Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:48, 10 April 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

Archive guide Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

POV tag for HIV scare-mongering intro

At least five current eds have contributed their judgment to the inappropriate inclusion of HIV warning in the intro. This is the on-going disucssion about its violation of neutrality. Why haven't any of the eds on the opposingside suggested the lead is NPOV? Becausefromtheirpoint of view its making the case for circumcision, exclusingthe HIV scare-mongering would make it truly npov, not the current sham objectivity,some eds even denying they havve no pro-or-con opinion. Robert B19 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

another ed will have to restore the

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

tag... the article went haywire when I put it there just now... Robert B19 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry: perhaps you could clarify how the article is scare-mongering? Talking about the WHO's recommendations and research findings that circumcision is a cost-effective (and otherwise effective) way to combat HIV in areas where it is endemic is scare-mongering? Empirical, objective evidence does not itself have a point of view, regardless if it supports opinions that may not be your own, my own, or others'. Morrowulf (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you understood how the WHO works, you would see how specious that argument is. The WHO and UNAIDS created a panel to review research, and policies. The group they put in charge of review (The Clearinghouse on Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention), perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, include the employers of at least three of the authors of the three '60% effective' African studies. http://www.malecircumcision.org/about/male_circumcision_about_us.html The other two groups contain people who have co-authored with either a creator of the study, or with each other. As such, the appearance, but not necessarily the actuality, of checks and balances exist. The grant money continues to pour in. No one implies that circumcision without condoms is safe sex. There, however, appears to be a heavy emphasis on the circumcision side of the house, and less so on the condom and safe sex side. Please, stop calling it 'empirical, objective evidence'. Considering the precariousness of its checks and balances, it sounds like "the great and powerful Oz has spoken". There is room for doubt. Those three studies were stopped, without the HIV status of all the participants being accounted for. You don't see the majority of European doctors falling over themselves to embrace the results. They've been practicing medicine for a long time now. The 60% results don't do much to explain the high rate of American HIV infection, nor the high rate of Ethiopian infection...nor the low rate of Finnish, Danish, French, and New Zealander infection. It is not as cut and dry as some may wish it to be. Tftobin (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom, the Clearinghouse on Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention was created some time after the WHO and UNAIDS conducted their expert review, and is separate from that (it was created on 29 Nov 2007, while the expert review took place in the week beginning 7 Mar 2007). In any case, believing the WHO to be biased is not an argument that the article is biased: editor's personal assessment of sources is original research by definition. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care when the Clearinghouse was created. I am suspect of expert reviews, which come to conclusions, which are strikingly contrary to the results witnessed in AIDS infected countries. My issue was with the WHO's recommendations being called "Empirical, objective evidence", to 'prove' that there was no scare mongering. Tftobin (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And what are the "specific issues that are actionable within Misplaced Pages's content policies"? Jakew (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

undue weight for the introduction requires a pov tag; the specific issues on-going talk page under Sections--Removal of HIV sentence in lead; Impartiality and NPOV;POV tag for HIV scare-mongering intro;Let's play with the intro;Egg's proposed version #1--the "faux consensus" about HIV scaremongering in the introduction is bogus, basically just ignoring the pov issues so many of us raising here... if you want to talkjabout AIDS and HIV, save it for the appropriat scetion in the article. Robert B19 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Emotive and non-specific claims like "scare-mongering" and "faux consensus" aren't helpful to discussion. The issue of the weight of the HIV material has been discussed at length, and the discussion can be found in the archives. Jayjg 02:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All those in favor of the current HIV lead, please review the archives. You will see there is a strong case against it, in that it violates wp:undue coming from many different authors.Gsonnenf (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the arguments against it generally seem to involve a misunderstanding of WP policy and/or the subject matter. It seems rather a stretch to call that a "strong case". Jakew (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

At least be as honest as Encyclopedia Britannica Online/Circumcision, which prefaces the HIV prevention sentence with the straightforward phrase "Advocates of circumcision cite studies indicating that circumcised men have a lower incidence of AIDS, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted diseases than uncircumcised men." www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/118439/​circumcision Robert B19 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It is neither more nor less honest. The sentence you quote is about the actions of those who advocate circumcision. We don't specifically document the actions of such people. Jakew (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We simply accept their peer-reviewed studies, meta-studies, and secondary sources. Tftobin (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel the disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of WP policy. Please consider that you maybe the one misunderstanding the policy as many well spoken people disagree with you.Gsonnenf (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any experienced or non-WP:SPA editors disagree with Jakew on this matter (or, actually, pretty much anything else). Please consider that inexperienced editors, or editors who primarily edit on one topic, may not have a complete, comprehensive, or accurate grasp of policy. Jayjg 02:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's play with the intro

Here it is. Please copy and paste it and make your wanted modifications to it in a new subsection of this. Egg Centric 21:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. Early depictions of circumcision are found in cave paintings and Ancient Egyptian tombs, though some pictures are open to interpretation. Religious male circumcision is considered a commandment from God in Judaism. In Islam, though not mentioned in the Qur'an, male circumcision is widely practised and often considered to be sunnah. It is also customary in some Christian churches in Africa.

Estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that 30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised, of whom 68 percent are Muslim. The prevalence of circumcision varies mostly with religious affiliation, and sometimes culture. The timing of circumcision similarly varies, though it is commonly practised between birth and the early twenties.

Circumcision is used therapeutically, as one of the treatment options for balanitis xerotica obliterans, phimosis, balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis and for preventing urinary tract infections in high risk boys. Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians include that none currently recommend routine circumcision,and most recommend neither universal circumcision nor its prohibition.

Strong evidence from Africa indicates that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 38-66%, and studies have concluded it is cost effective in sub-Saharan Africa. The WHO currently recommends circumcision be recognised as an intervention as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV. Some bodies have discussed under what circumstances circumcision is ethical.

There is controversy regarding circumcision. Specific controversies have included the health benefits and risks of the procedure, ethical and legal considerations, and the application of human rights principles to the practice.

Sure I'll play but you started this thread Egg, what are you trying to change or modify and why? I feel the HIV paragraph is misleading. I have argued that it is not lead worthy and/or does not reflect the criticism attributed to it. I don't care much for the new medical summary either, it seems to wordy and contradictory of itself. If we keep HIV in the lead my compromise would be,

"Studies in Africa have indicated that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 38-66%, however these findings conflict with data in modern countries like the United States. The WHO currently recommends circumcision be recognized as an intervention as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV. Some bodies have discussed under what circumstances circumcision is ethical." Garycompugeek (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The results if the studies in African have been inconsistent. There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. In Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. Tftobin (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry--are you suggesting there's experimental evidence indicating that circumcision leads to higher rates of HIV? Or are you merely citing an observational survey, even in the presence of better types of evidence on the issue? To expound upon this a little more, there're other explanations, if you're not using experimental evidence. Perhaps Malawian men are likely to be more educated and wealthier, if they're uncircumcised. Perhaps circumcised men just have sex with more women. What's the experimental study you're referencing? Morrowulf (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's an important points. I've seen papers suggesting that circumcision may cause circumcised African men to engage in more unprotected sex because they believe circumcision protects them. Its important we factor these correlations in. Gsonnenf (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes no difference. It's a Malawian study, which states that freshly circumcised boys are encouraged to engage in intercourse before their wound is completely healed. It is a primary source, so it can't be cited, in this page, in wikipedia. Tftobin (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Dictionary definitions of circumcision:
   • "The act of cutting off the prepuce or foreskin of males, or the internal labia of females." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
   • "to remove the foreskin of (males) sometimes as a religious rite." The Macquarie Dictionary (2nd Edition, 1991)
   • "Cut off foreskin of (as Jewish or Mohammedan rite, or surgically), Concise Oxford Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1964
   Circumcision defined in a medical context:
   • "Male circumcision is the surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin of the penis." Information Package on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention:Insert 1, World Health Organization
   • "Circumcision, surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin of the human male. . .", "Circumcision", Microsoft Encarta, 2007.
   • "Male circumcision is an elective surgery to remove the foreskin. . ." Circumcision, British Columbia Health Guide, June 2, 2006. Retrieved July 18, 2007.
   • "Circumcision is surgery. . ." Pain and Your Infant: Medical Procedures, Circumcision and Teething, University of Michigan Health System, February 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2007.
   • " Circumcision is cutting away part of the foreskin. . . When this surgery is performed. . ." Newborn Care, Danbury Hospital website. Retrieved July 18, 2007.
2. Hodges, F.M. (2001). "The ideal prepuce in ancient Greece and Rome: male genital aesthetics and their relation to lipodermos, circumcision, foreskin restoration, and the kynodesme". The Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 75 (3): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
3. Wrana, P. (1939). "Historical review: Circumcision". Archives of Pediatrics. 56: 385–392. as quoted in: Zoske, Joseph (1998). "Male Circumcision: A Gender Perspective". The Journal of Men's Studies. 6 (2): 189–208. Retrieved 2006-06-14. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
4. Gollaher, David L. (2000). Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York, NY: Basic Books. pp. 53–72. ISBN 978-0-465-04397-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
5. "Circumcision". American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Retrieved 2006-10-03.
6. "Genesis 17:9–14 (New International Version)"
7. Rizvi, S.A.H.; A Naqvi, S.A.; Hussain, M.; Hasan, A.S. (1999). "Religious circumcision: a Muslim view". BJU International. 83: 13–6. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1013.x. PMID 10349409.
8. Customary in some Coptic and other churches:
   • "The Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians —two of the oldest surviving forms of Christianity— retain many of the features of early Christianity, including male circumcision. Circumcision is not prescribed in other forms of Christianity.…Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose the practice, viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya, require circumcision for membership and participants in focus group discussions in Zambia and Malawi mentioned similar beliefs that Christians should practice circumcision since Jesus was circumcised and the Bible teaches the practice." Male Circumcision: context, criteria and culture (Part 1), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, February 26, 2007.
   • "The decision that Christians need not practice circumcision is recorded in Acts 15; there was never, however, a prohibition of circumcision, and it is practiced by Coptic Christians." "circumcision", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001–5.
9. ^ "Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2007. Retrieved 2009-03-04.
10. Bhattacharjee PK (2008). "Male circumcision: an overview". Afr J Paediatr Surg. 5 (1): 32–6. doi:10.4103/0189-6725.41634. PMID 19858661.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
11. Holman JR, Stuessi KA (1999). "Adult circumcision". Am Fam Physician. 59 (6): 1514–8. PMID 10193593. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
12. Cite error: The named reference KNMG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. Viens AM (2004). "Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty". J Med Ethics. 30 (3): 241–7. PMC 1733861. PMID 15173355. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
14. Cite error: The named reference Cochrane2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
15. Uthman, OA (2010 Mar 10). Van Baal, Pieter H. M. (ed.). "Economic Evaluations of Adult Male Circumcision for Prevention of Heterosexual Acquisition of HIV in Men in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review". PLoS ONE. 5 (3): e9628. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009628. PMC 2835757. PMID 20224784. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
16. Cite error: The named reference WHOpr0307 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
17. "Circumcision of infant males" (PDF). Royal Australasian College of Physicians.
18. Rennie, S (2007 Jun). "Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low‐income countries". Journal of medical ethics. 33 (6): 357–61. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.019901. PMC 2598273. PMID 17526688. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
19. ^ Alanis MC, Lucidi RS (2004). "Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation". Obstet Gynecol Surv. 59 (5): 379–95. doi:10.1097/00006254-200405000-00026. PMID 15097799. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
20. Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR (1998). "Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks". Sex Transm Infect. 74 (5): 368–73. doi:10.1136/sti.74.5.368. PMC 1758146. PMID 10195035. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
21. Crawford DA (2002). "Circumcision: a consideration of some of the controversy". J Child Health Care. 6 (4): 259–70. doi:10.1177/136749350200600403. PMID 12503896. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Egg's proposed version #1

