is done in both cases - female and male. I personally think that this article should be called "male circumcision" and the female circumcision article should remain as "female genital cutting". Tremello22 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not penile circumcision, if its ambiguity you want to avoid? Tomer^talk 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not an argument against "male circumcision." Why would one accept "penile circumcision" but not "male circumcision?" That seems very confusing. The latter phrase also has about 200x times more Google hits than the former, if that means anything to you. Blackworm (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an argument against the allegèd "ambiguity" that "male circumcision" supposèdly clears up. "Female circumcision" is not, and never has been, analogous to circumcision. The term instead was invented as a necessity and later spread by POV-pushers who compared the FGM to penile circumcision. Words have meanings, an issue that seems to be forgotten among the proponents of a name change for this article. The meaning of "circumcision" is "removal of the foreskin", and always has been. That the word's definition has been muddied up, for people who read probably too much about genitalia, and have too little accompanying knowledge or discernment, does not negate the fact that "male circumcision" or "penile circumcision" is a tautology. Tomer^talk 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Err. FGC and FGM are recently coined terms designed to be politically correct. Male and Female circumcision have been around and called "Circumcision" for thousands of years. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the meaning of "circumcision" is "the act of circumcising," and to circumcise means "to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)."[20] Your argument fails, along with your unsupported POV about "analogous" practices or the word circumcision implying male circumcision (see for example my comment of 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC), in which I note several counterexamples disproving your OR claims). Since you are clearly not suggesting "penile circumcision" as a title, nor addressing any arguments either for or against the change, it's unclear what you hope to accomplish by this diversion. What is it? Blackworm (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for POV agendas

It is hard to know how a Wikipedia article about circumcision in general should be written. It can range from the most common to the most esoteric. In Western and Judeo-Christian culture and history, circumcision ONLY applies to the male, however in many African and Third World countries females are also "circumcised" but whereas in Western and Judeo-Christian cultures male circumcison is NOT regared as a social crime and it is not viewed as mutilation, in fact there are proven medical benefits that people in the West know about and seek, the practice of female "circumcision" is regarded as mutilation and hence is viewed as a kind of victimization against women. There is absolutely no known benefit for female circumcision, beyond crippling them in their vaginal areas. Unfortunately there are POV-pushers who have an anti-circumcision agenda in the West and they wish to stop all circumcision and one way they try to do this is to bring in the Westren abhorance of female "circumcision" as a weapon against all circumcision. But this is a crude and illogical act because the Judeo-Christian heritage is built on the Hebrew Bible and even on the New Testament all of which encourage circumcision for many categories of males and nowhere does it say anywhere in the Bible that females must be treated like males. Thus it is the Judeo-Christian heritage itself that is solidly against mutilation of female genitals which is thus NOT "circumcision" but barbarity according to the Judeo-Christian world view. To play with words and try to play some African tribal rites against the Judeo-Christian heritage is foolish and counterproductive and is blatant POV-pushing. See WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NOR, and WP:NEO. IZAK (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And beware of sweeping generalisations too. Circumcision, in every Christian country I have lived in, is very much regarded as both a social crime and mutilation. In fact, there aren't many countries in Europe where being cut doesn't mark you out as a freak and where finding a circumcised penis attractive isn't regarded as a fetish. There are countries where is is also criminal if it isn't a medical necessity and performed by a medical professional. I would even suggest that "Judeo-Christian view" thing is a bit of a POV pushing, because there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian view on circumcision and the bible as accepted by most churches specifically says that there is no need for circumcision Finn (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article, Finn? This page is not a forum for general discussion of the topic of the article, but about the article itself. Please take this elsewhere, as it serves no constructive purpose here whatsoever. Thanks, Tomer^talk 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this section even relevant to the article, while we're on the subject? IZAK made unsubstantiated claims in a very POV-pushing manner, and Finn debunked them. If you have a problem, then delete the section. Don't get mad at Finn for debunking the POV that you obviously share with IZAK. It says on your userpage that you are Jewish, which means you're circumcised. Therefore, there's obviously a conflict of interest in you upholding IZAK's post and attacking me for "personal attacks". Whatever, I'll strike it out just to appease you. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is bad etiquette to delete someone else's remarks on a talk page, which is why I, in accordance with wikipedia guidelines and polices, asked you to remove your blatant personal attack, which you have yet to remove. Instead, you have turned around and attacked me, claiming I "attacked" you by asking you to remove your attack, and going on to imply that, because I'm Jewish, I shouldn't take part in the discussion here. That, sir, reeks of antisemitism. Tomer^talk 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? When did I say you can't participate in the discussion? Now you're putting words in my mouth and blatantly attacking me. We were talking about conflict of interest. I only said that you share IZAK's view and that you're backing him up because of it, however unsubstantiated his claims are. Lemme guess.. Finn must also be an anti-semite because he doesn't share your view either. Is that how it works? --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have neither backed IZAK nor countered Finn. What I have done is repeat what it says on the top of this talkpage in all those pretty colored boxes. Perhaps you would be well-served to actually read them. Thanks, Tomer^talk 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't call someone out for responding to someone else's post by saying "it's not a forum". If the discussion is forum-like, then perhaps the first post should've never been made. Your actions demonstrate that you have a double standard - comments that are opposed to your view are countered with policy, while comments that you agree with are not. This means you are siding with IZAK's post. I guess implying that other people are racist means sticking to the talk page guidelines. Does that mean we're "even" now? --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomer, you say "On the contrary, I have neither backed IZAK nor countered Finn. What I have done is repeat what it says on the top of this talkpage in all those pretty colored boxes. Perhaps you would be well-served to actually read them." Exactly! I was responding to something posted here. If you don't like it being discussed, then complain to the person raising it and posting patent nonsense. You on the other hand have done precisly what you (in my view quite mistakenly) accuse me of doing (and I am Jewish, so pity anyone who wants to accuse me of racism). Finn (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One person's indiscretion isn't worthy of response. A response to it, that goes even further afield and cites personal experience as evidence, requires response. At least that tack is no longer under discussion, so I regard my remark as a success. (And I don't care whether you're Jewish or not, for the record.) Tomer^talk 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In which case you have certainly done EXACTLY what you accuse me of (and that too requires a response then) and you would be well advised to follow your own advice before you tell others to. As for the citations to support what I said, they are already in the article Finn (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. In any case, this clearly has nothing to do with the article, so I will not be responding to this thread here further. Cheers, Tomer^talk 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as IZAK says, "In Western and Judeo-Christian culture and history, circumcision ONLY applies to the male," then how is it that Western dictionaries show that it applies to both sexes?" Some people believe that circumcision should only be done to males, yes. But since our sources are in conflict over the very definition of circumcision, i.e., what the term circumcision denotes (WP:UCN), a disambiguation page for circumcision serves as a more neutral starting point for the interested reader. It's also more neutral, since it does not implicitly direct the reader toward one narrower definition of circumcision. It raises the importance and prominence of the associated rituals, which seems like it has value. It also has the benefit of allowing both different cultures and different views of human rights to claim a stake in the term, circumcision.

