Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ScienceApe (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 8 January 2014 (→Circumcision - weight of medical purposes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

RfC Notice: Living members of deposed royal families and the titles attributed to them on WP

I have opened an RfC on articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, often in a misleading way and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"

Robert Scarano, Jr. – Biography does not adhere to NPOV policy. Content out of date.

Biography does not adhere to NPOV policy. Content out of date. Initial bio paragraph contains no sources and is biased and out of date.

For example, here is the Professional Bio per the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce: What does your business do? When and Why did you join the Brooklyn Chamber? Founded in 1985 by Robert Scarano, Jr., AIA, FARA, ALA, award-winning Scarano Architects, PLLC is responsible for the design of over 400 multi-family and mixed-use properties designed and built in 2004, primarily in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Working with a wide range of developers in both profit and non-profit sectors, such as The NYC Housing Authority and Chamber Members Strategic Construction Corporation and The Kay Organization, Scarano designers achieve a new dimension for the architectural vocabulary that is respectful of the history of a given area, while providing gracious, livable space. In October 2004, the firm completed its unique office roof extension, which has become a visual signpost for travelers on the Manhattan Bridge, instantly identifying Vinegar Hill. - See more at: http://www.ibrooklyn.com/member_promotion/scarano.aspx#sthash.cDDl7IqI.dpuf

Here is an example of one editor removing large amounts of information (see Awards and Professional Honors that were all deleted below) and replacing with entirely different content: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Scarano,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=496283904

Vandalism of Parcheesi

The article Parcheesi has been repeatedly vandalized by user 68.196.14.175 , who always says that the game can be won simply by bringing a wheel of cheese. The most recent case is . Others extend back to last August. All four levels of warning have been posted on the (otherwise blank) user-page, with no response but more vandalism. I have just asked for the vandal to be blocked, but the request was taken down with a statement that the complaint was not actionable. Will someone please enlighten me? J S Ayer (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism or trolling rather than an NPOV issue. Try WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, or -if you have a strong stomach- WP:ANI. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

reported on WP:AIV. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Wilson (singer)

I like Charlie Wilson, but to say that the article is non-neutral would be an understatement. I already removed a few unsourced, POV-pushing sections (not statements; sections) but the tone of the article is still in rough shape. Statements like "Charlie Wilson’s distinctive voice is evocative of both past and present" and "Wilson's delivery of this beautiful song and its performance at radio have confirmed that it is a wedding classic for years to come" are only a couple of many examples. (I started a discussion here first instead of on the talk page because the talk page has barely been looked at since the article was created almost ten years ago.) Erpert 03:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a bit of back and forth, as shown by the discussion on the talk page, but I would suggest this article is now in pretty good shape, and the NPOV tag should be removed. Same proposal inserted on the talk page Matruman (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Isaeli settlement" article

Hello The article Israeli settlement seems to be highly biased. I find that the bias points are all throughout the article, and not in certain minor sections. I have stated some examples in the talk page, under "Bias" thread. Here is a link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israeli_settlement. I wish to thank anyone who will help with making this article neutral. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.24.45 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Jat people

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jat_people

Im concerned editors aren't reflecting all sides here; see talk page POV ref. One editor in particular took upon herself to remove the NPOV tag whilst being on one side of a debate; I'd also add she seems to be spending an unhealthy amount of time on this subject. This article needs some independent fresh editorial and admim support as current sides can't reach consensus and seem too involved in the subject matter. I thought it wass sloppiness first but suspect it might be a wiki cyber caste war through coordinated gaming of NPOV from part of this jat group and people who are from opposing tribes. Sitush, oxywrian and fowler seem on one side and vplivecomm, abstruce on the other.

