Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:20, 16 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)

Encyclopaedia Britannica's policies are not Misplaced Pages's; please make more relevant statements. Jayjg 01:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Experienced editors and non-WP:SPA disagree with Jakew all the time. Please try to be more accurate in your statements, Jayjg. Tftobin (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Which ones have done so recently, particularly on this topic? Please try to back up this implausible statement, Tftobin. Jayjg 01:09, 16 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)

arcane "mysterious and difficult to understand". http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/arcane

I find theraputic "mysterious and difficult to understand", especially when there are so many alternatives which do not involve surgery. Tftobin (talk) 01:01, 13 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)

Acccording to the page under discussion, "Estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that 30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised, of whom 68 percent are Muslim". The vast majority of circumcisions are religious in nature, i.e., non-theraputic. Putting theraputic circumcision first, places an artificial medical emphasis, when most are non-medical. Jayjg, I am quite aware of what I wrote, without you repeating it to me. Tftobin (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So, to return to my earlier question, "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) 08:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If we were discussing bacteria, perhaps that would be appropriate. When a tool is used one way 80% of the time, and another way 20% of the time, does it make sense to put the 20% use first? I am starting to sense an awful lot of resistance, and not a lot of solid reasoning behind it, like there is a definite agenda no one wants to state. Tftobin (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you've already admitted that placing therapeutic first is "most logical", you appear to be contradicting yourself. Jakew (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I? Go back and read the sentence. I'm not up for game playing. If you want it in a particular order, why? When theraputic use is a tiny fraction of non-theraputic, why must theraputic come first? Tftobin (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment dated 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC). Jakew (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's put it to a vote, as to whether theraputic or non-theraputic should go first. Tftobin (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:PNDS. Jakew (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same thing is not the same as a discussion. So, who determines order, when there is a dispute? Tftobin (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you ask a question that's already been answered, you shouldn't be surprised if you're directed to the previous answer. Regarding content disputes, nobody arbitrates. We can look for a compromise or a way around the problem. For example, we could revert Kyle's addition of the "non-therapeutic" sentence, which triggered the dispute. Or, as I suggested above (09:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)), we could remove the terms "non-therapeutic" and "therapeutic", and present the content in the order you prefer. Jakew (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see it presented, before agreeing. I am leaning towards the removal of the terms "non-therapeutic" and "therapeutic", and presenting the content in the order in which they most commonly occur. It just seems more honest. Tftobin (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

So, given what I've said above, would anyone object to me changing the sentence in question to the following?:

Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none currently recommend routine (i.e. universal) circumcision, but that none recommend prohibiting the practice. garik (talk) 21:48, 15 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)

Using an article Talk: page to call into question the "ethical behavior" of an individual actually falls under WP:BLP, a policy well worth reviewing. Jayjg 01:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are honestly defending the WHO, the standards here at Misplaced Pages are very low. This is regarding an organization, public facts, and tainted research. Your reference to WP:BLP is laughable and irrelevant. Erikvcl (talk) 04:27, 16 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)

