Talk:Circumcision/Archive 2

• Talk:Circumcision/Archive 1 (partly refactored)

---

I wrote: RK's removal of massive slabs of text (see the page history) is an intolerable violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. RK wrote: Your claims are simply not true; I have not done this!

Well, how do you explain the evidence of the page history? How do you explain your removal of this: One important point made by circumcision opponents is that part of the infant's body is being unnecessarily and permanently removed without the subject's consent. Or your removal of this: Approximately 85 percent of human males in the world have not been circumcised and the percentage that have is falling.

As you can see, I deleted two sentences here! That is not massive slabs of text! RK

Now that the server is working tolerably well, I withdraw part of my statement: it was not "massive slabs", simply "selected key items". Nevertheless, that remains a serious violation of NPOV policy. Tannin

How is this a violation of NPOV? I don't understand your point. Nonetheless, if you want to re-insert these sentences, by all means please do so. I have no objections. RK

---

Before I do major rewrites, I'd also like to point out that

Based on decades of medical studies, most medical doctors accept that routine circumcision has a number of proven health benefits.

is a classical example of POV phrasing. Medical doctors accept that suggests a previous strong resistance from medical doctors to this now securely established "fact". The few who do not "accept" this "fact" are obviously pariahs who should be ostracized.

I am sad to see you public slandering the majority of medical doctors, simply because their reading of modern day scientific research contradicts your beliefs. Again, I note that your emotional response to this issue is over-the-top, and is presenting you from discussing the issue rationally. You have now made it clear that (a) most doctors are "pariahs" who should be "ostracized", and you have made it clar that religious Jews and Muslims should be thrown in jail after laws get passed to ban circumcision. Your extremists agenda and emotional tirade makes it very difficult to discuss the issue with you. Frankly, you are beginning to scare the shit out of me. RK

See my comments to RK above regarding this "fact" of medical benefits. "Most medical doctors" is of course also highly questionable -- has there been a survey? Among whom? US doctors? German doctors? Phrases like "proven" and "decades of medical studies" are also common rhetorical instruments of reassurance. A pro-circumcision parent who reads this sentence will very likely react with "See, Wikipedia says that circumcision has proven health benefits." It's an excellent propaganda sentence because it subtly inserts a pro-circumcision POV into a supposedly balanced article. --Eloquence 03:07 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Lets look at the facts, shall we?

• The Canadian Paediatric Society, does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. (1996)
• neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, 1996
• The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns. Australian Medical Association, 1996
• To circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate. British Medical Association, 1996
• We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, 1996
• Existing evidence does not justify recommending routine circumcision. American Academy of Pediatrics, 1999 Tannin 13:56 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I never said anything to the contrary. In fact, I wrote the same thing myself! RK

---

Elqoence, just because you can find a tiny number of Jews who believe X, doesn't mean that X is a part of Judaism. Would you claim that Protestant Christianity is "a Jewish view of Jesus"? After all, thousands of Jews have left Judaism and converted to Protestant fundamentalist Christianity, through one or more forms of messianic Judaism. Doesn's this prove that Christianity is a part of Judaism? No. All it proves is that a tiny percent of American Jews have left Judaism and instead adopted Christianity. Just because a tiny percent of Jews have attacked circumcision and have adopted a non-Jewish view of circumcision, doesn't mean that this view is now magially a part of Judaism. It would incorrect and misleading to present this as a Jewish point of view. It would be no less misleading and dishonest than the "Jews for Jesus" (a real group) that presents the worship of Jesus as form of Judaism. RK