(I've I also looked at one editors talk page which seems to suggest this editor is constantly on wiki to the dismay of many other editors) Evidence first (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that you may be misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a vote and any opinions that are expressed which do not comply with policy should be discounted when assessing outcomes. You are correct that numerous people have objected to things on that article, most commonly the statement that the Jats were traditionally non-elite tillers. The problem is, they seem to object more on principle than because of policy. Time and again, they have been asked to provide reliable sources etc and they have failed to do so; time and again, they have been pointed to WP:CENSORED and other relevant policies but have failed to understand them. You are the latest in a long line to raise issues but your comment is pretty vague.

Most of the wording in the present version, and in particular that of the lead section, is the work of Fowler&fowler but I for one have checked it against the available sources and it appears to reflect them. As so often with caste-related articles, this appears to be less a case of seeking neutrality than of appeasing vanity. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Jat people were indeed non-elite tillers of the earth, confirmed by solid sources. They were scorned by the Rajputs. This historic situation must be described to the reader, despite some editors distaste for it. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but since you are clearly on one side of the wiki caste war it makes no sense that you, or the others mentioned, make opinion judgements on independence. I hope you understand this simple, but effective, principle - separation of powers.

What in the world is a ragpot, let me guess, another ' non elite 'tribe or caste that made rags and pots - were they harassed by the tillers? Hence the scorn. Were they like ye olde gyspy tinkers?

Clearly, historic situations must be described, but it is upon us to describe them clearly and from the different perspectives!

Is there no professional integrity left on wiki?

Please get editors not from this region or ethnic groups, with at least a post graduate degree and courage of character to stop this cyber caste war and save some wiki respect.

Evidence first (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

not gonna happen. Misplaced Pages is open to edit by everyone who follows our content and behavior requirements. part of the behavior requirements are not attacking people because of their caste or ethnic group. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of caste, these are people, not hidden objects. They aren't "found in" places, they "live" there. Not exclusive to this group, but starting to piss me off. Same for animals. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:51, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

pain in animals

views from reliable sources are rejected without explain. They also keep removing the POV tag while the dispute is unresolved.124.168.29.171 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The below information is in my link, I copy it here again: The content I am trying to add is this "However, scientific evidence strongly suggests mammals (such as rodents) can experience pain" "Suffering is different from pain. There is a lack of agreement on the definition of pain in lab animals. Whether pain is viewed as stress or as stressors depends on the perspectives" source: Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, By Committee on Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council page 2,4,5

Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have a conflict of interest case on the noticeboard and OWN problems are keep removing the views from my source.124.170.221.69 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Marian Dawkins

The POV dispute on this page was not resolved, but the POV tag was removed. 124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the above, the POV dispute was not resolved to the satisfaction of an IP contributor. Several other editors agreed that highlighting some criticism of an aspect of the subject's work (probably a misreading of her work, btw) was not suitable for a BLP. If there is an article on the topic, everyone notable can have their WP:DUE say, but a biography is not the place to coatrack negative opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you mislead the issue. Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have a conflict of interest case on the noticeboard and OWN problems(concerned by multiple editors) are adding propaganda for Marian Dawkin. The content they added has clear violation of policies, such as injection of original research.124.170.221.69 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this sounds like a WP:WEIGHT issue. If Dawkins' work is widely discussed in sources, then any criticism of it in the article should be present roughly in proportion to the incidence of the criticism in reliable sources, as compared to to the incidence of other handling of Dawkins' work in reliable sources. So criticism isn't wrong as such, but having just criticism is non-neutral due to weight. The Amazon score shouldn't be included in any event, IMO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

DNA Tribes in Population history of Egypt Article-WITHDRAWN-I WISH TO PROCEED WITH AN/ANI

