Talk:Circumcision/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Circumcision

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert Brookes (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 11 September 2004 (This and that ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Non-medical circumcisions

Non-medical circumcisions for religious or cultural reasons constitute the majority of circumcisions carried out world wide. The article must take cognisance of this fact and the necessary information must be inserted. - Robert Brookes 15:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a really difficult statistic to ascertain accurately, no? A good deal of these circumcisions will go unreported. How are we to posit our data as reliable when so many cultures consider circumcision unnecessary for record? A more beneficial statistic would be an age-based survey that could track generational trends much more effectively. - Methylsoy 17:56, 21 Aug 2004 (EST)
  • The statistic is not difficult to estimate really. The problem is that there are attempts to exaggerate or understate the prevalence from the pro or anti POV. In the article the "low" estimate has been placed there by "you know whom". Something like "estimates vary from 16-30%" will probably have to suffice as a compromise. With respect, who is going to carry out an "age-based survey" of all the peoples of the earth? This point is, however, much less of importance than to be sure to include information on the non-medical circumcisions (religious and cultural/rite of passage) which make up the majority of circumcisions performed world wide. - Robert Brookes 05:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prevalence of Male Circumcision

This section needs a lot of work. There are glaring inaccuracies (probably deliberate lies) that have been posted there. Before the editing starts, should we play spot the lies? - Robert Brookes 15:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I was under the impression that circumcision was much more popular as well, I'm certainly going to refrain from calling my fellow Wikipedians liars. If you've used the word "probably" because you have no evidence to support your accusations, then please refrain from promoting a situation that could lead to hate or anger. The word "liar" is as useless to Wikipedia as misinformation, especially if it's unfounded. - Methylsoy 17:56, 21 Aug 2004 (EST)
  • You need to know who you are dealling with here. Then you need to realise that you cannot take anything on face value from the monomaniac anti-circumcision extremists. So armed you will find it a lot easier to deal with debates around articles on what should or shouldn't be included. The fact that this article, to achieve NPOV, has been radically edited indicates, or should indicate, that left unchallenged and to their own devices they just can't controll themselves and will post the most outrageous propaganda. I hear and understand your point about lies and liars. But are these people wikipedians or are they single issue monmaniac anti-circumcision fanatics hell bent on using wikipedia as a vehicle for advancing their dubious cause? As to what is an isn't a lie, as we progress all will be revealed. - Robert Brookes 05:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit - Consensus in the medical community on what?

The AAP 1999 Statement said as follows:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy." AAP Statement

How this got to what was posted remains to be explained. This is what was posted:

"Today, there is a broad consensus in the medical community that the potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms."

Unless someone could explain where this statement comes from and substantiate its accuracy it should remain deleted as yet more "wishful thinking" rather than even a mere POV. - Robert Brookes 07:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics says there are potential benefits and risks to circumcision. The AAP policy statement does not say the potential benefits are greater than the risks nor does it say the risks are greater than the potential benefits. That indicates the AAP thinks the potential benefits of circumcision are about equal to the risks.
The official policy statements of professional medical organizations in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain also discuss the relationship between potential medical benefits of circumcision and medical risks and harms.
Canadian Paediatric Society
"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure."
Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002. http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm
British Medical Association
"The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."
The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003. http://web.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003
The sentence "Today, there is a broad consensus in the medical community that the potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms." is an accurate reflection of the consensus in the international medical community as expressed by the official policy statements of professional medical organizations in several different countries. In my opinion the sentence is accurate and should be included in the article. DanBlackham 09:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the evidence displayed above it is obvious that medical bodies in different countries have come to varying conclusions about circumcision.

Americans potential benefits not great enough to recommend circumcision
Canadians equally balanced risks and benefits.
Australians no evidence of benefit outweighing harm
British claimed medical benefits not convincingly proven; medical and psychological risks.

The assessment of risk and harm of the various bodies reflects the circumcision practices of the various countries. So the British are most against it and the Americans are most in support. Even so, the American body says that the evidence is not strong enough to recommend circumcision.

