Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 8 January 2014

	Circumcision has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 3, 2013 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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. Men's Issues High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues High This article has been rated as High-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. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

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 3 sections are present.

Why are article topics weighted according to the amount of publications?

I find this extremely wierd. One reason is that it can be much easier to publish about some things than other things, and then there will be more publications just because it is easier to publish about that. Another reason is that controversial topics tend to generate a lot of publications. If something is well accepted and not controversial there are often less publications about that, but just because something is controversial it doesn't necessarily make it more important. Considering circumcision I think it is pretty obvious that the medical aspect is very controversial, so of course a lot of the publications are about the medical aspect. There are also tons of opportunities to do medical research on circumcision, and medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects of circumcision. How are you supposed to do research upon the legal/moral aspect of circumcision anyhow? Probably there are much more medical publications than legal/moral publications simply because there are much more opportunities to do medical research and publish about it. I also don't necessarily think you can solve the moral/legal problem with circumcision by doing research. What kind of research can possibly prove that infant mutilation is immoral? What kind of research can prove that theft, murder and rape is immoral? Are there lots of publications about the morality of theft/murder/rape? I doubt it, because it is not very controversial wheter is is immoral or not, and because you can't do research to prove if a thing is immoral or not.84.210.15.173 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you do indeed recognize that the distribution of the weight in the sourcing regarding the topic of this article is heavily medical, and that Misplaced Pages's guidelines direct us to take that into account in organizing the article. A counter-argument to "medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects" is that medical research is a LOT more regulated and expensive to do than simply reading up on and then writing one's own philosophical reflections on a subject. Medical research is only ever an expense; comparatively, philosophical writings cost next to nothing, so you can argue that medical sourcing should be weighted more heavily because it's so much more resource-intensive to produce. But, this article's talk page is probably not the right place to pursue these sorts of general questions. Zad68 20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How many philosphers are there compared to medical doctors these days? How many serious places can you publish your own philosopical ramblings, compared to places where you can publish medical research? How many of the places publishing philosophical ramblings are approved by wikipedia? It might indeed be more costly to do medical research, but it isn't necessarily more difficult. I think a better weight system would take other things into consideration. Such as in which context the word circumcision most often is used. The word "circumcision" is probably used much more in a religious context than in a medical context. You might also give weight according to the historical use of the word "circumcision". Zionists certainly love to talk about their right to the "holy" land due to the jewish history in that geographical area.84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, interesting question anyway. You can do your own research to answer some of your own questions by exploring journal indexes like JSTOR and PubMed. Zad68 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

84.210.15.173, your points are all valid really. There's no quantitative way to reliably determine article weight for topics that are treated substantially by multiple disciplines and the results of such database searches are merely indicative. Compared to the humanities and social sciences, medical researchers publish more frequently, they publish shorter pieces that are often highly focused, and they might publish (essentially) the same research findings in multiple locales. There's also more money available for medical research, greater commercial interest, greater government funding for research into public health issues, and the medical field itself is vast compared to most other disciplines. Having said that, database searches have greater force, as in this instance, when the results indicate that medical publications outweigh all other scholarly publications on the topic by a rather massive majority. Thus, it's easy to argue in this instance that the medical manual of style should apply. That is not to imply that a generalist encyclopedic article on circumcision should not be relatively comprehensive, without being overly long, and it should allow the reader to navigate in clear way to more detailed treatments of different aspects of circumcision. This doesn't correspond to policy but, personally, I'd be more comfortable arguing for a different organisation of this and other articles if there was an equivalent guideline to WP:MEDRS for other disciplines like sociology, history, philosophy and anthropology. If your interest is specifically in the representation of the ethics of circumcision, there are other scholarly sources that could be added to the relevant section of this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Having fully read your last comment to the end, I'm kicking myself for posting a reply. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I found your reply independently interesting and useful Fiachra and not at all tainted by an irrelevancy in the tail end of the comment that precipitated yours. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I made this argument before, that this is clearly a case of Ignore all rules. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. While wikipedia's rules for giving weight to the amount of citations is a good rule of thumb, it clearly does not apply here. It's not a far fetched guess to make that people are gaming wikipedia's rules to push a pro-circumcision bias under the auspices that the medical benefits support their pre-conceived biases. This is unacceptable for a wikipedia article. Circumcision is performed for religious and cultural reasons, and as such the article should give weight to that rather than the medical purposes. ScienceApe (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just like when you brought this up before, I agree with you again that it would take an application of WP:IAR to ignore the sourcing and Misplaced Pages content rules to reconfigure the article significantly, as you appear to be suggesting. In general if there's a case where it is suspected that editors are pushing an agenda, the best course of action—and the only course of action directly supported by Misplaced Pages's core content policies—is to have the article adhere strictly to the sources and a straight-forward application of those content policies, as this article does currently. Waving the WP:IAR flag to suggest that the article instead be reconstructed according to the wishes of that same group of editors suspected of pushing an agenda is the opposite of a productive thing to do. Zad68 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I understood that ScienceApe was proposing that we should supersede the sanitized picture of circumcision that you Zad, and a small coterie group of other editors maintain in this presently peculiarly skewed article. And not that we should continue to support the censorship. Why do you describe the opposite  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not read what I said. I said users are gaming the rules to push an agenda, meaning the rules themselves are responsible for a slanted article that does not reflect reality. You're invoking an argument from weak induction fallacy when you assert, "If there's agenda pushing, then the course of action is to follow the rules". That is NOT the case in this situation, so your generalization drawn from induction does not apply here. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. This is a fact in reality, and this article does not give weight to that fact in reality, it gives weight to using medical reasons to justify circumcision. You Zad68, are responsible for gaming the rules to push an agenda. ScienceApe (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah following the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages is not "gaming the rules". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy. You are intentionally misrepresenting my arguments. ScienceApe (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That happens here a great deal ScienceApe.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly yes, the other problem is that we are trying to convince the people that are pushing an agenda, that they are pushing an agenda. It's pointless to have a rational discussion with these people. ScienceApe (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Sensitivity Damage Dispute