(For my own simplcity of editing I've ignore citing)

Male circumcision is the controversial surgical procedure entailing removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.

Circumcision is used for both theraputic and religious or cultural reasons.

Theraputic uses of circumcision include using it as a treatment option for balanitis xerotica obliterans, phimosis, balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis and for preventing urinary tract infections in high risk boys. Professional associations of physicians endorse its use for one or more of these conditions; furthermore, none currently recommend routine circumcision, nor do many endorse its prohibition.

This isn't telling the whole story. Though indeed, circumcision is used to treat balanitis xerotica obliterans, phimosis, balanitis, posthitis, and balanoposthitis, in countries where circumcision is common, more conservative treatments for these conditions exist. Circumcision is almost never the cure for these conditions in countries where routine circumcision is not practiced. Balanitis xerotica obliterans is also called lichen sclerosus. It often responds to topical steroid cream, such as Temovate 0.05%. Women get lichen sclerosus, and rarely have surgery. Phimosis often responds well to daily stretching with the fingers. Those few cases which do not respond well, often respond well to betamethasone cream applied externally, in addition to stretching with the fingers. If that fails, there is always the dorsal or ventral slit operation, which removes no tissue, but frees the glans. Balanitis, posthitis, and balanoposthitis are typically treated in non-circumcising countries with diaper cream containing zinc oxide, or an anti-fungal. They sound a lot more dangerous, when called by these names. Tftobin (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the majority of circumcisions are for cultural reasons.Early depictions of circumcision are found in cave paintings and Ancient Egyptian tombs (although some pictures are open to interpretation.) Religious male circumcision is considered a commandment from God in Judaism. In Islam, though not mentioned in the Qur'an, male circumcision is widely practised and often considered to be sunnah. It is also customary in some Christian churches in Africa.

Estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that 30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised, of whom 68 percent are Muslim. The prevalence of circumcision varies mostly with religious affiliation, and sometimes culture. The timing of circumcision similarly varies, though it is commonly practised between birth and the early twenties.

There is a great deal of controversy regarding circumcision. Specific controversies have included the health benefits and risks of the procedure, ethical and legal considerations, and the application of human rights principles to the practice.

So what do we think about that ladies and gents? Egg Centric 00:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

hmmm... I think you should leave out controversial in the first sentence. you mention controversy soon enough. --VikÞor | Talk 03:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Jakew (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. It is easily the second most controversial operation in the world, second only to female circumcision. Tftobin (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Some quick comments:

• The most glaring problem is the omission of the HIV material.
• The second paragraph is unnecessary.
• Awkward phrasing in "Theraputic uses of circumcision include using it as a treatment" (bad spelling, too).
• In the next sentence, a dubious assertion: "Professional associations of physicians endorse its use for one or more of these conditions". Do they? What constitutes an "endorsement" of its use?
• The meaning is scrambled in "furthermore, none currently recommend routine circumcision, nor do many endorse its prohibition", as a result of performing WP:SYNTH on two sources.
• "Nevertheless, the majority of circumcisions are for cultural reasons" needs the inclusion of the word "performed" to be grammatically correct, but I'd question whether the sentence is needed.
• "There is a great deal of controversy regarding circumcision." -- "Great deal of" is hyperbole. What constitutes a "great deal"? Just say "there is controversy".