You are not the first new editor to be attacked. It was implied that I was a plant from an anti-circumcision organization, sent to infiltrate. I had comments from outside of wikipedia posted on the talk page. We file complaints, (several long-time editors in here have had a long series), and the attackers still attack. I share your sentiments, Erikvcl. Everything put together, sooner or later falls apart. Truth will remain. Tftobin (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, there is no medical association of any country which has endorsed Dr. Morris' view that "in contrast, Morris regards circumcision as "mandated", citing reduced risk of balanitis among other benefits.". Since it is not supported by medical evidence, it needs to be removed. Tftobin (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Misplaced Pages should only include statements that have been endorsed by medical associations? Don't you think that would make it a little difficult to express the full range of viewpoints? That and the sentence immediately before it, and which it balances, aren't wonderful sentences, but that has to be one of the strangest arguments I've seen. Jakew (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? Every time I try and post, I get told it is not a secondary resource. Dr. Morris comes out with the most fringe of fringe views, which contradicts the advice of every medical society of every country, and it is cited here as if it is real. If we are going to be that off balance with what we post here, take out the Morris sentence, and the sentence which is being counterbalanced by it. Circumcision for balanitis, mandated, and I am being asked if I am serious? Tftobin (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it and the preceding sentence. They were both rather tangential to the article. Jakew (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed a valid cited piece of information that is completely relevant. You tell people to get sources and they do, but you reject their input anyway. You removed this information without any kind of consensus. You are not the dictator of this article. You remove all information that could be perceived as anti-MGM and your include pro-MGM sources even when they are not reliable. You have moved into the realm of irrationality. Can we please get some fresh editorial blood here? Are there any other senior Misplaced Pages editors who can properly moderate this article without bias? I am beyond frustration here. You may have won lots of medals, but, as I've said before, I detect cronyism. Erikvcl (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated, an argument could be made for removing both sentences, and Tom agreed, saying "take out the Morris sentence, and the sentence which is being counterbalanced by it". Conventionally when one person suggests something, another agrees, and nobody objects, we'll tentatively call it a consensus so I went ahead and made the change. It seems rather tangential, when discussing an association between circumcision and a disease, to consider views regarding whether it should be applied to all boys as a result. By analogy, common cold notes that "Regular hand washing appears to be effective at reducing the transmission of cold viruses especially among children", but unless the idea had entered mainstream thinking, it would seem a little obscure, to say the least, to discuss whether mandatory handwashing should be introduced as a result. It's fairly obvious from your uncivil response and personal attacks that you disagree, but you haven't stated any concrete objections. Do you have any? Jakew (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading your exchange, I don't see any clear indication that you had an agreement with Tftobin. Morris's statement is bogus; the other statement should stay in. You are violating the Misplaced Pages policy of Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest by having a pro-MGM website. You also violate the policy of Misplaced Pages:Consensus with the way you control this article with an iron fist and browbeat everyone. Yet you continue to criticize everyone else for the policies that they are violating! I'm not making personal attacks --- I am calling to attention the inappropriateness of your actions and the actions of other editors. The editors have attacked me and not one has apologized. People make a point and your response is "you didn't make a point" --- I've seen this half a dozen times or more on this page. It gets old. Every single change people want to make here is a fight. I know I am being disruptive, but "playing by the rules" hasn't worked. Lots of folks are frustrated. I may come back to this at some point, but I'm giving up for now. There's way too much irrationality, game-playing, bias, and cronyism. Erikvcl (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You may feel you are the first person to voice these things. When I brought them up as WP:COIN (conflict of interest), I was told that there was no conflict of interest, because the editor never hid the fact that he or she operates a web site which was described in the circumcision article as pro-circumcision (not by the editor him or herself), and that he or she was not excessively citing the six or so articles they had written. I think you will find that wikipedia is extremely light on enforcement, far more light and lenient than any other organization I have encountered. The suggestion was made to me that if I felt strongly enough, I could go back, and determine (as you have already intuitively sensed) statistically, and prove bias, and then they may or may not do something about it. I have seen editors do things that might land them in court in the outside world. When people have been editing for 5 or more years, they know every device to obfuscate, manoeuver, and wiggle, as you have correctly observed. There is an old and comfortable relationship between some of the more long term editors, and wikipedia central, which in my observation, allows rules to be bent into pretzel shapes. I can tell that when you detect intellectual dishonesty, you voice it. I encourage you to continue to participate. I don't say that because you and I share the same viewpoint, or see the same injustices, or have tried the same paths. I encourage you because you speak the truth as you see it. There is a growing sense of frustration among all the editors. In my experience, when people wield dictatorial powers, it does not last forever. Berlin walls come down, and 30 year African leaders get deposed. Artificial things do not last. Tftobin (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll both find editing Misplaced Pages a much less frustrating experience if you stop personalising issues. Misplaced Pages is governed by its policies and guidelines; getting angry at those who enforce those rules achieves nothing. Focus instead on understanding the rules — and the subject — better; you'll find that there will be far less resistance to your proposals as a result because they will be better proposals. Jakew (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take your own advice. Tftobin (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