The rest of IZAK's post is pure WP:OR, his own opinion, and irrelevant. Let him bring sources stating that as fact, and then let's qualify it by saying those sources say that. "Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it." (Neutral Point of View Tutorial.) Bring the evidence. Blackworm (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary

Sure, if one just reads words as cold symbols not connected to reality or devoid of a cultural, religious and historical context, then "Circumcision" alone can encompass the weirdest rites and vaguest usage. But a Wikipedia article cannot function in a historical and cultural vacuum and the fact remains that circumcision as it it known in the West and in the world of Islam is derived from the Hebrew Bible and the commands God gave Abraham and later to the Israelites, continued by the Jewish people, into the age of Jesus (only later Christians dropped the need for this commandment like many others, see Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, but even in Christianity, there was never application of the term or the practice applying to females, ever!), see Circumcision in cultures and religions (no OR here!):

"Male circumcision, when practiced as a rite, has its foundations in the Bible, in the Abrahamic covenant, such as Genesis 17, and is therefore practiced by Jews and Muslims and some Christians, those who constitute the Abrahamic religions."

There are articles on Wikipedia that back this up further, so the request for sources at this stage to back up the obvious is a pure rhetorical hoax. See for example, Circumcision in cultures and religions: Circumcision in cultures and religions#In Judaism; Circumcision in cultures and religions#Islam; Circumcision in cultures and religions#In Christianity. The Judaic view on circumcision is explicated in greater depth in the main Brit milah article. There is no "OR" here and why should there be for a 3,000 year rite practiced upon males only. To repeat, the usage of the "female circumcision" argument being deployed here by some editors is purely a POV push in the context of the modern day Naturalist movement, a kind of secular Pantheism that sees any human tampering with nature as a violation of some "sacred trust" of mother nature with open hostility to classical Biblical, Judaic, Christian, Islamic and Western culture. It wishes to stop any form of circumcision in the name of a vague cause of a "higher human wholenes" when ironically the same rabid ultra-modern cultural forces tolerate and encourage and display the weirdest body piercings and tattooing that mar and deface the human form in ways far worse than they imagine male circumcison does. And to repeat again, while the word circumcison has always been regarded as the normative and definitive word for male circumcison only with female circumcison rightly regared as an act that maims females since it is not based on any Biblical, Islamic or Western cultural heritage. An article about Female genital mutilation/circumcision, at Female genital cutting already exists, post all such material on that topic there to avoid confusion and controversy. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing more than original research, POV pushing and rhetorical jiggerpokery, IZAK. In case you hadn't noticed, this is English language Wikipedia. The English language is little more than a thousand years old and didn't exist when the myths at the foundations of the Abrahamic religions were put to scrolls. In the English language circumcision grew to cover female circumcision several centuries before there was any judgement involved, before any activist started to call it female genital mutilation, or a committee decided to call it female cutting. Finn (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the rest of the factless and quite bizarre "it wishes to stop any form of circumcision" rant, it isn't even worthy further comment; other than to say that relatively few people would object to anyone who is old enough to give their consent having their body modified (which is why most countries have laws about how old you have to be in order for a tattooist to tattoo you) .. except that is for the Jewish religion, which considers any body modification (other than ritual male circumcision) an abomination. It really is tragic when paranoia boils it down to a farcical Judaism v the rest of the world, when it is anything but that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finncalder (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