In summary, this doesn't seem to offer anything over the present version of the lead, and in fact introduces a number of problems, some serious and some less serious. Jakew (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The outcomes of the HIV studies contradict those of multiple studies in the US and the UK. Tftobin (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

When multiple countries are trying to enact legislation to ban it outright, or have recently attempted to do so regionally, I think it is safe to say there is a great deal of controversy. Finland, Sweden, San Francisco spring to mind. I think there is legal action in the Netherlands as well. I know the controversy in the US never seems to cease. Hyperbole suggests exaggeration. I don't think this is a case of hyperbole at all. Tftobin (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision is considered controversial when applied for cultural/religious or medical prevention reasons. Targeted treatment, such as a treatment for BXO, is not considered as controversial. The controversy needs to be mentioned in this context. There is an enormous amount of sourced material that this controversy exists and groups are taking legal action to have it banned. This is not given proper weight in the lead. Gsonnenf (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

From wikipedia, Ethics of circumcision: "The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the British Medical Association (BMA) observe that controversy exists on this issue, the BMA insisting that a non-therapeutic circumcision must not go ahead without the consent of both parents and, if competent, the child himself.". If it's documented that controversy exists in one section of wikipedia, it would seem that it would be able to document that controversy exists in another section of wikipedia. In my opinion, that, coupled with the KNMG statement, would rise to the level of a great deal of controversy. Couple that with the Medicaid defunding in the US, and the defunding, and possible re-funding, in Colorado, USA, and the outlawing, and de-outlawing in Sweden, well, that would all seem to be the very definition of a great deal of controversy. We haven't even touched upon the medical controversies raging. What is more controversial? The Iranian nuclear program. Female circumcision. What else? Tftobin (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we should omit mention of the existence of controversy. But that doesn't mean that we should employ unencyclopaedic hyperbole such as "a great deal of controversy". Saying that there is controversy, as we currently do, is fine. Jakew (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting that we be truthful about the level of controversy. Just saying it is controversial is not being totally honest. It is one of the most controversial things on the planet. You saying "Saying that there is controversy, as we currently do, is fine." does not make it fine for everybody. I think it is rather dismissive, and don't think the understatement does the subject's impact any justice. I would think that how explosive the atmosphere in this forum can get, gives an indication of what deep differences of feeling are generated by it. Consider how hard it is to reach any kind of consensus. That is a measure of how controversial it is. As encyclopedic content, there is no shortage of sources which say it is controversial. I am open to other opinions on the subject. Tftobin (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The lede quite clearly indicates the nature of the controversy around circumcision. "It is one of the most controversial things on the planet" is a hard claim to support, and seems at best non-factual. Do you have any sources for this statement? Jayjg 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When hundreds of articles regarding the subject open with a statement that it is controversial, might that make it a candidate for highly controversial? Perhaps this is one of the differences between our two nations? Tftobin (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Faulty reasoning. You can't infer a stronger statement than sources make simply because lots of them make it. By analogy, the fact that lots of sources say that athlete's foot is a disease doesn't imply that it is a major, life-threatening disease. Jakew (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it very controversial, when two thirds of the doctors of a major Western country refuse to do it? Tftobin (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

By that standard assisting childbirth is even more controversial. Jayjg 00:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Two thirds of doctors would refuse to assist with childbirth, would they? On what planet? Not specialising in something is a different thing, as thee are well aware Egg Centric 01:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Planet: Earth. Continent: Europe. Country: Sweden. http://www.thelocal.se/20900/20090725/ Tftobin (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you read? Egg Centric 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why yes, thank you. I've been reading proficiently since age 5. I can read this: "A survey done by the association reported that two of three pediatric surgeons do not want to perform circumcision. Göthberg regards the operation as an assault since the procedure is done without the child's consent." Tftobin (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Then you would surely understand the difference between circumcision and childbirth. Read what I bloody said. Thanks in advance for your apology. Egg Centric 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. We were talking about circumcision, and whether it is controversial, or extremely controversial. You and Jayjg changed the conversation to childbirth. I owe you no apology. Look up Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, especially before you start attacking people. Tftobin (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Jayjg changed the subject, and I called him on it. Then you displayed a persecution mindset. Egg Centric 14:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You saying statements such as "Can you read?" and "Read what I bloody said. Thanks in advance for your apology." do not constitute me having a "persecution mindset". They demonstrate you you having bad manners, and a total disregard for Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. But while you and I squabble, others are laughing, because two people who share the same general views are distracted. Tftobin (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Tom is correct. Egg, it'd be a good idea to review WP:CIVIL. Jakew (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am actually coming to realize that you are a gracious guy, and twice the gentleman I am, Jakew. I am realizing I need to be more like you, in order to be a better person. Scary, but it's true. I honestly hope I will remember this kindness, and your example, when I am tempted to be uncivil. Tftobin (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there isn't a universally agreed-upon standard. There is no test by which we measure how controversial something is, and no means of sorting topics in order of quantity of controversy. Consequently, quantifiers can only be subjective: one person might describe something as "very" controversial, while another might describe the same thing as "mildly" controversial, and neither person is wrong. Those quantifiers can never be fact; they can only ever be opinion, and shouldn't really be asserted by Misplaced Pages. Jakew (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, Your logic is impeccable here. You are correct. Tftobin (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We have sources describing Circumcision as the most controversial surgery of all time. In terms of the talk page, assuming its extremely controversial topic is absolutely appropriate.Gsonnenf (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you share which source? We could put this to bed more quickly. It would seem that "Circumcision as the most controversial surgery of all time.", if it is indeed stated that way in something accepted as a source in here, would be quite deterministic. Tftobin (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no. Given a statement such as "X is the hottest object in the kuiper belt", could one say "X is extremely hot"? Since X probably has a temperature of 50 or so Kelvins, that would seem absurd. The problem is that one cannot extrapolate from a statement describing circumcision as most controversial among a limited subset unless we know how controversial that subset is in relation to all subjects. Jakew (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparing the emotive content of this subject to "athletes foot" and the "Kuiper belt" is a visit through the looking glass to an imaginary world where the meaning of words is whatever you want them to mean. Robert B19 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to hear the story explaining the impact of female circumcision by comparing it to "athletes' foot" and the "Kuiper belt" Tftobin (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15097799 . Jakew, you don't seem to understand that we are looking at its controversy compared to its own category for deciding how much to weight controversy in its own article. We undoubtedly accept reliable sources believe its extremely controversial judged as such. Other sources, such as the legislation, bans from certain countries, suggest it is also controversial on a grander scale. Gsonnenf (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That article pretty much locks it in for me. It's calling a spade a spade. It is doctors calling it the "world's oldest and most controversial operation". I see no reason not to proceed with 'extremely controversial', even though I think that is being euphemistic. Tftobin (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Gsonnenf, I don't think I do understand that "we are looking at its controversy compared to its own category for deciding how much to weight controversy in its own article". I'm not even sure what "we are looking at its controversy compared to its own category" even means. What is "its category"? I can think of half a dozen candidates. Second, "we've been discussing this article, and rather than weight issues, we've been discussing whether it is appropriate to include language such as "There is a great deal of controversy regarding circumcision". Jakew (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Egg's proposed version #2