his sentence is really weak. It states more or less that there may or may not be some evidence that there is a connection between circumcision and prostate cancer, but is far from definitive. "Morris et al. reported that there is some evidence, albeit mixed, that circumcision may protect against prostate cancer; they called for more extensive research into the matter." Why are we including conjecture? This needs to be removed. Tftobin (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion that led to its inclusion, Tom, in which you said "I can live with it" regarding the present text. Morris et al are used as a secondary source which "summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies" (to quote from the relevant guideline. Jakew (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in the light of the well publicised, but science-poor study done by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, I am growing less enamoured of the aspersions without proof. The sentence itself is conjecture. If this is the state of secondary research, perhaps we should rethink. I am not trying to be difficult here. I was just reading the article, and it's a junk sentence, based on evidence which may or may not point to something. Is this really wikipedia quality material? Tftobin (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the problem, Tom. You seem to be arguing that we should delete any sentence reflecting evidence which is less than certain. Human knowledge is imperfect; most of cosmology, for example, is based on educated guesswork. But we don't delete all articles on cosmology. What we should do is to be careful when wording sentences, such that we accurately reflect the confidence that scientists have in their assertions. If something is known, we say so. If it's suspected, we say that too. If there's evidence, but not proof, as in this case, we say that. Jakew (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that in this case, it is more like an aspersion. Cosmology is not asserting that something may be more disease prone, without actual evidence. Little cosmology gets published, with says, "It may be so, but then again, it may not be." Tftobin (talk)

Morris et al aren't making an assertion without evidence, either. They cite their evidence. But they acknowledge that this evidence doesn't constitute absolute proof. And you might find Misplaced Pages's article on the Oort cloud interesting. "The Oort cloud is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun. Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, astronomers believe that it is the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System and many of the centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well." Jakew (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As best I can see, the article on the Oort cloud is not implying or inferring that it causes or aids in contracting a potentially fatal human disease. The same cannot be said of the Morris and company article. Tftobin (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that it needs unusual treatment? Jakew (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, the article says nothing. That you would post something like the entry above is beneath your typical level of dignity. The article adds nothing to the discussion of circumcision, because it says nothing deterministic, or definitive. Do you want wikipedia to be an encylopedia, or do you want it to support research which meets the criteria, but does not provide information? Tftobin (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