IZAK's example extinguishes whatever point he may have had. It says, "Male circumcision..." Yes. Male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: "...when practiced as a rite." This article is about circumcision (or should be, since it's called "circumcision"). It is not only about the practice of requiring males to be have certain parts cut off their penises in specific cultures. Blackworm (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision in the 1880s (back in the days when people were honest and circumcision served no other purpose than to impede masturbation and reduce the pleasure to be had from carnal acts):

Dr J.H. Kellogg, writing in 1888 in Plain facts for young and old: Embracing the natural history of hygiene and organic life:

In some countries females are also circumcised by removal of the nymphae. The object is the same as that of circumcision in the male.

Sir Richard Burton in the notes to the 2nd edition (1885) The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Nights:

Female circumcision is the proper complement of male circumcision, evening the sensitiveness of the genitories by reducing it equally in both sexes: an uncircumcised woman has the venereal orgasm much sooner and oftener than a circumcised man, and frequent coitus would be injurious to her health.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Finncalder (talk • contribs) [21]

To Finncalder: The English language goes back at least over two thousand years to the times of the Romans (they conquired Britain) and the Germanic tribes (that partly inhabitted and kept on invading the British Isles), see History of the English language and Old English. English is part Latin and part Germanic in its origin. You must be thinking of modern English. And to Blackworm: Kindly avoid crass and disgusting terminology such as "the practice of requiring males to be have certain parts cut off their penises in specific cultures" that reveal your own POV bias against circumcision as it is historically understood referring to males only with [[Female genital cutting]] being and interesting subject for Anthropology but little to do with Western, Judeo-Christian and Judeo-Islamic cultures. Even by your own words, females could not be circumcised since they have not been endowed with penises and foreskins by God, and no sane person thinks that snipping the female clitoris and destroying her labia is remotely connected to the insititution and notion of circumcision. It would be like equating Nazi medical experimentation with conventional medical resaerch. One cannot lose one's head in the blinding light of moral relativism by equating inhumane immoral barbarity with Western and Biblical moral norms and practices. IZAK (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Time Out

Let us talk about the issues and not each other. Casting dispersions is not going to get us anywhere. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Gary. To paraphrase HAL 9000, I honestly think we ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, read this essay, and think things over. AlphaEta 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. --MPerel 23:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant?

This was recently tucked into the HIV section:

According to Valiere Alcena [4], it was he who first hypothesised that low rates of circumcision in Africa were partly responsible for the continent's high rate of HIV infection.[102] He did this via a letter to the New York State Journal of Medicine in August 1986.[103] He also alleges that the late Aaron J. Fink stole his idea when Fink published a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine entitled A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS, in October 1986.[104]

Any objections to moving this to one of the subarticles? I guess it's interesting, but is it notable enough for the main circ article? More importantly, if these people are still alive, are the refs up to par? Thoughts? Complaints? Accusations of pro- or anti-circ bias? AlphaEta 19:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who added it? I don't think removing the arguments as to who was responsible for the hypothesis that circumcision reduces HIV risk is a problem, as long as the discussions (and supporting evidence to the discussion) remains. However, I agree with you that it would be an appropriate addition to the Medical Effects sub-article. -- Avi (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added it. I think it is a good intro to the HIV section because it marks the beginning of the link between the 2 things. What links are not up to par? How can it be pro-circ or anti-circ , it is what happened.Tremello22 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the pro- anti-circ thing was an attempt at sarcasm. It never plays well on the internet. Also, it wasn't directed at any particular editor. AlphaEta 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think that the views of the WHO which currently take up 3 quite big paragraphs is excessive. It maybe violates some kind of NPOV policy. 1 paragraph would be sufficient. Tremello22 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for making things more concise. What did you have in mind? AlphaEta 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with the WHO is that they aren't the original source. So they are just providing conclusions and acting on those conclusions, in doing so, implying a result to the trials that might differ from the conclusions other readers would draw. I was just thinking of the wiki policy "let the reader decide". That is all. Tremello22 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking it over, the WHO info may be a bit excessive! AlphaEta 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro to HIV section

Why was the intro taken out coppertwig? What exactly do you object to? How does it go off on a tangent? Is it not important when and who originated this theory? I would say it is very important and should be included. Tremello22 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize: perhaps I should not have deleted this without discussing it first. If this paragraph has been discussed previously on this talk page, please put a link to it. I've self-reverted and restored the paragraph because of your message, though I still oppose its inclusion as currently formulated.