As there is no consensus it would be more accurate to point out the varying policies in the different countries. Michael Glass

  • Nice try boys. But nowhere does it all add up to": "Today, there is a broad consensus in the medical community that the potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms." You should really try to stick with the truth, maybe just maybe it could set you free. - Robert Brookes 16:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's try again. The American body says that potential benefits are not great enough to recommend circumcision. This statement implies benefits, even though it says they are 'potential' The Canadian body says that the benefits and risks are equally balanced. The Australian bodies say that there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm. Finally, the British body claims that the benefits are not proven and there are medical and psychological risks. Clearly the British statement is less in favour of circumcision than the others.

  • When ever anti-circumcision activists make emphatic statements it is well to verify the accuracy of such. What the British Medical Association actually says is this:
"There is a spectrum of views within the BMA's membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children's interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." BMA
"The Association has no policy on these issues". Caught with your hand in the cookie jar again? So what's new? Spend a little time here: Truth - Robert Brookes 05:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If the two quotations from the British policy are accurate it is evidence that the varying approaches of different doctors in Britain are reflected in the statement. It is not an occasion for self-righteous posturing.

Michael, although there are small differences in the statements of the various medical organizations, I think the similarities in the statements are greater than the differences. No organization says the potential medical benefits are significantly greater than the medical risks and harms. Also no organization says the medical risks and harm are significantly greater than the potential medical benefits. Therefore I think it is reasonable and accurate to say the medical organizations state the potential medical benefits of circumcision are approximately equal to the medical risks and harms. DanBlackham 23:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be better to summarize the policies of the various countries but point out that circumcision practices do vary sharply between countries and parts of countries.

Jewish comment

It's innacurate to portray circumcision as implying judaism, the remark about association with other religions certainly covers the same sentiment without the innacuracies or implied anti-sematism. --Starx 18:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well there is anti-Semitism involved. Certainly not at the root of it all but certainly is there. While all manner of wild and woolly reason for not to circ are given why should this one be singled out to be sanitized? I suggest that if "reasons" are needed at all they be limited to three either way otherwise this will end up as a repository for the product of over fertile imaginations. - Robert Brookes 02:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do you know there is anti-Semitism involved? Do you have any evidence? Jayjg 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, they should be limited. I know that anti-sematism is real but I've never heard of anti-sematism being a reason for distaste of circumcision. I'm sure there are people out their who hold that belief, but I don't think it's widespread enough to deserve mention. Plus it just seems vastly POV to even imply some type of association between anti-circumcision and anti-sematism. I think the comment should be removed, there is no reason that the reason given above the jewish comment is insufficient. --Starx 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not widespread enough to deserve mention? Can that be applied to the stuff that is claimed as reasons not to circ (or in fact a lot of the stuff they post in related articles)? Take the knife to the nonsense list then, three reasons worthy of mention each way should suffice. - Robert Brookes 23:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The majority of the population of earth is not circumcised, so I don't believe the "not widespread enough" argument can be applied to anti-circumcision as a whole. --Starx 03:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your essential theme but I see no evidence that the vast majority of non-circumcising cultures really give a damn at all. What we see is a very small, very vocal group of fanatical monomaniacal single issue activists who go beyond being simply “anti-circumcision” to the insane position of actual foreskin promotion. That is why in some of the related articles we see have a three line sentence explaining something about say, what 99% of Jews do, and the following ten lines about how the remaining 1% oppose the practice. The balance is all out of kilter, their agenda is showing through there is no NPOV. - Robert Brookes 05:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Jewish section is out of balance, but that can be rectified easily enough. Jayjg 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Parents are presented with a choice. As long as there is contention about the practice they should be presented with both sides of the argument. I don't disagree that there is a fanatical anti-circumcision presence on wikipedia. But there are individuals who do not agree with the practice of circumcision for reasons that are not fanatical. Their side should be represented. --Starx 02:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Please show me where you have taken this "fanatical anti-circumcision presence" to task. You have haven't you? - Robert Brookes 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This comment is not relevant to the issue at hand. Jayjg 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits

In order to avoid future misunderstandings I think it would be helpful to review the guidelines for indicating a change is a minor edit.