By the same argument, mentioning the Oort cloud adds nothing to discussion of the solar system. I don't find that to be a persuasive argument, and I think removing it would be harmful to the encyclopaedia: information doesn't always have to have firm proof to be of value. Sometimes it's useful to the reader to have the best available information. But what's vital is that the reader isn't misled to believe that the data is better (or worse) than it is. Jakew (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find your argument persuasive. I find it disingenuous, that you co-authored the vacuous article, and then insist that it be included here, when it contributes nothing. It does not insure the reader is not mislead. It plants seeds of doubt, without any evidence. Tftobin (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you check your facts, Tom. The article cites ref 124, and as you'll see from the link I provided, I'm not a coauthor of that article. I believe you owe me an apology. Jakew (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, Jakew. I was mistaken. You are not a co-author with Dr. Morris of that particular vacuous article. You are the co-author of a different article on circumcision and prostate cancer with Dr. Morris, entitled "CASE NUMBER AND THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF CIRCUMCISION IN REDUCING PROSTATE CANCER". I apologize for the error, Jakew. Now, can the vacuous article ref 124, which adds nothing to wikipedia's knowledge be removed? Tftobin (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If it were removed, the reader would not be informed of the evidence suggesting an association with prostate cancer. I can't see why providing less information is in the interests of the reader, I'm afraid. Jakew (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an aspersion. It's not proof. It's like saying, "Perhaps she's homosexual, but maybe not". Something that non-deterministic really has no place in an encyclopedia. It has a negative connotation for 3+ billion people, that they may (but it is unproven) (and it needs more research), possibly, be at risk for a disease of old men. It proves nothing. It does a disservice by its presence. It needs to go. Tftobin (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not an aspersion, it's a summary of the evidence. That's exactly what we rely upon secondary sources to do. Jakew (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The view that The sentence, "The moist, warm space underneath the foreskin is thought to facilitate the growth of pathogens, particularly when hygiene is poor." appears to cite no source. "thought to" means it is unsupported by medical evidence. I can cite several studies which show that the glans of circumcised men are more likely to have staph and strep, than the glans of uncircumcised men. This line needs to be removed. Tftobin (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced to the citation that follows (ref 111), which states: "The area under the foreskin is a warm, moist environment that may enable some pathogens to persist and replicate, especially when penile hygiene is poor". (And there's no shortage of studies showing larger quantities of pathogens in uncircumcised men; see here for a brief list. But most of those are primary sources, of course.) Jakew (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If they are primary sources, why are they being allowed? Can I include my primary sources, which prove that there is more incidence of staph and strep on the glans of circumcised boys, than on the glans of boys with foreskins? Or does it go? Tftobin (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you mean my parenthetical comment, which referred to the primary studies of pathogens by circumcision status, they aren't included, and that's because they're primary sources. We do, however, include a secondary source, ref 111. Jakew (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the article is a secondary source, there is no evidence that there are more pathogens lurking under the human foreskin, than there are under any other mucous membranes, namely the . Just because someone said it, and someone else rubber stamped it, does not make it so. Any reasonable person would not believe that more than 3 billion men are walking around with pathogens under their foreskins. If so, how does this world function? Are you interested in truth? Or are you simply interested in your point of view winning? The whole world is watching, and waiting for your answer. Tftobin (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't claim that there are more pathogens under the foreskin than the other locations you mention, Tom, so I can't see why your statement has any relevance. Please address what the source (and the article) actually says, rather than attacking a strawman. Moving on, it is essentially certain that all men, circumcised or otherwise, have pathogens on the surface of their penises, and indeed elsewhere on their bodies. That is an essentially normal condition, as microorganisms, some capable of causing harm, are everywhere. Normally they don't cause harm, though it can be more likely if their numbers are high or if the body is weak. Jakew (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that the statement does not make it clear that there are pathogens everywhere on the body, it specifically calls out the male foreskin as "The moist, warm space underneath the foreskin is thought to facilitate the growth of pathogens, particularly when hygiene is poor." Is it strawman for me to call out that the sentence is associating the foreskin and the growth of pathogens? Or are you obfuscating? "Is thought to", once again, is not deterministic. Either do the science and determine it to be true, do the science and determine it to be false, but don't put something half baked in an encyclopedia entry. If I were to find a secondary resource which said, "Keratinization of the glans is thought to lessen sexual sensation greatly for the circumcised man.", would this be proper, ethically, for me to cite, and use as a reference? Tftobin (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the subject of this article (and hence our sources), it should not be surprising that there is a certain focus on the foreskin, as opposed to other body parts. The source is certainly saying that the presence of the foreskin facilitates the growth of pathogens, though the implicit comparison is with a circumcised penis rather than with other body parts. This is based on research finding greater numbers of pathogens in samples taken from the uncircumcised penis, and in that sense is diametrically opposed to the hypothetical sentence you mention (since evidence shows equal glans sensitivity and keratinisation). Jakew (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Proof? Pathogens? Really? The is a warm, moist environment that may enable some pathogens to persist and replicate. That is simply part of being alive. Are we trying to be factual here? Or are we trying to prove that someone can write something, and get it approved? Tftobin (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your point is unclear. Jakew (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Erikvcl. The point is that someone took the characteristics of mucous membranes all over the human body, singled one out, and made it sound insidious. Why? It's unclear. Should we remove the tongue from the mouth, in order to make the environment less susceptible to germs and potential pathogens? Of course not. Why would the same logic not apply?