The article doesn't seem to effectively highlight the fact that the damage circumcision does to men's sexual experiences (both physical and psychological) are highly disputed. It seems to only have references to a limited set of studies, performed by the AAP (which is often discredited due to its pro-circumcision biases), with a weak statement of "doesn't seem to". There are many reports and studies that find circumcision reduces sensitivity and hinders sexual function as well as causing a number of psychological issue early and later in life. While I'm not saying the article should state that circumcision definitively does do damage, I think it is important to reference several sources and highlight the fact that many studies have shown circumcision has potentially negative side effect on sensitivity, sexual function, and psychological well being. The section seems very glossed over though it really is a component of the topic that is incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pod1989 (talk • contribs)

We use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I also pointed this out, that there were clear problems with the conclusions drawn, which were even highlighted by the ones who conducted the study.

Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.

So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. ScienceApe (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What has to be represented? Are you proposing on adding a line that "there is not good evidence regarding an effect on sexual function" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I stated what needs to be represented. The source identifies clear problems with the conclusion it drew. Failure to represent these problems give the article a slant. ScienceApe (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be more constructive Doc James if you devoted your responses to considering the highlighted ( 'bold ') text above and less to suggesting that another editor is making suggestions which he clearly is not.filibustering,stonewalling, and avoiding the issue are so 2013. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Doc James asks a reasonable question. ScienceApe is unhappy with the representation of this study and its findings in the article. Therefore it is reasonable to query what concrete proposals they offer to improve the representation of the study. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Except I already said what needs to be represented in the very post he responded to. Tumadoireacht is right, he's filibustering, his question was inherently rhetorical, and not genuine. In another post he deliberately strawmanned me and misrepresented my position. These people are not honestly discussing the problems with the article. ScienceApe (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the standard MO at this article when someone points out how biased it is. The article owners ask for concrete change proposals which they can shoot down by citing biased literature and agreeing with each other. This is unlikely to change without intervention: Most people outside the US consider circumcision to be an unsavoury, atavistic, but essentially harmless practice. As it is also a taboo subject for most of them, they are very unlikely to get involved. For many, however, circumcision is a religious obligation, an important source of income, or something which they must defend for psychological reasons because they themselves or their parents have afflicted their children with it. (Let's ignore the tiny but vocal sneaky minority of those for whom it is a sexual perversion.) This seems to be a much larger number than those who, like me, started researching the subject due to a public debate and found that in many cases it amounts to baby torture.

Of course similar situations exist at many articles, and it is still possible to fix them. I would be motivated to do this here. But even when I still had the time to do it, I couldn't. Several of the article owners seem to have far superior access to the often extremely expensive literature. This makes it almost impossible to check for selective or misleading quotations, cherry-picking of biased sources etc. Also, for the reasons I gave above the interventionist bias also seems to exist in a large segment of the literature. By agreeing to elevate that segment to 'most reliable', the article owners can easily quell all dissent.

