Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 12 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)

Encyclopedia Britannica gets it that policy must be authentically neutral, not a fig-leaf for pov pushing. Robert B19 (talk) 17:57, 12 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)

We're not talking about bacteria. We're talking about a human activity. Let me ask the inverse. Should we put the more arcane human activity first? If so, why? Tftobin (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case neither of these activities is "arcane". Jayjg 01:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Arcane is a matter of opinion. You, Jayjg, are entitled to yours. I am entitled to mine. When 70% of the male population is neither theraputically circumcised, nor non-theraputically circumcised, both might appear arcane to someone looking from a different perspective. Tftobin (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

arcane (ɑːˈkeɪn) — adj. known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric. (Dictionary.com). Circumcision is none of those things, and that's not "a matter of opinion". Jayjg 01:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that one rule should be applied when talking about "human activities" and another for other subjects? Why? Jakew (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. Why are you so hell-bent on having the order be theraputic first, and non-theraputic second? Tftobin (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, that's the order that is, even according to you, "most logical". Jayjg 01:06, 12 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)

The source may say it, but there are medical bodies who are advocating for a policy which calls for the prohibition of circumcision. The Swedish Paediatric society is one. Norway was arguing over a minimum age of 15 a few months ago. Tftobin (talk) 00:03, 11 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)

That sounds reasonable to me. Let's try it on for size. FactoidDroid (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "published" isn't crucial. Changing "include that" to "state that" is more important. Apart from anything else, it just sounds more idiomatically English. I've made a further edit so that it says "routine (i.e. universal) circumcision". As it stood, it strongly implied that routine circumcision and universal circumcision were different things. garik (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Note ref 2 from the cited source, "I believe that the term “routine infant circumcision” is a misnomer. It denotes a position that nobody really holds, namely that as a matter of routine, all healthy boys should be circumcised. Opposition to a policy of “routine infant circumcision” does not have to indicate opposition to a parent’s right to choose for their son to undergo the procedure, nor the provision of the procedure in general". The author says he is not talking about "routine", let alone "universal" infant circumcision. So why are we? And citing him? Surely there's something wrong with that. --Nigelj (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He explicitly discusses universal infant circumcision: "Most medical associations maintain that although there are potential medical benefits associated with the procedure, on balance these benefits do not overwhelmingly support a policy of universal recommendation. Although they recognise that existing medical evidence does not support that the procedure that can be universally recommended, they do not believe the medical evidence shows that the procedure is so detrimental that it should be prohibited or outlawed." Jakew (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is a difference between a "universal recommendation of circumcision" and "universal circumcision", which should probably be reflected in the article. Based on that, how about we change the sentence to read:

Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none currently support universally recommending circumcision, but that none recommend prohibiting the practice.

Whatever we do, leaving the sentence as it currently is should not be an option. It's unidiomatic, confusing, and potentially misleading. garik (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a meaningful difference between the two, given that we're discussing recommendations in the first place. I think the "summaries ... state" construction is a little awkward; I tend to think that summaries are just sequences of words, and (unlike their authors) can't themselves state anything. I also think that the current phrasing is fine, and I actually prefer it. Nevertheless, I don't strongly oppose the phrasing you mention. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the refs you propose to cite. Given that ref 14 includes the "universally recommended" language, why are you proposing to cite ref 13 for that part of the sentence? Jakew (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the refs; I hadn't paid attention to them when I suggested the above sentence. I'm inclined to agree that "Summaries ... state" is probably not the best phrasing we can come up with (you may recall I supported a much more radical change originally—and still do), but "Summaries ... include that" really is several times more awkward. Using "state" with an inanimate subject is perfectly standard and idiomatic English, and very normal in scholarly writing. The use of "include" with a subordinate that-clause is much less so. It makes it sound as if the sentence was constructed by a committee of non-native speakers (which, I guess, may be the case). The other problem, as noted above, is that "Summaries ... include that ..." doesn't make clear that we're talking about published summaries. When I first read it, I took it to be an awkward way of saying, "To summarise views held by professional associations of physicians on circumcision: None currently recommend..." Instead, it's an awkward way of saying something else. If we use the word "state", we avoid the mistaken interpretation.

I also still think it's a big problem to mention universal and routine circumcision separately if they're supposed to be the same thing. Now, obviously there's some dispute over whether they are quite the same thing (and I can imagine ways in which they're not), but if we decide that they're not and still want to mention both of them, then we need to be explicit about what the difference is. I'm with you on this, Jakew (if I understand you right): I don't think any difference there is between them is worth distinguishing in this sentence. Either way though, we need to change it. I still think there is a difference between universally recommending circumcision and recommending universal circumcision, but it is a very slight difference, so I don't care especially about maintaining that distinction. As noted above, there are more important things wrong with this sentence. garik (talk) 13:24, 11 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)