His point is crystal clear: Would you add to the Vulva article or the FGM article a statement about the large presence of pathogens in the vulva and the reduction in pathogens if the labia were removed? I suspect not. Erikvcl (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If that was the conclusion of a substantial body of research, and if it were included in a reliable secondary source, then yes, of course. Jakew (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you credit for consistency, though I'd like to see you try to add this information. I'd bet money that the editors of those two articles wouldn't let you add it. You mentioned "substantial body of research": there is no substantial body of research that MGM prevents HIV yet this conclusion is featured prominently in this article. To my knowledge there has been one study commissioned by the WHO that came to this conclusion. The WHO study has been widely discredited, is riddled with ethical issues, and its advisors/researchers had a conflict of interest with the outcome. Meanwhile, even though the Misplaced Pages content guidelines clearly state that primary sources may be used with care, a US Navy study that contradicts the WHO study is not allowed here. The US Navy has a vested interest in lowering health care costs, so there is no conflict of interest; furthermore, the US Navy study used proper scientific and research techniques (e.g. it did not pay participants, etc.). Erikvcl (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your knowledge needs updating, Erik. There is indeed a substantial body of work. It is unclear which study you mean by "one study commissioned by the WHO". The three most commonly cited are the randomised controlled trials that were conducted in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya. These were the studies that led the WHO to recommend circumcision programmes, though the WHO did not commission any of the studies. In addition to the RCTs, there have been at least 50 observational studies, including the US Navy study that you mention. Most, but not all, of these observational studies (21 of 27 studies in a meta-analysis dating from 2000) found reduced risk in circumcised men. At the present time, PubMed lists 936 results when searching for "circumcision HIV", which is roughly a fifth of the 5,254 results for "circumcision" alone. Jakew (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea that genital cutting is beneficial for HIV prevention is absurd at face value. It doesn't obviate the need for a condom, so what's the point? You don't need research to know that. You may have looked into the studies in more depth than I have, I'll give you that. However, doesn't mean that you conclusions are correct. The African studies have NOT been duplicated elsewhere and the WHO is an ethically challenged source. My original edits here ONLY pertained to the reliability of the WHO as a source. Misplaced Pages policy guidelines clearly state that "conflict of interest" is a factor in determining the reliability of a source. But it appears as the editors are interpreting Misplaced Pages's own policies in creative ways in order to keep a certain viewpoint. Erikvcl (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Erik, I'm very happy to debate the merits of circumcision as HIV prevention with you, but not here. WP:TALK makes it clear that article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject. My opinion about whether circumcision is beneficial for HIV prevention is completely irrelevant. So is yours. What we need to concern ourselves with is how best to represent what reliable sources (particularly, since this is a medical subject, review articles) say about the subject of the article. As individual editors, we'll probably find that we disagree with what some of those sources say (I know I do in a number of cases); I'm afraid we just have to tolerate that. Jakew (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: my main point has always been that the WHO is not a reliable source on the subject of MGM as HIV prevention due to conflict of interest within the organization. This discussion is appropriate to have and it is one of the reasons why I am claiming the article has bias. I am quite clear that my own personal bias has nothing to do with the article and I have not made sweeping changes to the article to try to steer it toward my personal point of view. Erikvcl (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, do you not understand that whatever your motives may be, the manner of your editing here at least gives you the appearance of OWNing the article and biasing it to a pro-circumcision viewpoint? Do you think you should be doing something to correct that impression? Egg Centric 14:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Especially when other potential editors are told that part of the article is going to go in a certain order, without giving a reasonable explanation as to why the less common practice must go first. Tftobin (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to comment on content, not the contributor, Egg. Jakew (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems as though the editors themselves should follow this advice. Yobol commented on me, a contributor, rather than the content of my comments by calling my interpretation "disruptive". If the editors aren't holding up the high standards of the Misplaced Pages policies, how can the rest of us be expected to? Erikvcl (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it was Yobol, not Jayjg, who made that comment (here), and he described the "poor interpretation of policy" as disruptive, not you. In other words, it was directed at an argument, rather than a contributor. Jakew (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I corrected my comment above; I shouldn't have relied on my memory for that. Erikvcl (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

NPA has nothing to do with this. Misplaced Pages needs to be seen as acting through consensus and adhering to neutrality. When it doesn't seem to be, it is not a personal attack to point that out. Do you think there is an issue here or not? Egg Centric 14:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's wise to keep the pov tag on the article until we get a meeting of the minds on these issues under dispute. Robert B19 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We keep POV tags where the person adding the tag has created a discussion in which they identify specific actionable issues that violate NPOV policy, and even then we only retain the tag while discussion is active in that section. Please stop re-adding the tag without following its instructions. It is disruptive. Jakew (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert, as Jake notes, constantly adding the NPOV tag without stating any specific policy issues is highly disruptive. Please stop. Jayjg 01:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional information regarding HIV-MGM fallacy