...to follow shortly...

This page is a joke

This page is full of unscientific and discredited research quoted as fact. I've never seen so much bias on any other subject on Misplaced Pages. The editors for this page should be removed immediately and replaced with individuals who can properly interpret research to achieve as neutral a viewpoint as possible. Erikvcl (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

While I might tend to feel as you do, the editors are between a rock and a hard place. Some research producers are working double overtime to push out studies. No one is rising to the challenge, to prove them wrong. One viewpoint has nearly endless cash. No one is contributing vast sums of money, to prove that a normal body part works normally. Consequently, there are many well-funded studies, which tend to give the result the person who wrote, or funded them, wanted. There are many meta-studies. As a consequence of the meta-studies, there exists a body of secondary sources. For the other viewpoint, they are not producing many studies, and almost no meta-studies. Even if an editor wanted to represent that viewpoint, they have nothing to work with, which rises to the stringent standards of editing this particular wikipedia page. The fault, as I see it, shouldn't be laid at the feet of the editors. It should be with the people who peer review junk science, so that it goes on to be published, and so that meta-studies are done on it. As they say in the computer business, garbage in, garbage out. Misplaced Pages has some high standards. The medical publishing business has lowered theirs, as to appear to be competing with the investment banks, and the ratings bureaus, circa 2008. Just because something violates your experience, and your common sense, doesn't mean that there isn't peer-reviewed, meta-studied secondary sources which will affirm it. Where is the same data which validates your (and my) experience. It really is not so simple. Tftobin (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You do bring up some good points and I understand that an encyclopedia has limitations as it is a secondary source that draws from primary sources. I saw some research that showed no difference in sensitivity between cut and uncut men. How was the study done? By comparing the same parts on the penis even though one penis has far more parts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this study is bogus. Is this study appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages? Of course not. I am not aware of a single peer-reviewed scientific study that confirms that circumcision is beneficial preventing STDs, HIV, or prostate cancer -- yet these benefits are a prominent part of the Misplaced Pages article. What I've seen is a lot of poorly-done unscientific research that hasn't received the proper peer review. The ethical considerations are given very little weight in the Misplaced Pages article. This is one of the most important aspects -- we consider it unethical to give minors tattoos and to cut the genitals of girls. But for boys its OK. Why isn't this inconsistency not featured here? Erikvcl (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely, totally understand your point, about the measurement of sensitivity. As Jakew has explained, correctness and incorrectness have no real bearing on what goes into wikipedia. It is the ability to cite verifiable sources, verifiable in the sense of, "yes, they said that". "yes, it was peer-reviewed." "yes, it was subject to a meta-study, and can be cited as a secondary resource". I am aware of multiple studies which show that circumcision status has no bearing on disease prevention of HIV, HPV, and the common STDs, from the US and UK, but no meta-studies, and no secondary resources. It costs approximately $1945 to get published in what is known as a peer-reviewed site, which is commonly cited. You pay your money, and you appear to get peer-reviewed. Tftobin (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the US Navy study has some validity. And the ethical concerns. And the comparison with FGM. If Misplaced Pages doesn't strive for correctness, it's worthless. Erikvcl (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Navy study is valid. The University of Washington study regarding HPV is valid. There are two in the UK which agree, and are valid. There are no meta-studies. That's the problem. I totally agree, If Misplaced Pages doesn't strive for correctness, it's less than worthless. It has become what it strove to replace. People will read it, and go to a more reliable source, like online Britannica. Tftobin (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ordering of non-therapeutic and therapeutic uses of circumcision in the lead

Jakew, in the edit summary of this revert you mention that 'it doesn't make sense to discuss "non-therapeutic" usage until therapeutic usages have been described.' I'm afraid that I don't understand your reasoning, could you elaborate please?