For flying saucers or ghosts we rightly eliminate most of the specialised literature because it is fringe. For circumcision or the virgin birth of Jesus we can't do this because these aberrations are too popular and consequently the specialised literature is accepted as scholarly or even scientific regardless of its intellectual shortcomings.

I would like to offer a solution, but I can't think of one. Hans Adler 17:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I will put forth a suggestion. Source gives this as a summary of the quality of evidence regarding sexual function "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" I guess we could add a summary of this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion does not address the problems the study identified with the conclusion it drew. ScienceApe (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You lost me. It is very clear "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" There is no issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. ScienceApe (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it a non-sequitur? You appear to want the article to carry more content about the quality of the evidence base for this one particular statement. Others have pointed out singling out this one secondary source's comments about a primary source is undue. You haven't made a concrete edit suggestion yet here. So Doc took the initiative and offered a bit from the secondary source that summarizes their findings regarding the quality of the evidence base, and it doesn't single out one particular primary source in an undue manner. Zad68 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This argument seems wholly pointless and pedantic because it's on the wording from a review of literature - if you want to make a claim that it's disputed, introduce a MEDRS-quality citation (i.e., a literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, or, preferably, a meta-analytic systematic review) asserting the opposite position. Anything else won't matter, because it's not in line with community policy; i.e. WP:MED will remove it. I've taken the liberty to point out the problems in the refs cited above for use as sources in the article.
I hope this helps direct this conversation back to medical sources that aren't garbage. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I decided to see what popped with MEDRS filters on this topic (search terms: circumcision pleasure) after looking for a ref I needed in another article - the only thing that popped up was this, a meta-analytic literature review which seems to support the material in the article. Might be worth adding, since it wasn't used as a source. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/bvkj/kinpopup/psfile/pdf/70/121126_Ste50aa5e211e6a6.pdf
2. Bronselaer, G. et al., "Male Circumcision Decreases Penile Sensitivity as Measured in a Large Cohort," BJU International (2013). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
3. Frisch, M., Lindholm, M., and Grønbæk, M., "Male Circumcision and Sexual Function in Men and Women: A Survey-based, Cross-sectional Study in Denmark," International Journal of Epidemiology (2011);1–15.
4. Sorrells, M. et al., “Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,” BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.
5. Boyle G., Goldman, R., Svoboda, J.S., and Fernandez, E., "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae," Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.
6. Note that all of the above are NOT WP:MEDRS QUALITY because:
   
    • (1) This paper is isn't pubmed indexed, and hence not a medical source (also ignoring the fact that it's entirely in German - what particular sentence was this quoted for?)
    • (2) A comparative study and primary source.
    • (3) "A survery based" <-- ROFL! Nonprobability sampling → invalid conclusions
    • (4) Same as (2)
    • (5) Ignoring the fact that the study, being 12 years old, is way out of WP:MEDDATE (that alone merits exclusion), it's a primary source.
   
   
   
7. ^ Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A (2012). "A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?". BMC Pediatr. 12: 20. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-20. PMC 3359221. PMID 22373281.
   DISCUSSION:
   We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
   
   SUMMARY:
   Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Thanks Seppi. A recent pubmed indexed meta analysis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The evidence also suggests that infant circumcision is a blatant abuse of Human Rights. DavidHGrateful (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits January 4

There has been a series of edits today that do not appear to improve the article's use of the sources, and so were reverted by myself and Jmh649. The latest edit was this, it modified "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." in the lead and in the body to state instead, According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.(citing four sources) Despite the AAP's positive stance on the procedure, their policy states that the "health benefits (of circumcision) are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."(citing the AAP policy statement). The issue with this proposed change are that 1) The current article content is cited to four sources, not just the AAP Technical Report, and the proposed edit misrepresents the sourcing by making it appear as only the AAP is stating this and giving undue weight to the AAP's policy statement that is not cited anywhere in the article currently; 2) It makes it appear as if the entire cost/benefit analysis being done is based on sex effects, which is not true; 3) The lack of recommendation of routine use of the procedure on neonates is not just the position of the AAP but of medical organizations worldwide, the article already covers this where it says "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males" and sourced to Bolnick, calling out the AAP here only again is redundant and is undue weight on the AAP. Zad68 13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the other citations in the citation bundle which you keep using as a "get out of jail free card", is that there is no free version on the net for any of those citations. I was only able to find their abstracts here, 1 2 3, and none of them mention anything about circumcision impacting sexual function. You need to provide us with a link to the full contents of those articles if you're going to keep using them as an excuse to keep the article in its present form. ScienceApe (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please look again. The entirety of Perera 2010 is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source. The entirety of the AAP 2012 Technical Report is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source. For all three of the AAP 2012 Technical Report, Doyle 2010 and Perea 2010 the freely-available abstracts do indeed clearly state their conclusions regarding sexual function. The conclusions drawn by Sadeghi-Nejad 2010 have been discussed several times before and I have provided verbatim quotes from that source, they can be found in the archives. Zad68 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Provide the links please. ScienceApe (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The links are provided in the article references. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't find them, can you post them here so I can read them? ScienceApe (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Control F" Perera in the article, etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Circumcision