Please read NPOV again. If Jews for Jesus present the worship of Jesus as a form of Judaism, then we should report this fact. If Jews against Circumcision present the opposition to circumcision as compatible with Judaism, then we should report this fact. What you are trying to do is downplay the existence of a group you don't like by using POV phrases like "a very small number", "a tiny percent" and even "beyond the pale". Without sources, these phrases only make your POV look badly researched and emotional, and make Wikipedia look unprofessional. This is unacceptable. If most Jews think they need to genitally mutilate their children for them to be loved by God, then we should report this. But we need to represent all viewpoints accurately, not just the ones you agree with. This is the litmus test: If Jews against circumcision can read the final paragraph and agree with it, and Jews for circumcision can read it and agree with it, then we have reached an acceptable outcome. --Eloquence 01:57 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

No one denues that a very tiny percent of non-religious Jews, and an even tinier percent of Reform Jews, do hold an anti-circumcision position, and I never claimed otherwise. I only objected to your phrasing of this issue, because you deceptively tried to present this as a Jewish point of view, rather than (more accurately) as an anti-Jewish point of view. You are so hell-bent on pushing your beliefs that you are badly misrepresenting the beliefs of the Jewish community. For shame. RK

These people regard themselves as a part of Judaism. You call it shameful to point out this fact. It's shameful to deny mothers and fathers their cultural and ethnic heritage if they refuse to have their babies mutilated. You call them "anti-Jews" and "non-religious" because their practices do not fit your prejudices. A balanced article will represent these views accurately, and will not quantify them without a proper citation, as you have done. --Eloquence 20:19 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'd like to see you two work this out. What I find annoying in the article in the latest "Eloquence" version are the sentences that begin Some Jewish individuals have joined... and Some Reconstructionist and Reform rabbis...' - Look at it from my perspective, that of a non-jewish person who knows just about nothing about jewish views of circumcision. I can't read that paragraph and get any idea if we are talking about 1% or 30%. Is there some way you can agree on a way of phrasing this that indicates how big these factions are? -º¡º

Frankly, I don't know, and I suspect RK doesn't either. If you check out the Brit Shalom page [1], you will note that this alternative is already offered in several US states. Some anti-circumcision Jews may also find other ways to replace or forego the ritual. And many if not most Jews who oppose circumcision are probably not organized in any way. The only way to get realistic data would be a survey in different countries, with different answers available (e.g. oppose it and do not practice it, oppose it but practice it out of conformity, do not care about it, endorse it and practice it, strongly endorse it and practice it). I think it is safe to say the number is small, but anything beyond that is just POV without a citation. I won't accept RK's biased opinion as authoritative here. --Eloquence 12:28 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence might not know, but I do have a rough idea. The percent of religious Jews (Jews who actually practice Judaism as religion, even if they are not Orthodox) who support the anti-circumcision point of view would probably be about 1%. No Conservative Jews hold this way; No Orthodox or Hasidic Jews hold this way. Very few Reform or Reconstructionist Jews hold this way. The problem is that Eloquence is so hell-bent on outlawing circumcision, he has allowed wishful thinking to override facts. That is why I rephrased the paragraph he wrote on this issue. Also, I strongly question much of the other material he recently added. It is very biased, and he is presenting a minority medical view as the majority. Most American doctors are not anti-circumcision, as he implies. They simply are not for it, which is a very different position. RK