I'm of the opinion that non-therapeutic uses of circumcision should go first in the lead. Mentioning therapeutic uses of circumcision first is misleading because it gives the impression that most circumcisions are performed for therapeutic reasons, but that is not the case. The paragraph is mainly about non-therapeutic circumcision (2 sentences devoted to it, vs. 1 sentence devoted to therapeutic uses), so to me it would make more sense to begin with that since it constitutes the bulk of the paragraph.

Sorry to quibble about such a small point, but it was important enough for the two of us to change the ordering three times, so it looks like some discussion is warranted. kyledueck (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, Kyle. The problem is that the term "non-therapeutic" is defined as the inverse of "therapeutic"; that is, non-therapeutic circumcisions are, by definition, all circumcisions other than those performed for therapeutic reasons. It is essentially what's left after considering circumcisions performed for the treatment of disease. So it makes sense to explain therapeutic circumcisions first, then discuss the remainder. That way, by the time the reader arrives at "non-therapeutic" circumcisions, (s)he is already familiar with the "therapeutic" circumcisions that the term "non-therapeutic" inverts. By analogy, if we were to divide living things into "bacteria" and "non-bacteria", it would make sense to present bacteria first. Jakew (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No I don't see the logic there. Or would you prefer that we split things into "mutilation" and "non-mutilation" instead? Fact is the non-therapeutic uses are by far the most common uses of circumcision... therefore we ought to dicuss them first. Egg Centric 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How about we discuss cultural uses and theraputic uses, with cultural first? Egg Centric 03:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is use of the term "non-therapeutic" before therapeutic usages have been defined. But I've no objection to presenting therapeutic usages second, as long as we avoid using those terms: "Circumcisions are commonly performed for social, cultural, religious, or prophylactic reasons. Circumcision is also used as one of the treatment options for balanitis xerotica obliterans, phimosis, balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis and recurring urinary tract infections." Jakew (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am simply curious. Why would you want to avoid using those terms? Tftobin (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to use the terms, as long as they're presented in a logical order. But — as pointed out above — it doesn't make sense to refer to non-therapeutic usage before therapeutic usage has been defined. Jakew (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re style, I agree with Jakew that it's more readable if the word "non-therapeutic", if used at all, occurs after the idea of "therapeutic" has been discussed. Re balance, I oppose removing mention of therapeutic circ from the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph unless some mention of therapeutic circ is added to at least one of the first two paragraphs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess there are pros and cons to either way that the two sentences are ordered... and I did notice that the source I used described the therapeutic uses first, so I'd be fine with leaving the ordering as it is. Thanks for the comments everyone. kyledueck (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Presenting them in the order of theraputic, then non-therautic, while it may be most logical, is not the way circumcision is done in real life. The vast majority is non-theraputic, and a tiny fraction is theraputic, if you want use that word. I think that since the vast majority is non-theraputic, perhaps we should define the terms, then present non-theraputic, then theraputic. In this, I agree with Egg Centric. Why put the most uncommon use first? That makes no sense. Tftobin (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule saying that one should always present a more common entity first? If we were discussing living creatures, for example, would it be necessary to discuss bacteria before humans, because there are more of them? Jakew (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the position of medical associations closed

This is to notify interested editors that based on a WP:AN request I have closed the discussion that is now at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70#RfC: how should the lead summarise positions of medical associations? as follows: I find that there is no consensus about how the lead should summarise the position of medical associations about this topic. Further discussion appears to be necessary.  Sandstein  16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that, for right now, the KNMG position is no longer under discussion, and must be restored until further discussion takes place? Tftobin (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we've got a compromise in place. Jakew (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There was never a compromise. There's an on-going majority consensus that the article's POV is out of balance with pov advocacy of HIV/AIDS studies. Robert B19 (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:SYNTH and WP:TERTIARY before making edits like this, and please make more accurate talk page comments. Jayjg 18:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with the compromise. Pass a Method talk 19:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Currently it says "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians include that none currently recommend routine circumcision, and most recommend neither universal circumcision nor its prohibition.". This looks fine to me. I think it's fine to use a summary of medical positions stated by one (Dutch) association: I don't think it's putting too much weight on the Dutch POV, because it's essentially conveying the positions of medical associations worldwide. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference KNMG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Viens AM (2004). "Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty". J Med Ethics. 30 (3): 241–7. PMC 1733861. PMID 15173355. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Sentence in intro about not recommending routine circumcision and not recommending universal circumcision etc.