A NPOV dicussion has been added to the NPOV Noticeboard regarding the content disputes found here. ScienceApe (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Our article reflexes the best available sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for removing the POV tag are: (from Template:POV/doc#When_to_remove)
"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

As their is ongoing discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, these criteria have not been met; the tag should remove until those discussions are formally closed or become quiescent. NE Ent 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As covered at the WP:AN discussion here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point" so the repeated re-adding of the article-wide tag is editing against consensus as evaluated by an outside administrator. Also the NPOV tag template documentation states "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the public." and as the NPOVN discussion states explicitly that the argument being made is ignoring the weight given in the reliable sourcing, this criterion isn't met. Zad68 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Per Doc James aka UserJmh649 "Our article reflexes the best available sources" I am presuming that he means reflects or references. A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus- which some of the debate responses here actually do resemble some of the time. A glimpse of a freudian undergarment ? Should we also be mentioning the historical and religious sources which have stated for thousands of years that one of the purposes of circumcision is to diminish sexual pleasure ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tum. Please note It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, there is no legitimate neutrality dispute; I'm seeing vexatious POV tagging only (and have removed it accordingly). Please raise concerns calmly in line with WP guidelines and policies. If it emerges there is a clear POV problem then (and only then) can the article be tagged while editors work it through. Alexbrn 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. I should note that the purpose of the tag is to "attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame." As the issue has been raised at WP:AN, one of the most watchlisted pages on Misplaced Pages, tagging now is superfluous if its purpose was to attract attention to the article, and would only serve as a "badge of shame" at this point. Yobol (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649's claims are nonsense. All of the problems with neutrality have been explained at the NPOV noticeboard which I linked. There is a discussion going on there right now. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from the article when there's a discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard right now? ScienceApe (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

user:Zad68 please stop this nonsense. There is no consensus against me regarding whether or not the NPOV template should be at the top of the circumcision article or not. There is an on-going discussion at NPOV noticeboard which you have actively been participating in. What on earth is the reason not to put the NPOV template on the top of the article other than to stifle discussion regarding the NPOV discussion? It is disgraceful that this kind of bias and agenda pushing has been going on for this long unnoticed by anyone. Can someone sensible please put the NPOV template back on top of the circumcision article please? ScienceApe (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe raises an interesting question: why is a content discussion for this article being held at NPOV/N? It should be right here, where future editors will be able to find and refer to any developed consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We've been having too many problems on the talk pages, that's why I took it to the NPOV noticeboard. If we can't find a resolution there, then I think the next step is intervention. ScienceApe (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We've had "resolution", meaning stable consensus, for quite a while--the article has been very stable for about a year now. Often what happens is that change suggestions don't get implemented because it turns out they're not in line with Misplaced Pages content policy as applied to the best-available sourcing. That might mean the issue wasn't resolved to somebody's preference, but that doesn't mean the issue wasn't resolved properly and in accordance with Misplaced Pages content rules and processes. What is "intervention"? Zad68 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I disagree with the protection that User:John Reaves has put on the page. No one has been making any content changes to the article. The sole purpose of that protection is to prevent anyone from putting a NPOV template on the article even though there's a NPOV discussion going on right now. This is unacceptable, and abuse of admin powers. ScienceApe (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I protected the wrong version. -- John Reaves 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing Information...

When I compare this article with the one in the German Misplaced Pages, I miss some topics.

For instance the whole subject of "not as good effects", as often occurring Meatostenosis or the loss of most Meissner's corpuscle.

I think wide parts of that do not have the NPOV. This should be marked on the article page, and not in the talk page. 77.64.179.160 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources to support its inclusion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Men's Issues articles
• High-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• GA-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• GA-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press