"According to Valiere Alcena [22], it was he who first hypothesised that low rates of circumcision in Africa were partly responsible for the continent's high rate of HIV infection. He did this via a letter to the New York State Journal of Medicine in August 1986. He also alleges that the late Aaron J. Fink stole his idea when Fink published a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine entitled A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS, in October 1986."

I don't oppose the inclusion of this information somewhere in this article or in a subarticle. It might be better to put most of it in a subarticle or footnote, to save space. The way the paragraph is now, I think it loses the reader's attention and doesn't give the reader a clear idea of what this section of this article is supposed to be about. This article is supposed to be about circumcision, not about who published what article in a scientific journal when.

I suggest replacing this paragraph with a single sentence as follows, and putting the rest of the information in a footnote: "A hypothesis that low rates of circumcision in Africa were partly responsible for the continent's high rate of HIV infection was proposed in 1986." As long as a footnote is given explaining who claims to have proposed it, I don't think this counts as weasel words.

There are problems with this paragraph. Please propose new material on the talk page first so that problems can be worked out before putting it into the article. The Alcena reference needs to be formatted correctly. The Alcena reference doesn't seem to support the statement: I see nothing about HIV on that web page. The Alcena reference may or may not count as a reliable source: it seems to be self-published: we would have to discuss this.

Thanks for contributing interesting material to the article, though, and I apologize for just deleting it rather than moving it to the talk page, moving it to a subarticle or modifying it; I'm glad you were watching. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

‘Shocking’ rates of adverse events seen with traditional and medical circumcision in Kenya

This one has the potential to be a bit controversial; so, before adding it to the article, I am putting it out here for discussion.

It is a WHO report about what it describes as “shocking” rates of adverse events seen with both traditional and medical circumcision in Kenya (35% in traditional and 18% in medically performed circumcisions).

The authors, who include Robert Bailey, the principal investigator on the one of the three randomised controlled studies of circumcision as an HIV prevention method, say:

“Our results…should serve as an alarm to ministries of health and the international health community that focus cannot only be on areas where circumcision is low…it must address the safety of circumcision in areas where it is already widely practised."

“If the practices in these communities continue to be largely ignored ... the gains to be achieved by promotion and provision of circumcision for HIV prevention may well be undermined by further accounts of unnecessary suffering.”

Finn (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the full citation if we choose to use this info: Bailey RC, Egesah O and Rosenberg S. (2008). Male circumcision for HIV prevention: a prospective study of complications in clinical and traditional settings in Bungoma, Kenya. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 86(9):669-677. AlphaEta 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(This is related to the conversation Blackworm and I had last week, so I'll copying it from archive 45):

Complications from traditional circumcision

I pulled the following sentence from the "complications" section:

A 1999 study of 48 boys seen between January 1981 and December 1995 found that haemorrhage occured in 52% of boys, infection in 21% and one child had his penis amputated.reference

Rationale: The study examines boys who had undergone "traditional" circumcision (presumably in Africa). However, "traditional" circumcision is not defined in the abstract or the Wikipedia article. It is also unclear if the 48 boys examined in the study were selected because they were experiencing complications, or if they were randomly selected from a pool of boys who had undergone traditional circumcision. This important distinction should be made if we include this study in the article.

I'm going to try to access the full article to clear up these details, but it may take a while since the IngentaConnect link on PubMed says "Page Not Found." If someone has library access to Annals of Tropical Paediatrics: International Child Health, please see if you can elucidate these issues. Thanks, AlphaEta 18:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for checking facts, AlphaEta. By the way, that sentence was added in this edit on Aug. 18 by Tremello22. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think for now, that AlphaEta's concerns would be addressed by writing, "A 1999 study of 48 boys who had complications from traditional male circumcision in Nigeria found that..." From the abstract, it seems clear to me that these boys were brought to the hospital because of their complications. I agree that it's misleading without noting this, and given this fact I'm not sure what the value of the information to this article is. Blackworm (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I've re-added it, for now. Do you feel the study is too specific for inclusion in the main article? We can always move it over to one of the sub-articles (I believe there are at least 20 to choose from). AlphaEta 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps the best place to put it would be in the "circumcision procedures" section, in the same paragraph as In poor African countries, male circumcision is often performed by non-medical personnel under unsterile conditions. Then again, some may argue that this is synthesis, since we may be unduly implying without a source that there is a relation between the poorness and Africa-ness of the circumcisions and the kinds of complications encountered. What do you think? Blackworm (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually had the exact same idea. It's also associated with this little gem that I added earlier today. I suppose we could use all three refs to make a new paragraph about the potential problems of inexpertly performed/non-sterile/"traditional" circumcision. I know the status quo around here is to just throw quotes into the article (thinking is tough!), but I figure between the two of us (and anyone else who wants to join in), we may actually be able to make some new words. Thoughts on the new words idea? (If we don't overstate the relationship between these three stories, we can probably avoid most WP:SYN concerns.) AlphaEta 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, AlphaEta, I hadn't noticed that one before. Ditto the citation - but the link I provided actually links to the full text of the report and I'm a step ahead on that:

<ref name = "WHO08Sept">{{cite journal | last = Bailey | first = Robert C | coauthors = Omar Egesah, Stephanie Rosenberg | year = 2008 | month = Sept | title = Male circumcision for HIV prevention: a prospective study of complications in clinical and traditional settings in Bungoma, Kenya | journal = Bulletin of the World Health Organization | volume = 86 | issue = 9 | pages = 657-736] | url = http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/08-051482/en/index.html | format = Full | accessdate = 2008-09-06 }}</ref> ;)

The main issue as I see it is how to work it in without sensationalising it; but still keeping it in the context of

• a study that is a direct reaction to the WHO circumcision initiative
• Kenyan government to roll out circumcision
• written by the author of the studies that triggered the WHO initiative
• has serious concerns about medically performed procedures too

At least with having the full text and diagrams on this one, there is no ambiguity and the limitations are clearly stated. Finn (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe balance it with this one:

Mattson CL et al. Risk compensation is not associated with male circumcision in Kisumu, Kenya: a multi-faceted assessment of men enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. PloS One, 3(6): e2443 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002443

It is a substudy of the original halted Kisumu randomised controlled circumcision trial, and basically concludes that (with the obvious exception of HIV) there were virtually no differences in risk behaviour, or in STI infections, between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

In light of the fact that rather a lot of public health advocates and political leaders have been reluctant to endorse circumcision for fears that its benefits will be negated by increased risk behaviour by men who perceive that their risk of HIV has been reduced (myself included, because I feared it would put women at greater risk from pressure to engage in unprotected sex), I do think that this is important citation to add for the sake for balance. Finn (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Mattson et al. have second paper coming out on the issue of risk compensation and circumcision:

Mattson C.L. et al. "Scaling Sexual Behavior or "Sexual Risk Propensity" Among Men at Risk for HIV in Kisumu, Kenya". AIDS Behav. 2008 Jul 24. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1007/s10461-008-9423-z. PMID:18651213

I agree that these should be included. AlphaEta 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a fair summary?: A 2008 WHO study of 1007 young men and boys amongst a traditionally-circumcised ethnic group in Kenya, published shortly after the Kenyan government announced plans to fast track an ambitious national rollout of male circumcision, observed what its authors described as “shocking” rates of adverse events (35% in traditional circumcision and 18% in medical circumcisions). 6% of operations resulted in permanent and irreversible damage (torsion of the penis, injuries to the glans, loss of penile sensitivity caused by scarring and erectile dysfunction) and, but for the intervention of the researchers, one traditional procedure would almost certainly have resulted in death. In stark contrast to recent HIV-preventative circumcision trials, which found that 96% of wounds had fully healed within 30 days, not a single wound had properly healed by this time in the WHO study. One in three traditional procedures, and one in six medical procedures, required re-circumcision. Infections, ranging from mild swelling and redness to life-threatening necrosis occurred in 42% of the medical procedures and 50% of traditional procedures. Antibiotic powders, where used, were of questionable benefit and tended to delay healing and result in thick scarring. Finn (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a fair representation of the results. Two questions: 1) Should we define "traditional" circumcision? and 2) Does this belong in the "Procedures" section or the "Complications" section? On the one hand, the procedures section is severly deficient in info on traditional circumcision techniques, but do you think we will run into problems by presenting the Kenyan study as the norm? It's a tough call. AlphaEta 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One way of getting around this problem would be to start a paragraph like this:

Traditional circumcisions are known to incur more complications. This is because... bla bla bla... the techniques used are ... bla bla bla... A 2008 WHO study of 1007 young men and boys amongst a traditionally-circumcised ethnic group in Kenya...A 1999 study of 48 boys seen between January 1981 and December 1995.... So just keep it all in one paragraph. Tremello22 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. AlphaEta 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should define traditional. In fact, I think we should go further than that and draw the clear distinction between cost pressured medical and well-resourced medical (the observational study in Kenya has both and the results are markedly different) so in final presentation I need to build the above summary into a framework that says: there is compelling evidence supporting male circumcision, but there is also compelling evidence to say that it has to be done right if it is to be effective.