The following sentence, currently in the intro, is very awkward: "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians include that none currently recommend routine circumcision, and most recommend neither universal circumcision nor its prohibition." I tried to edit it, but my edit was reverted. The edit summary for the revert stated that the "contrast with universal circumcision helps clarify the positions." I think I understand the point to be that there's a difference between universal and routine circumcision. Is that right? That's fine, but the sentence is still awkward and unclear. The words "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians include that..." contribute nothing useful and, I think, actually make the sentence harder to follow. Surely all we need to say is "No professional associations of physicians currently recommend routine circumcision." The next part of the sentence ("most recommend neither universal circumcision nor its prohibition") is less bad, but still rather inelegant and hard to understand on first reading. Part of the problem is that it sounds as if it means, "most do not recommend universal circumcision and most do not recommend prohibiting universal circumcision". But I think it's intended to mean, "most do not recommend universal circumcision and most do not recommend prohibiting routine circumcision." Right? Finally, if I understand the source right, it's not "most", but all.

So I'd suggest changing it to the following: "No professional associations of physicians currently recommend routine or universal circumcision; however, none recommend prohibiting the practice."

Sound ok? I'd just go ahead and change it myself, but I realise that this article is, understandably, a bit of a battlefield at times, so I don't want to tread on any toes! garik (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I would leave out "or universal" because it is superfluous. Failure to recommend routine circumcision would mean that obviously universal circumcision isn't recommended either. kyledueck (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my view too, but my edit was reverted apparently because I left "universal" out (unless I misunderstood the reason for reverting), so maybe we're missing something. garik (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Routine circumcision" actually means the same thing as "universal circumcision" (see footnote 2 to ref 14), but the meaning is less intuitively obvious and is prone to misinterpretation (unfortunately people often incorrectly use the term "routine circumcision" to mean "elective circumcision"). Using the "universal" term helps to reduce the risk of misunderstanding. We certainly shouldn't remove the clearer term and effectively replace it with a less clear term. That's why I reverted your edit.

The problem with your proposal above is that "currently recommend routine or universal circumcision" seems to suggest that the two terms have different meanings. The situation could be improved by rephrasing as "currently recommend routine (ie., universal) circumcision".

I should point out that this sentence was the subject of an RfC at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70#RfC: how should the lead summarise positions of medical associations?; the present sentence is a compromise between the two positions. It isn't ideal. I must also apologise for my rather confusing edit summaries — not sure what happened! Jakew (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the word "universal" isn't needed at all, but Garik's edit, along with your rewording: "currently recommend routine (ie., universal) circumcision" is a definite improvement over what's currently there. I think we should add it in (and by we I mean... someone other than me!), even if we continue to discuss other options. kyledueck (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Garik and already stated this medical summary is awkward and contradictory of itself. I also agree with Jake that using both terms in the same sentence lends itself to more confusion. How bout.. "No professional associations of physicians currently recommend routine circumcision; however very few recommend prohibiting the practice." Garycompugeek (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me. If everyone agrees that there's no difference between routine and universal circumcision, then we certainly don't need both terms in the sentence (and "routine" is the better term, I feel). One thing though: Am I right in understanding that in fact no professional associations recommend prohibiting the practice? If so, then we should say that. garik (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Am I right in understanding that in fact no professional associations recommend prohibiting the practice?" - You are correct, that's what the source says: "no medical body has advocated a policy that calls for the prohibition of circumcision" kyledueck (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that "routine" is a better term. As I explained above, it's often misunderstood, and for that reason "universal" should be preferred. I would rather include both terms than to remove "universal". Jakew (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, well let's go with "universal" then. garik (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Obviously some people still disagree with this. Apparently "we are summarizing viewpoints and should state them as such". I disagree. The current wording is inelegant, unclear, and unnecessarily cumbersome. Assuming it is accurate that no professional associations recommend universal circumcision or recommend prohibiting it, then we really don't need to say "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians include that...". But I'm loth to rerevert and get into an edit war. Comments? garik (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And if it's not accurate that no professional associations recommend universal circumcision or recommend prohibiting it, then we still need to reword it, because that's what it currently implies. And the words "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians include that..." do nothing to dispel that implication. garik (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It just states that they're summaries, not that they're correct. There's some reason to doubt the accuracy of the assertion that none recommend universal circumcision, as mentioned in the RfC. In the last few years, many African countries have introduced large-scale circumcision programmes as part of HIV prevention campaigns. If these programmes are supported by those countries medical associations, as seems likely, then it seems entirely plausible that they might recommend universal circumcision. I'm inclined to agree that we should avoid asserting this as a fact, and should remain neutral regarding its accuracy. Jakew (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, you're saying that you want to stress that some sources claim that no professional associations recommend universal circumcision (or prohibiting it), while not asserting that this is fact. Fine, but the current wording simply fails at the task. garik (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, if it is an accurate summary to say that no one does x, then it is equally accurate to say simply that no one does x. If it's not true that no one does x, then it is equally untrue to say that in summary no one does x. garik (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that by describing something as a summary, we're implying that it is a true and accurate summary? Jakew (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Universal is not the correct term. A google scholar search for "routine circumcision" yields 1460 results, while "universal circumcision" yields only 171. Similarly, "routine infant circumcision" has 168 results, while "universal infant circumcision" returns only 8 results. Since routine is clearly the more commonly used term, WP:COMMONNAME necessitates that we use that term, if we are going to use just one. Also, "Routine" circumcision is the wording used in the source cited. kyledueck (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is part of the article titling policy. If someone suggested that we create a new article or retitle an existing one, I'm afraid I did not see that part of the discussion. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Jakew (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"So you're saying that by describing something as a summary, we're implying that it is a true and accurate summary?" Yes. The words "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians include that none currently recommend routine circumcision" implies it to be true and accurate that no professional associations of physicians currently recommend routine circumcision. Or, rather, it implies it to be as true and accurate as (e.g.) the claim that circumcision "is also customary in some Christian churches in Africa" (or any other citation-supported claim on Misplaced Pages). If you want to imply that this claim may well be less true and accurate than other claims in the Circumcision article, then you need to reword the sentence. The word "summaries" alone does nothing to that end. garik (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you may be interpreting the word "summaries" to mean only "published articles summarising the views of professional associations". If that's what you understand the word to mean, then the current wording is awkward and inelegant, but doesn't carry the same implication of accuracy. But, unfortunately, that's not the only meaning of "summary" and it's not how many people will read the sentence. We could fix it by saying something like, "Published summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that ..." garik (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WHO-related changes