A minor edit to a Wikipedia page is one which most other contributors would agree is minor. When to use this is somewhat a matter of personal preference. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit.

In my opinion several recent changes marked as minor edits are significant changes to the article. DanBlackham 19:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Major, minor or whatever they may be, but certainly necessary. This is to be expected when the original text seems to have been pasted in directly from an anti-circumcision web site (cirp.org). No one should expect that those party to this deceit would embrace the process of editing the text to achieve NPOV. - Robert Brookes 20:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Reguardless of whether the edit was necessary it still should be accurately marked. --Starx 02:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Use of CIRP

I take exception to one user censoring out information simply on the grounds that it comes from CIRP. CIRP is a vast storehouse of information and is recommended by the British Medical Journal. CIRP reproduces information from medical journals and reputable newspapers. it is therefore reasonable to quote it. If people want to quote other sources of information, so be it, but that is not a reason to censor information on the flimsy excuse that they don't like the bias of CIRP. - Michael Glass

  • Don't be so pompous. Using cirp.org as a reference on circumcision related articles is like using virusmyth.net as the definitive reference on HIV/AIDS. Cirp.org does of course only provide one side of the story and tends to insert text into studies/articles to make sure those who read stuff on their site get the "right idea". Drop it Micheal as all you are doing is declaring a conflict of interest. - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CIRP is a scientific archive and certainly scientific information in this archive by all means can be included. Removal of such information borders on vandalism.

  • Not so. Cirp is nowhere near neutral nor balanced. (As stated) it is to the circumcision debate as virusmyth.net is to HIV/AIDS. It is an affront to intelligence that it should be presented as a definitive source of information on the subject. In fact to do so is quite disgraceful. - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I advise all interested parties to take a look at this article as it was before Robert's edits and compare it with the situation now. What was a fair and factual presentation on the topic is gradually degrading into a bullet point type POV mess. Unfortunately, POV-warriors like Robert are waging a war of attrition against anyone who disagrees with them and remove factual information with impunity.--Eloquence*

  • The problem with the original was that it was lifted almost verbatim from anti-circumcision sources. Is that NPOV? What has in fact occurred is that the article is in the process of being converted into an encyclopedia article about circumcision from its initial state as a platform for anti-circumcision propaganda and slant. One does not expect for one moment that monomaniacal anti-circumcision activists will allow that process to take place without a fight. But in the end the truth will prevail. The article will be about circumcsion and not a platform for anti-circ propaganda. - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree, I think the older article is much better. --Starx 15:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • After the trash has been removed and the facts remain one can look at "writing it nicely". At the moment the main task is to get rid of the anti-circ POV trash. You do want the article to be truthful, don't you? - Robert Brookes 05:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean POV trash like this, Robert? All your edits on Wikipedia have been to circumcision-related subjects. This is true for how many other contributors to this article?--Eloquence*

  • The truth seems to hurt Erik. It is funny how shrill the defenders of the prepuce become when their version of the truth is challenged. True for Walabio and Michael Glass. Now I wonder why you missed that? You seem to be losing it a bit now Erik. Close your eyes and take a few deep breaths. - Robert Brookes 08:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As the number of people who you call crazy grows, at what point do you wonder whether there might be anything wrong with you?--Eloquence*
  • So you admit you made a real ass of yourself then? You really need to do your homework before you stick your neck out don't you think? As to my personal fallibility, I remain raked with doubt and constantly need to read widely to get to the truth of issues. With regard to circumcision and allied subjects one should surely read more widely than your old favourite cirp.org, no? This the anti-circ equivalent of Mao's liitle red book? Anyway as the man said:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell - Robert Brookes 09:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, the quote is a good start.--Eloquence*
  • Ok then, so it is settled then cirp.org is a POV no-no, and certainly not when they have doctored the text. - Robert Brookes 10:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You are lying. They have not doctored the text.--Eloquence*