The honest truth is that this would sit far more comfortably in an article about HIV-preventive circumcision. Rip half the crap out of this article to make it a nice and objective, relatively stable, article about circumcision; with a couple of factual but contentious sections about the ethics ... and have all the fast changing obfuscating crap together, in a separate article, where it could be dealt with properly and in its proper context, rather than used for devise purposes to forward one argument over the other (as it is here at the moment). Life would be so much easier then .. and yes, that is one of the other reasons I would like to see circumcision go to more of a disambiguation page :)Finn (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. We spend 90+% of our time debating a few points while most of the article goes neglected. A good example of this is the lede. We've produced thousands of words debating whether or not the AMA quote and WHO info should be there. I say pull both of them out of the lede, and move all but the most pertinent info out to sub-articles. AlphaEta 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We spend pages discussing medical benefits and harms, and opinions from the medical arena. We go on at length about circumcision and HIV, reflecting the huge amount of published research searching for or stating the existence of a link. The reader is better served by knowing what this article is about from the WP:LEAD. If it's to be trimmed, suggest trimming the "crap" first, not the lead which currently properly introduces the "crap." Blackworm (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And I don't even understand how any of this is "fast changing" (other than perhaps the WHO's official definitions of female genital mutilation, which it says is incorrectly known as female circumcision). Why can't we deal with it now, if there's issues? Blackworm (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole point though: we aren't reflecting the HIV circumcision research and we certainly aren't reflecting the totally different ethics debates that are going on about it. Selective bits are being cherry picked and artificially applied to arguments on which they actually have no bearing what-so-ever. There isn't a single piece of HIV research in this article that has any relevance outside of Africa and Asia - if we were reflecting HIV research, that would be glaringly obvious. By doing that, we are actually relegating the credibility of this article to that of just another one of the many pro and anti circ sites (from which half the citations are copied in the first place). A WHO report on the damaging effects of poorly resourced circumcision in Kenya is massive (it highlights the differences between the real world and tightly controlled well resourced trial environments); but it is wholly irrelevant to how most cultural / religious circumcision is performed outside of Africa. Finn (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro to "medical policies" section

"Most guidelines make a distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic circumcision. Therapeutic circumcision (where there is a medical need to circumcise) is rarely controversial. Neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary and is therefore categorised as non-therapeutic."

This was originally removed recently. the rationale for inclusion is that people may not be aware that there are different policies for theraputic and non-theraputic. They also may not understand the terms in relation to circumcision. I think it is a helpful addition and feel it shoul remain. Tremello22 (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Trem, I had pulled it because it was/is redundant with the first sentence in Ethical issues. We have similar/related info spread all throughout the article. We should consolidate it to one location or the other. AlphaEta 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a long article and I am guessing that people don't just read it all from top to bottom so I would argue it is not redundant. If it was in the same section then yes I'd agree. I notice it is in the ethics section, I think it is an exaggeration to say that this info is all over the article. I would argue it is better to just have it under the medical association policies section. By putting this in the ethics section you tacitly suggest that there is ambiguity over the terms therapeutic and non-therapeutic in relation to routine infant circumcision. I think I'm right in thinking there is no ambiguity and that therapeutic circumcision means that there is a medical "need" to circumcise when of course all medical associations agree that there is no medical "need". So what do you think , take it out off the ethics section? Tremello22 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how much of the article people will read in sequence, but I do agree that the following paragraphs should be moved down to the "Medical policies" section:

The American Medical Association defines “non-therapeutic” circumcision as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. It states that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns.[42] The medical harms or benefits of non-threapeutic have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly.[43] Reasons for non-therapeutic circumcision include religious beliefs as well as cultural and family conformity.[44]

UNAIDS state (2007): "Male circumcision is a voluntary surgical procedure and health care providers must ensure that men and young boys are given all the necessary information to enable them to make free and informed choices either for or against getting circumcised."[45]

Anyone else want to chime in before we make the move? Thanks, AlphaEta 22:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the UNAIDS paragraph is not about the policy of a medical organization, and doesn't directly relate to the medical aspects, i.e. the possible benefits and possible harms of circumcision. The paragraph seems to be about informed choice, which is an statement on ethics, not a statement on their medical policy (if indeed they have any). Blackworm (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue reliance on single source in "Sexual effects"