Jakew, since you consider that Erikvc is not a source, what would be a source which would be acceptable to the circumcision page of wikipedia, which would be respected in pointing out the difficulty in the WHO being both a primary source, a meta-data source, and a secondary source? Tftobin (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom, my remark that Erik is not a source was made in response to Erik's claim that the WHO are "promotional". As I pointed out, he had taken that word out of context, overlooking the fact that the policy he cited explicitly required that the assessment as "promotional" must be that of other sources (ie., not WP editors). Jakew (talk) 18:46, 11 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)

I find it extremely plausible that Dr. David Tomlinson is profiting from patenting four circumcision clamps. I have never known anyone who held four patents on similar devices, and appeared in their advertising, to not make a profit on those patents. Disruptive, perhaps. Truthful? Absolutely. Want me to drive down and ask him? He's less than 100 miles from me. Tftobin (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's plausible, but if you're going to accuse a person of acting with a conflict of interest, it's a good idea to have facts rather than thinking that something is plausible. I would've thought that basic human decency should have made that obvious; if not, WP:BLP spells it out. Jakew (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall using the verb 'accuse'. That was presumptive. Asking a person if they make a profit from something, is not the same as accusing them of anything. Besides, there are other methods, which might be construed as less offensive, such as asking the compan(y|ies) involved if they pay out royalties to anyone on the patent(s). I don't always take the low road. It would be nice to be given the benefit of the doubt occasionally. Tftobin (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact that Tomlinson is the owner/founder of Accucirc and I posted a link to this effect. To think that he would not profit from a pro-MGM policy is naive. It is also surprising to me that Misplaced Pages would want to be associated with organizations who perform unethical research. What I'm struggling with is that many editors have told me that the ethical behavior of a source has no bearing on that source's reliability or validity. This is a strange position to hold. Would you hold as valid & reliable a study commissioned by BP showing no harm to the Gulf of Mexico after the recent spill? I get the feeling that the editors' interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy is inconsistent. The poor interpretation of policy does not reside with me. Multiple editors have rebuked the neutrality of this article, yet it does not carry the POV marker. Multiple editors have disputed the credibility of this article yet it does not carry the disputed marker. Erikvcl (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Erik and Jake make some interesting points. I am loath to use WHO because of its government bureaucracy and political agenda however I suggest you take this to the reliable sources talk page if you wish to pursue it Erik. Just because you disagree with Erik is no reason to call him disruptive Yobol. He is using the talk page and clear edit summaries so please let us all play nice. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Erikvc, I hope you get further with this than I did, in the reliable sources page. You bring some fresh points. Please read up on my attempt, so you can avoid some of the newbie pitfalls. I find some of the WHO's behaviors to be a study in mismanagement of conflicts of interest. They've been getting a free pass in here as an unimpeachable source for years, while their data conflicts with that of other countries, including the US and UK. Groups throw money at the WHO, and they make their own primary, meta, and secondary studies, much like the financial system of the US self-certified in 2008-2009. The rules of this page make it absolutely vulnerable to the excesses of the WHO's methods, for just these reasons. Tftobin (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not call this "new" user disruptive, I called their behavior of so badly misapplying policies and guidelines "borderline disruptive". If you have any further suggestions for me, take it to my talk page. Yobol (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I called into question the ethical behavior of a source. I was right to call that source into question and I interpreted the policies accurately. This is not disruptive behavior, but rather the behavior of someone who is trying to eliminate the clear bias and inaccuracies in the article. Erikvcl (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Video

If people can post still photos of penises in various states of circumcision, would it be remiss to put in a video of circumcision? I hid in mind something neutral. If not, why allow photos, and not video? Tftobin (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages has just started incorporating videos into article's I think it's an excellent idea Tom. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

POV

I would suggest reading the Female_genital_mutilation article. From reading that article, it is quite clear that this article is anything but neutral. Please stop removing the POV tag without proper discussion.

I have been accused of "having a disruptive interpretation of policy". What is more disruptive is when a single editor controls an entire article completely ignoring Misplaced Pages's goal of being a community-developed (and accurate) encyclopedia based on meritocracy. I would argue that the inability to see this article as biased precludes someone from having the authority to edit it.

There is no credible scientific evidence that says MGM prevents HIV, yet this is featured prominently. Even so, would you have sex with an HIV+ women just because you were cut? This is not prevention at all. We don't do infant mastectomies just because it would save millions of women's lives. The hippocratic oath says you do no harm: you don't cut healthy tissue in medicine as it is not ethical. We have let ethically-challenged sources and junk science contaminate this article. Yet, we discard valid, ethical, scientific research like the US Navy study for no other reason than it is a "primary source". The US has the highest rate of MGM and it has higher rates of STDs, HIV, and other cancers than countries where the citizens are intact. Furthermore, more children DIE from MGM than from penile cancer, SIDS, drop-side cribs, etc. The "cure" is worse than the disease.

I can provide valid, credible, reliable references to everything I just stated in the last paragraph. I will provide this information through edits in the coming months. However, I have started by vetting the sources in the article as it stands before I provide new information. I have been met by unjustified resistance based on a predisposed bias of editors. I find this disappointing and unfortunate. Erikvcl (talk) 18:59, 12 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