Please read the following link which cites a reputable journal article: http://jamespatemd.com/blog/?p=2153#.T4hrZ7MaAqo

This actual source (the journal article) confirms everything that I've been saying here. Can we please now take some action regarding removing the WHO as a reliable source? Also, I'm putting the POV flag back since it's clearly warranted by the discussions here. I see three editors who don't see bias and a great many more editors who do see a bias. Erikvcl (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a blog post citing a fringe publication criticising the RCTs. It doesn't in any way justify removal of the WHO. Jakew (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the source is a journal article (not the blog) which is a reliable secondary source per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Please justify your claim that this is a "finge publication". There is a clear conflict of interest that exists at the WHO that renders the WHO source unreliable. Please justify how this conflict of interest wouldn't taint the research. Erikvcl (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a secondary source, but we don't include every secondary source. WP:UNDUE requires that we avoid giving undue weight to minority viewpoints, especially those of extreme minorities. Prior to around 2007 there were indeed mixed views about whether circumcision protects against HIV, but since the publication of the RCTs there has been a clear scientific consensus that it does (if you doubt this I invite you to read through the abstracts at PubMed. A handful dispute the association, but the overwhelming majority acknowledge it. I've already addressed your claims re conflict of interest in #WHO-related changes (see my comment dated 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)), so I won't waste further time on it. Jakew (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This has gone a bit far, in my opinion. If someone posts primary research, they get told it has to be secondary research. There is no wikipedia general rule forbidding high quality primary research, except in circumcision. Now, someone posts some secondary research, and is being told, "we don't include every secondary source". It's OK to cite Professor Morris, saying 'Morris regards circumcision as "mandated", citing reduced risk of balanitis among other benefits'. This is not WP:UNDUE, giving undue weight to minority viewpoints, especially those of extreme minorities? In what universe? Tftobin (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly and truly believe that the WHO conducted that study ethically? Do you honestly believe that it is ethical for Tomlinson to be an advisor to the WHO and that he would not taint the research? Erikvcl (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, you appear to misunderstand the purpose of a POV tag. It is not intended to be used as a warning or a badge of shame, hence the fact that a number of editors may perceive bias is not a justification for it. It's intended to attract new editors to the article, to rectify specific issues that have been identified on the talk page. For that reason, the person adding the tag is expected to provide an explanation of those issues on the talk page: "explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Misplaced Pages's content policies". Nobody has yet provided such a detailed description of the issues, which is why the tags have been removed. Jakew (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have described my issues with the article at length. The article is too complex to fix its problems all at once and so it will need to be fixed over time. It is frustrating that the editors are interpreting Misplaced Pages policy to maintain a status quo rather than to genuinely improve the article towards NPOV. This smacks of cronyism. Erikvcl (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you won't comply with the instructions for the tag, I'll remove it. I'll give you a few hours to change your mind. Jakew (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how on earth do you reconcile your statement that "it must contain the POV flag as a warning to potential readers that there is a bias in the article" with the instructions at {{POV}} that clearly state: "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article"? Jakew (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is very annoying that all these Misplaced Pages policies are very hard to find; I wonder if that is on purpose. The POV policy states: "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article". There is an ongoing dispute in this article. For years now, folks have been trying to fix the article and you revert all but the most trivial changes. The policy also states when to remove:

1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
2. Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.
3. There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

All of those statements are false as every single editor except for Jayg, Yobol, and yourself have disputed the neutrality, so we should not remove this flag. Erikvcl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The instructions clearly explain that, when an editor adds the tag, "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Misplaced Pages's content policies." That is the "discussion about neutrality issues" that the instructions refer to. Jakew (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I did exactly that! That's why I added a new section to discuss the neutrality. I followed the instructions exactly. Erikvcl (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You added the tag at 19:15, April 13, 2012. You haven't created any new discussions since that time. If we look at your actions beforehand, you created this section (which doesn't raise any NPOV issues), and this section at 19:59, April 12, 2012‎, which vaguely claims that "this article is anything but neutral", but which fails to identify any specific actionable issues. Jakew (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So what if I created this section moments before or moments after the POV tag? I obviously can't create both simultaneously. The actionable issue is my claim about the WHO and I provided a source to back up my claim that complies with Misplaced Pages's content guidelines. I understand that you don't accept my claim as valid. I was reading the policy guidelines earlier today and they clearly stated that an article should not be dominated by only one editor. Erikvcl (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