Reguardless of it's current POV Robert and Michael should stop the revert war and come to an agreement on the talk page before editing any further. As to the POV of the past article that Eloquence referanced. Yes it could use some work but I don't think it needs anything to drastic, just some touch-ups. It's far far closer to NPOV then the current article. --Starx 13:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Nonsense! It was plain and simple anti-circumcision propaganda. The process now underway as part of the cleanup is to establish a structure of facts about circumcision (note: not foreskins, foreskin restoration and anti-circumcision propaganda). Reducing a "good read" to facts will be resisted to the death by the monomaniacal anti-circumcision fanatics. This is understood. The articles in wikipedia should have a basis in fact and it should not allow itself to be misused for single issue propaganda purposes. - Robert Brookes 22:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I presented good evidence that female genital mutilation was practised in Indonesia, and documented it with a reference to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Robert censored this on the flimsy excuse that it was reproduced by CIRP. This is just plain bigotry. The article in question is still available on the SMH website [[1]] I think that this should be enough evidence for any fair-minded person and I expect Robert to cease from his censorship of this point.

Similarly, the article by Cold and Taylor has been influential in shaping public opinion. It is fair to include this as one of the reasons that parents might cease circumcising their children. Once again, this does not mean that the work of Cold and Taylor is conclusive, only that it is influential among some people. Michael Glass

  • Michael, stop playing the victim. There is no argument about the inclusion of Indonesia as where female circumcision is practiced. I have taken a sentence from Female circumcision to that effect. Remember it was decided that the circumcision site would be about male circumcision and that female circumcision would be dealt with in a separate article. So why the need to provide additional information on female circumcision in the (male) circumcision article? Because you insist on trying to slip in links to cirp.org. Now you try to place SMH link in but seem to have forgotten that to read it requires registration. Dumb. There is no need for such a link either from cirp.org or the SMH. If you feel there is then go and insert it in the Female circumcision article.
  • Further your insistance in trying to slip in Cold & Taylor is to further a anti-circumcision argument. It is out of place in an article on male circumcision but then you can't see that as you are blinded by your POV. - Robert Brookes 21:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At long last Robert has stopped trying to censor out information about where female circumcision happens, but he still contests links to information. I provided the CIRP link and he objects because it is CIRP; I provided the SMH link and he objects because it requires registration; I will now go back and provide links to both copies of the article.

  • The links are not necessary. You must be braindead to think the SMH link through a registration required interface is of value. - Robert Brookes 21:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The charge of "slipping in links" is a nonsense! What could be more upfront and fair to the reader than providing back-up for the information that is posted? I challenge Robert to provide information to back up his claim that certain tribes in South America practise female genital mutilation.

As for the Cold and Taylor article, it is in the public record and is influencing people. It is a Loony Tunes to object to any reference to this article. - Michael Glass

  • It has its place, but that is not to be slipped into the circumcision article. I understand why you want to do that though. - Robert Brookes 21:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is double standards to put information into an article on circumcision on the strength of another article in Wikipedia, but object when someone else puts information into the article and sources it to a reputable newspaper like the Sydney Morning Herald and to the British Journal of Urology. - Michael Glass

  • If I paid for a supplement in the BJU I could put in (like you guys did) any off the wall stuff I may like. Wikipedia should not be used to promote your rather dubious agenda. - Robert Brookes 18:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the claim that the Cold and Taylor article should not be "slipped into" an article on circumcision, this is bunkum. If you are going to argue chopping off the foreskin it makes sense to consider what is being chopped off. - Michael Glass