Provide a citation of a survey among Jews, preferably in several countries, and we can talk about quantification. As for bias, where does the article state that a majority of US doctors is opposed to circumcision? The article states that "current US medical opinion about circumcision is highly controversial". It discusses in detail arguments for circumcision that have been made, usually by ardent circumcision advocates who regard the foreskin as "a mistake of nature" (Wiswell, who came up with the first UTI claims). You accuse me of bias? What I have done: I have invested several hours to add a summary of recent research and history to this article. What you have done: You have rewritten the paragraphs which do not fit your proconceived notions, removed large portions of text without explanation (where did Maimonides go, hm?) and added POV phrases like "beyond the pale" and "a tiny percent" without even a token attempt at actual research. You're not interested in neutrality -- you have always wanted this article to present a warm, fuzzy picture of circumcision that hides certain facts you do not like. This isn't going to happen. --Eloquence 20:38 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Man, that is one of the most angry diatribes I have seen against me. I am disappointed by the way that you make up facts about subjects you admit you know nothing about (the beliefs and practices of the Jewish community) yet demand that others provide proof that you are wrong. It doesn't work that way. If you insist on making bizarre claims (ie. that the anti-Jewish anti-circumcision position is now a "Jewish position") then it is up to you to back your claims up. Further, no on here is hiding the viewpoint of Maimonides. I just rewrote that section because you dishontesly presented his view on this issue as the mainstream Jewish view. It isn't, and it never was. On this issue most Jews disagree. Finally, your anger at me is clearly a form of projection. I have no problem with your actions, yet you have made it clear that you consider me, and my entire people (the Jews) to be child-mutilating criminals obsessed with sex whose actions should be outlawed. That speaks volumes about your own lack of POV, if not self-control. It also is borderline anti-Jewish polemics. As long as you keep falsely claiming that we are are obsessed with sex and are mutilating our children, it will be hard to have a friendly conversation. Please calm down. RK

You're the one making up facts -- if you claim that "a tiny percent" of Jews are opposed to circumcision, it is up to you to provide sources for such statements. If you claim that Jews regard Goldman's book as "beyond the pale", it is up to you to provide a citation. As for your "rewrite", this diff shows quite clearly that you have simply removed views you do not like and added lots of unqualified polemic. So far, you have failed to support your views with evidence, and you are masking your failure in rhetoric. I'm not interested in rhetoric -- you have a long history of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic views. I'm interested in facts. Put up or shut up. --Eloquence 21:27 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Could any of the usages of "some" be replaced with "a small fraction" or "a vocal minority" or something like that while retaining NPOV? -º¡º

"A small fraction" sounds like a very sensible suggestion to me. (Though I hasten to add that I know nothing about Judaism and only a little about the US.) In the end, we can't hope to know every proportion down to the last decimal point, and we have to accept a carefully worded vagueness instead. Tannin

RK, there is no call for that sort of personal attack. Do try not to froth at the mouth so. Tannin

He clearly is calling me a child-mutilation proponent who is attacking children's genitalia because of some sex-based obsession. Why shouldn't I be offended at his tantrums? He is the one frothing at the mouth abou children's penises. He needs some prozac. RK

I have never accused you of any "sex-based obsession", but you have demonstrated a clear bias in your treatment of this subject. Unless you work to control that bias, we can hardly work together on the article. Someone who uses the phrase "for shame" in dozens of posts and accuses others of anti-Jewish views whenever possible should be careful about recommending medication to others. Do a search for exclamation marks on this page and note which comments they belong to. --Eloquence 21:27 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

I think that both of you are reacting very personally. Although I suggested something like "small fraction", I agree that "beyond the pale" is going too far. -º¡º

I think we should snip the personal attacks

(pun intended)

;-) Martin

People are misreading the paragraph! I did not have the article say that the anti-circumcision position is "beyond the pale". Rather, I pointed out that most religious Jews view the anti-circumcision movement as beyond the pale of Jewish religious behaviour. Why is this a problem? RK

What does "beyond the pale" mean to you? To me, it means something akin to "outside of acceptable behavior&". If you write "most religious jews consider anti-circumcision to be beyond the pale", I read "most religious jews consider anti-circumcision to be outside of acceptable behavior". To my eyes, it reads as a strong condemnation of anti-circumcision on behalf of most jews, and is a statement that I'd prefer to either see toned down or put in the context of quoting some specific jewish leader or organization. Perhaps "beyond the pale" means something weaker to you, and you hadn't considered how strong the meaning of it is to some people. Literally speaking, sometimes those who are "beyond the pale" to be outside the protection of the law, free to be attacked with impunity. -º¡º