First, your claim about the WHO wasn't an NPOV issue. It was an RS issue. Second, you offered no substantive response to my critique of your claim. Third, while Boyle and Hill express their disagreement with the WHO's recommendations, their article does not in any way support your claim (it doesn't even mention Tomlinson). Finally, you began that discussion on 04:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC), three days before placing the tag. The requirement is that you "promptly begin a discussion"; nobody will be unreasonable and disregard a section placed, say, a few minutes beforehand, but it's hardly sufficient to wave vaguely in the direction of a discussion opened several days ago, in which you didn't raise any NPOV issues. Jakew (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I raised at least four actionable issues. Tftobin (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You complained about four issues, but you didn't explain how those issues violated the applicable content policies (and it's hard to see how your arguments could apply to the content policies anyway). In any case, it's a moot point, since you didn't place the tag. You need to look at this from the viewpoint of a new editor who sees the tag on the article (which reads: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."), and so (s)he opens the talk page. (S)he might be thinking "hmm, can I remove this tag? Let me check the talk page to see if the issues have been resolved". Or (S)he might be thinking, "what are the issues, then?" (S)he can and should expect to see a section with an obvious title (eg., "POV tag") that enumerates the issues with the article and clearly explains how each violates the content policies. It's not reasonable to expect him/her to sift through the talk page, looking for something that someone, somewhere might conceivably regard as an issue justifying the tag. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put the POV tag several times myself because we should be as objective as Encyclopedia Britannica regarding the HIV scaremongering about circumcision. Currently the wording reads as though the HIV prevention theory is acceped as established fact by the medical community. also, there is an analogous theory about female circumcision conferring a similar HIV prevention benefit. Robert B19 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it is an established fact, it's difficult to see how presenting it as such is a problem. And since female genital cutting is not the subject of this article, I'm struggling to see why you refer to it. Jakew (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

you don't understand, really, the analogy to female circumcision? Robert B19 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The HIV prevention theory is far from accepted as established fact by the medical community. There is contrary evidence in both the US and the UK. If it was accepted, why is the Swedish Paediatric Society working to ban routine infant circumcision? None of this is news to you, Jakew, so why the statement that it is an established fact? Who outside the WHO and Professor Morris considers it an established fact? Tftobin (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom, the existence of contrary evidence is all but inevitable given the fact that observational studies in particular are imperfect and, consequently, prone to reporting incorrect results. Even if one makes the assumption that observational studies will find the correct result, say, 75% of the time, one would expect a full quarter of studies to be "contrary evidence". Scientists recognise the need to keep a sense of perspective, and have devised rigorous methods of analysing evidence, including recognising differences in quality (such as between observational studies and RCTs), and in taking stock of large numbers of studies (such as through statistical meta-analyses).

According to news sources, the Swedish Society make their argument "on the grounds that the children are unable to form a decision in the matter." Quite evidently, that argument has nothing to do with HIV, so I am mystified as to why you raise that point.

To answer your question, UNAIDS, Family Health International, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition are all in agreement. So, too, are the Cochrane Collaboration, the authors of every published meta-analysis since the publication of the RCTs, and the authors of more than 90% of recent reviews. It is, quite clearly, an established fact. Jakew (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation financed the research. UNAIDS is a WHO-related agency. Europe doesn't buy it. South America doesn't buy it. Nor does Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. The medical organizations of no developed country have changed their policy, to recommend circumcision for HIV prevention. This isn't quite the established fact it is being portrayed as, it it? Tftobin (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean when you say "Europe doesn't buy it"? Do you mean that the continent of Europe has collectively issued a press release or policy announcing our rejection of the idea that circumcision protects against female to male transmission of HIV? If so, where is this document? If not, what do you mean?