  • What is being chopped off? The foreskin. The detail on the foreskin should be found at Foreskin and not "slipped" into the circumcision article like you are desperately trying to do. - Robert Brookes 18:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Such an argument would make some sense if Robert wasn't trying to censor out information on Foreskin as well. However, the Cold and Taylor article does have relevance to the question of circumcision for the reasons that I stated above. - Michael Glass 05:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Ok lets put in a anti-circumcision disclaimer warning on the Cold/Taylor piece. I'll do it. - Robert Brookes 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Warning" is POV. However, we could note that CIRP is against circumcision provided that the note also says that the British Medical Journal says that CIRP provides useful online information on circumcision. The note that I last saw was OK to me.Michael Glass 01:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I acted on a request and protected the page. Please work to come to an agreement. --Michael Snow 21:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is too little too late. How did you allow the circumcision related articles to become mouthpieces for anti-circumcision propaganda in the first place? One should look through the history of who posted what and censure the culprits accordingly. Name them and shame them I say. Quite disgraceful! - Robert Brookes 06:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt very much that you'd be up for the same censurship yourself. What you should be doing, is attampting to work with people with opposite POV's in order to come to an agreement as to how best to come to a neutral point of view. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 07:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • You mean like work with the Flat Earth Society? Come on. By entertaining the lunatic fringe all one achieves is to move the centre line over into their territory. Wikipedia should not be the result of a compromise with any monomaniacal fanatical group. It should strive to achieve POV and not a compromise for the sake of peace. - Robert Brookes 16:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about compromising for the sake of piece. I'm talking about compromise for the sake of a better article. How you can possibly call people against circumcising a "lunatic fringe" is beyond me? The fact of the matter is there are two widely held views on circumcision. Both should be represented in the article. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • You are not contributing to a better article. You are actively working towards a POV anti-circumcision piece. Shame on you. Go the Votes_for_deletion/Genital_Integrity discussion and see what the lunatic fringe get up to. Whether you wish to allign yourself with them or not is up to you. Define "widely". - Robert Brookes 17:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • At the moment my concern is with this article. What people get up to on other articles is neither here nor there. My definition of a widely held view is one held by a significantly large number of people. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes I understand. Don't go there and let some facts cloud the issue. Now define it you will the % related to "a significantly large number of people". - Robert Brookes 00:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Robert, we've discussed the inapplicability of the flat earth comparison. There certainly are some anti-circ zealots out there, but that doesn't mean that everyone who holds that POV is a "fringe lunatic". There are plenty of reasonable people who also hold that belief. Circumcision is not the status quo in the majority of cultures in this world, their argument certainly deserves as much representation as anyone elses. --Starx 02:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • No. You have stated that in your opinion the FES comparison is inapplicable. Of course this does not make it so. You should really read up on the "blatant nonsense effect" as this is the stock-in-trade of the anti-circumcision monomaniacs. Once hooked the "embarrassment effect" takes over. Read and set yourself free. - Robert Brookes 07:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • The entire basis of that comparison lies in your judgement of the anti-circumcision arguments to be nothing but lunatic fringe beliefs. That is simply not so. I don't deny that the movement has its crazies, but there are plenty of reasonable people who hold those beliefs. Many of them are doctors who specialize in pediatric care. The medical bodies discussed above clearly do not have a definitive position in favor of one side or the other. That tells me that both sides have valid points, and as such both arguments should be represented fairly. None of that can be said about the Flat Earth Society, the comparision is simply a straw man argument and does you no good. --Starx 14:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • The problem with your argument is that it is not the "plenty of reasonable people who hold those beliefs" who post here but rather the crazies (as has been seen in the Genital integrity knock down, drag out). This is something you need to come to terms with. - Robert Brookes 23:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Calling everyone who disagrees with you crazy is no way to work towards NPOV. This encylopedia is a collaborative endevour. You have to stop insulting people. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • Theresa YOU are not trying to work towards NPOV, you are pushing POV. It is obvious, so please drop the pretense. - Robert Brookes 00:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • Exactly what POV are you accusing me of pushing? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                  • By pushing the deceit around the cirp mention in the BMJ you disgrace yourself. - Robert Brookes 02:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • I have said above that I don't deny that there are zealots. But reguardless of whether the reasonable or unreasonable post here there are still two sides to the argument and both need to be represented fairly. --Starx 02:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • Point me to comments you have made directly to any of the foreskin jealots. - Robert Brookes 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • I don't need to, we're not discussing them, we're discussing your heavy handed denile of the existance of a valid opposing viewpoint. There are 2 sides to the argument, both should be represented fairly. --Starx 21:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                  • I am trying to get the mainstream opinion fairly represented but someone let the dogs in. - Robert Brookes 04:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