Beejaypii mercifully removed a horribly sourced bit of info from the "Sexual effects" section (how did we miss this for so long?), but I object to the recent expansion of the info from the 2002 Boyle et al. paper. The amount of speculative material from the paper presented in this Wikipedia article is now disproportionate with its prominence. Why should the opinions presented in this single paper be given so much space in comparison with the Sorrells et al., Payne et al. and Krieger et al. results? AlphaEta 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how that was missed - people just add stuff without thinking how it fits in. I can see where beejay is coming from though. It does seem like the sexual effects section is pro-circ. For instance I don't think you can call what masters and johnson did a proper "study" - it is basically 2 pages in a book. It is also 40 years old, wasn't peer-reviewed and I seem to recall an article that said it contacted masters or johnson and they didn't even remember doing the "study"! Articles like the sorrells are much more scientific, not to mention recent and of course peer-reviewed. So I think we should judge which are the most reliable studies and then work from there in choosing which to present on the main circ page and which to leave to the "sexual effects" page. Tremello22 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, whether or not the 2002 Boyle et al. paper is a "study" is also debatable. It doesn't appear to present any new data, so I would be more inclined to call it a "review" or an "analysis". AlphaEta 00:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then we must make that clear. Tremello22 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I mildly disagree with both of you on the Schoen paragraph. Edgar Schoen is ubiquitous in scientific literature on circumcision, and apparently has strong views in favour of the procedure[23], and his study there is notable (and fascinating). I suppose I could probably find a different source discussing the subject of women's preferences relating to male circumcision. I believe that in some cultures men can't marry unless they undergo circumcision, and I wonder how much women's sexual preference has a role in that. Blackworm (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may wish to note that actress Jenny McCarthy wrote a book in which she said: “If you don’t know what an uncircumcised penis looks like, you will once you baby boy is born. When I saw my son’s for the first time, I thought it looked kind of like a wrinkled french fry. I had the hardest time knowing that I would have to be the one to tell the doc, “Go ahead.” How could I do anything to cause him pain? But I did, and my main reason was that I wanted him to have a pretty penis.”

It's amazing, because it sounds exactly like the reasoning used by parents who circumcise daughters in Africa. I wish we could refer to sources that comment on this parallel, but I won't bother looking for them, since there's no article in Wikipedia where it would be allowed (since this circumcision article apparently can't discuss female circumcision). Blackworm (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Schoen reads like a pro-circ because he is pro-circ, has been a pro-circ activist for decades and advocate for non-anaesthetised infant male circumcision. He shouldn't even be cited. His article isn't a peer-reviewed paper and most of the time he is citing himself from other papers that mostly aren't peer-reviewed either . Also keep in mind that was for a Canadian audience, but it is heavily reliant on studies into male circumcision for HIV prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa. He conveniently ignores all the studies that without fail show that widespread circumcision variously would have a neutral to mildly worsening effect on HIV transmission rates in more temperate climates. The only solid fact is the penile cancer thing .. and he would circumcise every male at birth for the less than one in ten million chance that they will get penile cancer? Says it all really. The fact that something is published in a medical journal doesn't make it true, reliable and peer reviewed, or even believable (for how many years was Jake's bizarre letter to the Lancet used as a citation on here?). Medical journals will often publish stuff like this to spark debate: Volume 22, Number 18 of The New England Medical Journal did it with Poland v Schoen on the question of neonatal circumcision – one for and one against – each with their own unreviewed article. If you use Schoen, then you may as well cite directly from circumcicion.org too. That's my view. Finn (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of these same arguments could be used to exclude the 2002 Boyle et al. review (from the opposite perspective), but as long as the viewpoints are represented in proportion to their prominence, and supported with verifiable citations, I see no reason why either author should be left out completely. AlphaEta 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a very fair point, Alpha. Personally I don't think Boyle has a place here either though. I'd get rid of both; because neither are what I call genuine research: they both set out knowing what they want to find, they both have a vested interest that gives them selective vision and they both cheerfully ignore evidence that contradicts them. Keeping both is just as valid as getting rid of both though. Finn (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Paring back the WHO info

Proposed re-write of the HIV section (refs in italics):

While more than 40 epidemiological studies have suggested that circumcision provides a protective effect for men against HIV infection,(Szabo & Short, 2000) early meta-analyses of observational and epidemiological data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV.(Weiss, et al., 2000)(Siegfried, et al. Cochrane review) However, randomized controlled trials conducted in South Africa,(Auvert, et al., 2005) Kenya(Bailey, et al., 2007) and Uganda(Gray, et al., 2007) found that male circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60 percent, 53 percent, and 51 percent, respectively. All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the intact group.(Bailey, et al., 2007) A meta-analysis of the African randomised controlled trials and other observational studies confirmed that using circumcision as a means to reduce HIV infection would, on a national level, require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit. According to this particular meta-analysis, 72 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 HIV infection.(Mills et al., 2008)

As a result these findings, WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention when done by well trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent.("New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention... WHO)("WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention... WHO)("Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence... WHO/UNAIDS) Both the WHO and CDC indicate that it may not reduce HIV transmission from men to women, and that data is lacking for the transmission rate of men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner.("New Data on Male Circumcision ... WHO)("Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions... CDC) The joint WHO/UNAIDS recommendation also notes that circumcision only provides partial protection from HIV and should never replace known methods of HIV prevention.("WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention... WHO)

Other reports have indicated that circumcision has little to no effect on HIV transmission.(Carael, et al., 1988)(Grosskurth, et al., 1995)(Barongo, et al., 1992) Furthermore, some have challenged the validity of the African randomized controlled trials, prompting a number of researchers to question the effectiveness of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy.(Mills & Siegfried, 2006)(Dowsett, et al., 2007)