Uh, you are really not understanding the statement. Jews consider the anti-circumcision movement beyond the pale of Judaism. They don't have a probelm with Christians, atheists or Muslims refusing to circumcise their children. Similarly, they consider the worship of Jesus to be beyond the pale of Jewish theology. They don't care whether or not gentiles worship Jesus. And even if Jews did have strong feelings about the anti-circumcision movement, so what? Should we lie about this, and refuse to state that? Mentioning the beliefs of a group is what Wikipedia articles do. Sadly, however, Eloquence's hateful rage at me in particular and Jews in general is causing him to engage on a flamewar that now is becoming openly anti-Semitic. RK

You are the one engaging in a flamewar, RK. You have personalized this discussion from the start, in an apparent attempt to distract from your inability to produce sources for your statements. Now you're crying "anti-Semitism" again, one of your favorite discussion tactics. This is getting boring and I don't have time for it. --Eloquence 22:49 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Why do you criticise me for a position I do not hold? It is only Eloquence who is claiming that Jews are barbaric savages who mutilate their children; it is only Eloquence who believes that they they should be outside the protection of the law, as he says that their religious ritual should be made into a punishable criminal offense. It is only Eloquence who is attacking people with impunity. I, on the other hand, don't care at all whether or not he wants to circumcise his children. I couldn't care less. How can you twist this around to attack me? I honestly don't understand. RK

Of course I have never said the things you say I have said. Your deliberate distortions of other people's statements are really getting annoying, and are in clear violation of Wikiquette. Outside the protection of the law -- what a nice phrase for you to use to bring any opposition to circumcision into the context of religious persecution. No, circumcision opponents do not want Jews to be "outside the protection of the law", but some of them do want anti-circumcision laws to apply to everyone equally, Jew, Muslim or misguided US doctor. Others want compulsive counselling for parents who want to genitally mutilate their baby. Most want some kind of protection of children from genital mutilation, for whatever reason it is performed. --Eloquence 22:49 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's quite barbaric of them too. I'd certainly vote to have it banned if it ever came to that. And I agree with (erm... can't type the name) -- "beyond the pale" is a very strong statement. -- Tarquin 14:33 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

No-one is saying that the Jews (or anyone else either) are barbaric people. It is the mutilation that is said to be barbaric. Psychologists have a term for this error, RK. It's called (and I'm going to link it because if there is not a 'pedia entry on it already then there should be), the Fundamental attribution error. It is defined as attributing a bad act to the other person ("he forgot my birthday, therefore he is a bad man") rather than to the person's circumstances. Applied to oneself, it works in reverse. We tend to attribute our own bad acts to the the particular circumstances, not to our personalities: (I forgot your birthday, but I'm not a forgetful person, it was just that it was Monday and I was busy at the office and I had a headache"). It's been demonstrated over and over again that people make this error in a very consistent way. I'm way too rusty on my psych to be able to quote figures or cite authorities, but it's very standard, uncontroversial stuff. You'd find it on Google in no time at all. The point, of course, is that flinging these wild and ungentlemanly accusations at Montrealis is to fall victim to this error. He is not a bad person, he is merely saying what (by your lights) is a bad thing: that circumcision of unconsenting humans is a fundamental breech of human rights. Play the ball and stop playing the man. Tannin

So murderers are not bad people? They are good people who merely have done a bad act? Rapists are not bad people? They merely have done a bad act? And child-mutilating Jews aren't bad people, and we are merely doing a bad act? This doesn't make me feel any better. Is it really that hard for you to understand why Jews (and Muslims, and many others) don't want a tiny handful of extreme leftist gentiles to pass anti-circumcision laws which would throw us in jail as child-mutilators for following our faith?! Especially so for a procedure that the vast majority of American doctors do not have a problem with! And let us reall the facts: The vast majority of American medical doctors do not see circumcision as barbaric or mutilation; there merely view it as unnecessary. RK