¡I certainly agree with Robert Brookes! ¡Punish the wrong-doers! ¿Who are the wrong-doers? Let me look at the page:history for Circumcision for August. ¡Oh my! ¡The wrong-doer is -- Robert Brookes! - Ŭalabio 08:08, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
Indeed, we should have NPOV. But that means treating this like other topics, not singling it out. Nobody is pushing to glorify the benefits of any other surgery but this one. A good NPOV is to treat this the same. If there is a diagnosis of disease, circumcision is surgery. If there is no diagnosis, it is mutilation, or body modification when voluntary. No dictionary will say otherwise, and it makes sense to list all of these possibilities. So I ask some of you to tone down the pro-mutilation rhetoric. DanP 20:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cosmetic surgery is called surgery not body modification. We don't call ear piercing mutilation even though it is frequently done to children. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 21:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not surgery most of the time. According to our definitions, surgery is strictly for a disease or injury. Technically plastic surgery is the right one to classify body modification and mutilation (such as circumcision) under, not surgery. Ear piercing does not remove tissue, but it probably does some damage on a cellular level. As I understand it, a mutilation is to "cut a part off", often a laceration is to "tear it open", and a piercing is to "make a hole in". I think many people go further, and would classify, say, piercing a child's genitals by force as mutilation. DanP 22:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here we go again...
The word "mutilation" carries a negative connotation in the English language, implying damage. Insisting that any procedure — circumcision, breast enlargement, hedge pruning, whatever — is "mutilation" is taking a POV against that procedure.
I am not a big fan of circumcision, routine or otherwise. However, it happens. Because it happens, we should describe it in an NPOV fashion. NPOV does not include damning anything. As such, we should not describe anything using words that carry a negative connotation. The notable exceptions to this are in attributed quotes and in describing the positions of opponents. AFAIC, those two places are the 'only' places to use the word "mutilation".
Do I need to clarify any further? - jredmond 23:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I second this comment, well-said. People should take connotation into consideration when choosing their words. Rhobite 00:06, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely, clarify please. The tissue removed necessarily dies off, the genitals as a whole are not undamaged as you imply. Some of it is dead. I have a big scar, which is often what happens when you get injured. Yes, seems like damage to me. I don't care if you want to remove "mutilation" and use neutral terms. But saying there is no damage is clear POV, contrary to the material fact of forced circumcision. To use your example, would you say forced breast enlargement is mutilation? Do you think it takes POV to say so? If a person feels harmed by an act, it does not seem to be a POV to say so. Many other articles are similarly expressed. But if you wish to say "mutilation" nowhere in the article, that is OK. But perhaps we can remove all the pro-mutilation terms in the article too? DanP 00:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You really need to talk to someone about your feelings in this regard. You are sounding very troubled. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is not viewed as damage by most people. I know you disagree with this, but you'll have to face it - this is your POV, and the article is locked because people like you can't tell their own POV from a generally accepted opinion. You keep framing this as a factual debate, as if your repeated arguing based on a dictionary will suddenly turn everyone into raging anti-circumcision activists. Stop it. Rhobite 00:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
I agree 100% with jredmond regarding the use of the word "mutilation" in the article. DanBlackham 03:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was in agreeing, but with some concerns, despite the vague way NPOV is demanded from one side and not the other. As I said, remove "mutilation". But let's also clear out the pro-mutilation attempts to glorify the act. What I can't understand is why saying "it's damage" is POV, despite the physical evidence. But saying "it's not damage" magically is NPOV. Is their scar made of gold or something? Obviously bias is rampant among mutilation proponents. Why not have a nice neutral "maybe it's damage, maybe it's not" view in the article? DanP 15:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Damage and mutilation are subjective and not NPOV. You need to revisit where you draw the line in terms of what is POV and what isn't. Find a professional to help you work through your little problem. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If you want to throw your dictionary away, I will agree with your first sentence. But saying it is "not damage" and "not mutilation" is equally not NPOV. It's your opinion and yours alone. Let's model this page after other ones. We do not have mastectomy patients debating their surgery or trying to cut their daughters by force, so why not express this page without the irrational pro-mutilation rants and accusations of needing "professional help"? The NPOV is to say those who undergo this practice by choice are "modified", those who are forced into it are "mutilated". If you want to eliminate the latter, then eliminate the former POV too.DanP 16:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • In the circumcision article it is noted that some people consider circumcision to be a mutilation. That fact that this minority fringe opinion seems to be so important to you indicates that you may need to work through the causes of this with a professional. You never know but this may be beneficial to you and your current mind set. Now that said do you have anything intelligent to offer to this article? - Robert Brookes 04:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Um I don't see your point about masectomy? But anyway I cannot agree that mutilated is a good NPOV way of describing circumcision. The issue of force is a difficult one. Even the word force is emotive in this context. I have a scar on my left arm from a TB vaccination. I didn't want the jab, I was forced into having it by my parents. I do not consider it mutilation. There must be a less emotive word we can use. As for accusations of "needing professional help" Robert Brookes is going the right way about getting himself banned from editing Wikipedia. In the meantime I suggest you stop feeding this particulaly nasty troll. Every time someone argues with him, he says something rude and offensive. So stop argueing with him. Ignore him. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 21:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Talking about trolls. I notice that you have tried to slip in a piece on lysozyme in the smegma article. Now what about a little honesty here Theresa? Tell us what the sigmnificance of lysozyme is to the anti-circumcision POV. I know the game you are playing. - Robert Brookes 04:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This isn't the talk page for the smegma article. If you have an issue with that then take it to that articles talk page. --Starx 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I have and if you go there you will see my prediction has come true. Now do you have any comments on Theresa's agenda? - Robert Brookes 02:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Robert: Go read Wikilove and ponder its wisdom for a couple weeks before coming back. You are not winning any allies, and you are definitely not helping write an NPOV article. - jredmond 14:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not circumcised, and I'm perfectly healthy. Same for my father and brother. I don't think it should be a routine operation and neither does the AAP. My family and I, and the AAP are not insane. Personally, I have many interests in life so I can't be called monomaniacal. I haven't participated in the debate here, yet Robert Brookes is calling me a raving lunatic. That hardly bespeaks a Neutral Point of View, and furthermore isn't very nice. Theanthrope 22:37, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • It is a case of if the cap fits, wear it. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You have been fairly rude to almost everyone else to has tried to edit this article. Even if your views differ, and even if you see their views as being monomaniacal/stupid/fringe-lunatic/whatever, please try and keep some air of civility. It makes the editing process much smoother. --Starx 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I just clicked on the "discussion" link, and... Is Robert a troll? If he's not, then does anyone else think that he might just be in denial? Like he can't even for a moment entertain the possibility that foreskin serves an erogenous purpose, that men with foreskins get pleasure from them, that sex is better for both partners with an intact penis than with a circumcised one? Maybe he's insecure about his masculinity and can't dare admit that his sexuality has been permanently and irrevocably impaired. If he's not in denial, I wonder if he has fetish for circumcision. I honestly think the "Flat Earth Society" comparison is far more accurately directed at Brookes, who refuses to believe foreskin is anything but a useless "piece of skin," despite overwhelming evidence, basic common sense, and testimonials from the vast intact majority (8 out of 10 men) to the contrary. - Steve LL.

I agree that Robert is either a troll or he's just incredibly stubbornly and emotionally held to his pro-circumcision belief. He claims to be interested in the facts, but then proceeds to incorrectly call anti-circumcision people a "minority" fringe group despite the majority of the world not practicing ritual circumcision. The flat earth society comparison definitely invalidates his neutrality on the subject (as well ass demonstrating his ignorance of it). It's true that websites like cirp.org are biased, but he is going beyond rejecting those and promoting his own zealous pro-circumcision agenda. It's ok to use a source like that, but only if you look up the originating source that it came from (i.e. a medical journal). I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized. That includes an edit to exclude so much as a statement that a popular opinion (stated in the form of "they believe") of anti-circ people is that circumcision reduces sensitivity. He obviously only wants to represent the anti-circumcision view in as negative of a light as possible. It's just screwed when an extremist fringe zealot calls all others who hold the opposing view extremists. Nathan J. Yoder
Has Robert edited anything else besides circumcision and foreskin related articles? I ask because I skimmed his edit history going back a month and that's all I found. This guy is honestly starting to creep me out. - Steve LL.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision/Archive_7&oldid=5795649"