Thoughts? Criticisms? Grievances? Accusations of pro- or anti-circumcision bias (/sarcasm)? Overt or subtle insults? AlphaEta 00:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you keep the introduction that I added then yes I think that is a big improvement. Nice work. Tremello22 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it; but going forward and working and looking towards overall improvements to the article, the problems I see on it are that the WHO/UNIADS statement was very specifically about:

1. young adults and adolescents
2. countries with high prevalence and generalized heterosexual HIV epidemics that currently have low rates of male circumcision - in other words, it was targeted very much at sub-Saharan Africa where a combination of resources and climate make wetness (genital hygiene) a general problem

If we can work that in, then we also:

1. explain why WHO / UNAIDS justifiably ignored the evidence that circumcision would have no impact in countries / regions where other factors prevail
2. explain why it isn't a worldwide recommendation
3. make it clear that it is a very different set of ethical arguments to those in the infant circumcision debate Finn (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds well-written and well-organized: it flows much more smoothly than the current version. Thank you, AlphaEta! ☺ The only piece of information I notice that you've added or removed is that you've removed the mention of keratin as a hypothesis as to the reason for circumcision's preventive effect. I oppose the removal of this information, as I think it adds significant meaning to what is otherwise just statistics as numbers without explanation. I've changed the keratin sentence as I had suggested at the bottom of the thread Talk:Circumcision/Archive 42#HIV. I suggest that this modified sentence be retained; I suggest adding it as the last sentence of the first paragraph of your draft. Coppertwig (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that Szabo's keratinised glans theory is hotly disputed; so if we keep that section, then it needs to be rewritten to make it reflect that and cite the opposing views (as acknowledged in Szabo's very own paper). The test for me is whether reference to it actually helps understading. I would suggest it doesn't, so my vote says we just get rid of it. Finn (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, do I read that right and is Szabo & Short being used as a direct replacement for the McCoombe paper? If so, that would be a mistake; because one speculates about keratinised glans and the other speculates about poorly keratinised glans - which just goes to show that whatever process is going on just isn't understood at all - something happens on the penis, but we don't actually know exactly what it is - and that we would be better off without it, before we sink in a sea of conflicting citations. Finn (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Finn. All of the mechanistic explanations are speculative at this point. This info would be more suitable in the "Medical aspects" sub-article, or in a new HIV/circ sub-article. AlphaEta 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought both papers were saying something similar: that the inner surface of the foreskin lacks keratin. I don't have time to re-check at the moment. We could keep the statement, and add a brief statement like "though others dispute this" or whatever, for NPOV. Good to describe the controversy. We don't delete stuff just because there's controversy. Are there any other theories as to why circumcision might prevent HIV? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to re-read the sources right now, but assuming I previously cited them correctly, one is saying the inner surface of the foreskin has only a thin keratin layer, the other is saying it has no keratin layer: that's essentially the same thing, it lacks the thick keratin layer of most normal skin including the glans, and thus is hypothesized as a viral entry point. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently read that removal of preputal Langerhans cells may play a more important role than keratinization. Give me a little while to dig up the source. Of course, these two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, but it seems like most of the explanations are guesswork at this point. AlphaEta 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coppertwig. We shouldn't relegate controversies to subarticles. What a refreshing change! Blackworm (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with it in its proper context isn't relegation - it is giving it the attention it deserves and in a context in which it makes sense.Finn (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, here is an example of the real importance of the Langerhans' cells debate: Observational studies in a clinic in South Africa shows a 50% tendency to moisture beneath the foreskin in uncircumcised men. Do the same study in a similar clinic in an ethically varied part of London and there is an overall 7% tendency to moisture beneath the foreskin (but look at the detail of the study and you see that it differs dramatically along ethnic and cultural lines and that the tendency is down to 3% amongst men of African descent). Moisture is important because, above a certain level, it creates an environment in which HIV can survive outside of the body (HIV dies instantly when exposed to the air, but not when it is trapped in a moist airtight ridge below the glans with loads of immune system cells to lock onto and do battle with). Model the theory at 7% and , from an HIV prevention point of view, it is a very slight advantage to being uncircumcised. Model the theory at 50% and, from an HIV prevention point of view, it is a distinct advantage to circumcised. The research is mentioned in the article; but not in the context of the Langerhans' cells debate and only (until I reworded it) to try to make a banal point about uncircumcised men being dirty because they don't wash as frequently as circumcised men. What the series of research papers said, as an aside from the main objective of understanding HIV transmission and the function of Langerhans' cells, was that the sample of circumcised men were slightly more likely to wash their penis more than once a day and that in temperate climates – and temperate climates only – washing your genitals more than once a day left you more vulnerable to diseases (because it leaves you short of the Langerhans' cells that will normally afford a degree of protection from diseases other than HIV, but which HIV can piggyback). In other words, the citation was used to make a point that the research wasn't even making and to draw original conclusions that was potentially totally contrary to that of the research. That is very far from being the only example tortured use of HIV citations in this article that both Schoen and Boyle would be proud of.Finn (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)