Based on Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources, I removed text and supporting reference to http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news68/en/index.html because it is not a reliable source. One of the experts in the study founded a company that invented, sells, and markets a circumcision device (http://www.accucirc.com/contact.php). See http://todayshospitalist.com/index.php?b=articles_read&cnt=647 for additional proof of this association. This conflict of interest violates Misplaced Pages's policy and renders the WHO as an unreliable source with regards to studies it endorses on HIV and circumcision. Erikvcl (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS#Medical and scientific organizations, which specifically identifies the WHO as a reliable source. I'd also be interested to know which part of WP:RS indicates that medical organisations should be regarded as unreliable because of potential financial interests of a single consultant used by that organisation. Finally, you did not remove references to http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf but, rather, http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news68/en/index.html. Jakew (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect to believe that any organization is infallible. Each research study, paper, or recommendation must be evaluated since financial motivations and greed will induce bias reducing the value of that organization's claims. Just because the Misplaced Pages page mentions the WHO doesn't mean that they are an ethical organization that isn't unduly influenced by money or greed. The WHO is against female genital mutilation but supports male genital mutilation. This represents sexism and a failure to recognize gender equality.

To address your point directly, if you read WP:QS#Questionable_sources it clearly states that sources "...with an apparent conflict of interest" are not acceptable. A WHO consultant who would financially benefit from the conclusions he advocates is a clear conflict of interest. In addition, WP:QS#Questionable_sources also states "...other sources to be extremist or promotional...". In this case, the WHO's recommendation is promotional in that it benefits Tomlinson's Accucirc business. The WHO's views are also extreme in that the fly in the face of modern medical ethics, the Hippocratic_oath#Modern_version, and existing peer-reviewed research.

Furthermore, the source reference represents the conclusions of analysis commissioned by the WHO that did not receive proper peer review from non-WHO scientists, researchers, or ethics professionals: it appears to be a primary source. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources must be used with great care only. This source, with its conflict-of-interest and other ethical considerations does not meet this criteria. Erikvcl (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a creative interpretation of policy, Erik, but ultimately incorrect. Nothing in policy requires sources to be "ethical" or to "recognise gender equality" in the judgement of editors; these are merely your own original criticisms of their position. You're free to disagree with them, but not to remove information on that basis.

Next, you claim that Tomlinson has a "clear conflict of interest". I'd question that assertion on several grounds. First, we have no way of knowing whether Tomlinson benefits financially from the Accucirc device (it's plausible that he doesn't profit from it). Second, while we know that he was involved in WHO's expert consultation which resulted in their recommendations, we don't know what he said at that meeting. Third, we don't know whether he stood to gain anything at the time of that meeting (if he invented the Accucirc afterwards, it can't retroactively create a conflict of interest). Fourth, we have no way of knowing what interests he may have declared during the meeting. In any case, all this is a moot point, because we don't cite Tomlinson. We cite the WHO. So it's irrelevant whether Tomlinson has a conflict of interest, since Tomlinson is not the source.

Next, you omitted the context when you quoted part of WP:QS. Here's a fuller quotation, with added emphasis: "expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional". Clearly, the fact that you consider the WHO's recommendation to be promotional is irrelevant, because you're not a source.

Finally, like all conclusions of medical associations, it's both a secondary source and a primary source. It's secondary in the sense that it's the result of analysis of primary source data (in this case, the RCTs). It's primary in the sense that it's the viewpoint of that organisation. In any case, since we simply report what they say, there isn't a problem. Incidentally, you seem to have misunderstood WP:PRIMARY: "only with care" is not intended to be used as an excuse to exclude material with which editors disagree. It indicates that primary sources should only be used in certain ways ("A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."). Jakew (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Jakew; such poor interpretation of policy to justify removal of reliable sources seems borderline disruptive. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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