it's no more than a tradition. learn to let go, RK. :-) The UK is passing anti-smacking laws. The only reason they don't pass anti-cicumcision is policitcal: they daren't offend minorities, which is a great pity. It is hardly extremist. -- Tarquin 13:27 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I have no desire to throw accusations around. I fully recognise that many people mutilate their children in all good faith and good will: in the United States, in Australia, in sub-Saharan Africa (where, all too often, they chop off part of the pleasure organ of both sexes, not just boys). It's not intentionally evil. Let's face it, there is no reasonable prospect of passing child mutilation laws in the USA (or in Oz) in your lifetime or mine. The actual process of abolition (at least in my estimation) is more likely to follow a two-fold path: (a) public education (as has already happened, to a great degree), and (b) civil legal measures for assualt (which, once they hit, will hit big-time - if I was running a medical insurance company, I'd be writing an exclusion clause into our standard policies right now). Actual criminal penalties are a long, long way off, and may in fact never happen. The more likely thing is that mutilation of an unconsenting person's genitals will simply be treated under the existing laws of assualt. Already we are seeing this happen with female circumcision, and, sooner or later, the existing anti-sex discrimination laws will make sure that it applies equally to all. It's just a matter of time. Tannin

Could people please remember to use this page to talk about the article, not about the subject? As I recall, the debate over circumcision has gone on for many years, and we're unlikely to resolve the issue here. Wikipedia is not usenet, after all... ;-) Martin

---

• answered Q - thanks Eloquence

Unless you are willing to add data for circumcision in predominantly Muslim or Jewish nations, moving SK into the table is a bad idea. The table belongs into the context of "routine neonatal circumcisions for non-religious reasons", where the statement is made that the US is the only nation that practices circ. on a majority of infants. Adding SK would be misleading in that context, unless we are willing to provide data for all countries that circumcise. Eloquence 15:23 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll go look for stats some time. I think a table showing circumcision practices generally will be more informative than one showing only non-religious and neonatal circumcisions. After all, this entry is meant to be about circumcision generally, right? Martin

Yes and no -- having more data is, of course, always good, but a nation where the population predominantly follows a religion that practices circumcision can be expected to have a respectively high circ. rate -- unless one of those religions started to denounce the practice, which, AFAICT, is not happening yet. Routine neonatal circumcision for non-religious reasons, OTOH, is a special phenomenon, with rates changing drastically over time. What would be very interesting is a graph showing circ. rates for different contries from 1800 to 2000. I would imagine that in one of the hundreds of papers and books about circ, such a graph or table could be found (there are usually hospital records for circ.), but so far I have only seen single datapoints. --Eloquence 15:51 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

[2] has a graphs on US prevalence over time, which is interesting. Martin

Martin, please stop buggering about with other people's comments on talk pages. Tannin

Does that request apply to the archive as well, or just this page?

---

What does "religiously necessary" mean? -- Tarquin 22:28 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I have rewritten this sentence in the main article to try and explain it more clearly. RK

---

If the Biblical stuff only applies to Jews, should it only be put in Brit milah? Martin

You misunderstand. Jews believe that the rules in the Hebrew Bible apply only to them, and that gentiles are not obligated to follow the rules. (Though they may certainly convert to Judaism if they wish) This does not mean that the Bible is of no concern to gentiles; The story, meaning, purpose, history and influence of the Bible is of great general concern, and it is a necessary component of the history of circumcision. In terms of a discussion of what Jews believe a person should follow, that is indeed discussed in a separate entry, Halakha. RK

---

Having looked at the previous talk, I might be venturing into the lion's den. Just two questions

There is an assumption that circumcision is desensitising. Whilst this seems plausible, presumably the only evidence for this would be from men circumcised as adults. Does this happen?

In the US, is there any ethnic difference. Do Hispanics, with a non-English background remain uncut? What about black Americans? jimfbleak 19:00 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't have any hard facts, but my impression is that Latinos tend to be uncircumcised while African-American males tend to be circumcised. SCCarlson 03:39 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)