As for recommending circumcision for HIV prevention, that's not the question we were discussing. "Does circumcision protect against female to male circumcision" is not the same question as "should circumcision be performed in order to reduce HIV". The first is (conceptually) a simple scientific question. The second is a complicated issue with many facets, including weighing of risks against benefits (is the net reduction worth the risk), as well as less scientific considerations such as financial (will it cost more or less than the HIV cases averted) and ethical aspects. Jakew (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we were discussing, "Does circumcision protect against female to male circumcision". I can assure you I never thought that was the same question as "should circumcision be performed in order to reduce HIV". Tftobin (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No European country has embraced the "circumcision reduces HIV infection by 60%" studies, and has changed their health policy to recommend circumcision for the prevention of HIV on the grounds that it reduces HIV infection by 60%. The same statement is true for South America, North America, Australia, and Asia. Is that clearer? Tftobin (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert, given that talk pages are not to be used for arguing one's own views about the subject, I don't see why you're making the analogy. Jakew (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. So why are you denying all edits that don't meet your point of view? Erikvcl (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Problematic changes

I recently reverted a large series of problematic changes that had not been discussed. The changes were obviously too numerous to list the reasons in the edit summary, so I'd like to explain some of the problems here.

• First, the addition to the beginning of the "Medical aspects" section of: "According to Finnish Medical Association, the medical benefits of a routine circumcision diminish against the harms and risks". This is poor English, and consequently difficult to understand, but the effect appears to advance this viewpoint (and only this viewpoint) in that section. Obviously this has associated NPOV problems.
• Second, the addition of two paragraphs to the "Sexual effects" section, citing a news site and a primary source. Neither are appropriate per WP:MEDRS.
• Third, the addition to the "History" section of "According to Moses Maimonides, perhaps the greatest Jewish philosopher ever, the strongest reason for circumcision is to repair the defective human moral by diminishing lust and ability to sexual excitement". It's difficult to know where to begin. "Perhaps the greatest Jewish philosopher ever" is a fairly obvious violation of WP:PEACOCK. It has no particular importance or notability (Maimonides was merely stating his opinion; it wasn't based on research of any kind). It's not even a statement about history, so it doesn't belong in the section.
• The addition of some material to the "Finland" subsection of "Legal issues" is less problematic, but it needs trimming down considerably.
• The creation of the "Finland" subsection of the "Positions of medical associations" section is an interesting addition. It certainly needs editing, but I see no reason why this source should not be cited. Google Translate converts it to broken, but just about understandable, English.
• The addition of a "Sweden" subsection of the "Positions of medical associations" section, citing a news report. This is inappropriate per WP:MEDRS. Jakew (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by reference

I'm dropping this here, but I'm sure it'll get rejected out of hand despite the fact that it's heavily cited with reliable sources. Please read the following:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

Not one single study besides the African study confirms that MGM prevents HIV. This either means only one of two things: African men are physiologically different or the studies are bogus. Jakew: I challenge you to prove me wrong here. The studies are bogus. African men are not physiologically different. In addition to being an idiotic idea, MGM doesn't prevent HIV. WHO is unethical. This is all very simple. Also, please read:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204 http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/10/new-study-australia-rejects-circumcision-as-a-preventative-for-hiv.html http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/10/us-navy-finds-that-circumcision-does-not-prevent-hiv-or-stis.html

Of course, you won't like The Whole Network, but please look at the SOURCE, not the page itself. This all made me think of something: how much money did the WHO donate to Misplaced Pages last year? Food for thought. Erikvcl (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Whole Network is not a reliable source. Neither is CIRP.

Your statement that "Not one single study besides the African study confirms that MGM prevents HIV" is incorrect. As I've explained previously, there isn't a single "African study", but, rather, three randomised controlled trials that are commonly cited, plus multiple observational studies (I cited a meta-analysis in which 21 of 27 studies found a protective effect previously). And, contrary to your claim, there are other studies elsewhere: the CDC cite several US studies in their Factsheet; another that springs to mind is from India. But we don't cite primary sources. We cite secondary sources. Jakew (talk) 07:20, 16 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