Previous discussions have involved using DNA tribes in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article and consensus among editors of the article seems to have been met. There were also two noticeboard discussions. Now the question is whether including the DNA Tribes info in the Population history of Egypt article would be NPOV to give a balanced view of the debate. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My particular concern is that DNA tribes is being removed for being unreliable. But then ABO blood group and craniofacial studies are being kept! I would think DNA evidence is more reliable than these other studies and it would ensure a NPOV to balance them. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If a source fails WP:RS we shouldn't be using it. The noticeboard discussions are at and the earlier one at . Not getting a satisfactory answer at one forum isn't a good reason to try another, and it seems to be your personal opinion that this private company is a more reliable source than the Journal of the American Medical Association. This persistence is getting a bit disruptive. I'll also note that editors need to follow WP:SUMMARY and I've edited the relevant section in Population history of Egypt so it is closer to the main article for that section. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw this claim as I wish to proceed with AN or ANI. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And having failed at AN and ANI as well as RSN, Mediation and Dispute Resolution we have Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rfc for Phil Robertson GQ Comments section

I've tried to edit the GQ Comments section with citation regarding Robertson's comments regarding "blacks". However they keep being removed. In the same exact article Robertson made disparging comments regarding Homosexuals, but they seem to be able to stay. Why can't the comments regarding blacks stay, but the homosexual comments can stay?--Ron John (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Phile Robertson GQ interview

Um -- how many talk pages and noticeboards do you intend to hit? The issue is WP:BLP and the consensus at the article was clear -- I see no way that WP:NPOV/N is a proper drama board to hit immediately after you return. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The BLPN noticeboard issue, is different, it concerns reporting of the age of Phil's wife when they were married. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Because that's exactly what you're doing Ron. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am marking this resolved because the function of this board is to help people establish discussions to reach consensus. There is a discussion established at Talk:Phil_Robertson#RfC:_Can_we_include_the_comments_Robertson_made_about_blacks.3F. It is an RfC, so people are well-alerted to this discussion by Misplaced Pages standards. Anyone from this board may join the discussion through that link. Because of these things, there is no ready reason for more discussion to happen here on this board when comments should happen in that existing space. If there is a future NPOV problem then feel free to bring it here for assistance in placing it within existing consensus and existing discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

POV gallery at Black Egyptian Hypothesis

This article is a spinoff from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Both are under ArbCom sanctions. A few days ago User:Dailey78 inserted a gallery of images with no discussion the talk page despite being under a restriction to gain consensus. There is discussion about this at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis in the bottom few sections. I've been distracted by an attempt to get editors disagreeing with the Black Egyptian hypothesis banned or blocked and hadn't gotten involved in this and hadn't recalled that Dailey was restricted from such edits. I also have always said that a gallery in these articles cannot be NPOV (although I've pointed out on the talk page that there may be times when we would include individual images). One of the images, for instance, is that of Tiye:

Looks dark, doesn't she? But that's a wooden bust and what you are seeing is the natural color of the wood, and what might be interpreted as an Afro is what's left of a blue-tile covered headdress. A gallery is totally inappropriate for an article on this subject. I removed the gallery but it has now been re-inserted by the editor trying to get me banned or blocked, User:Andajara120000. Rather than get more involved in the edit-warring on this article, I've come here for more input. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed that pictures were removed at the end of December 2012 - see Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis#Pictures in this article. Let the public decide. And of course restored without consensus in the past few days. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Saw this post and I have removed the gallery. I have explained my reasons in detail at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, I would invite other non-involved editors to chip into the discussion as new input to a rather stale argument would be beneficial. I would remind editors that NPOV requires us to include significant viewpoints in the literature not WP:FRINGE material with WP:UNDUE prominence. There also seems to be a tendency toward WP:OR and WP:SYN in editing to prove a hypothesis not to represent significant viewpoints in the literature. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is flatly untrue that I inserted a gallery without discussion on the Talk page. In fact, I inserted 2 or 3 pics in the body of the article and due to discussion on the Talk page, I inserted a gallery to provide an aesthetically pleasing format for editors to insert numerous pictures in support of the article. All of the pics support the article, as outlined on the Talk Page and repeated here. It would seem more fair and impartial to wait to hear the other side of the story, as opposed to taking action based on Doug's erroneous claims.

Please take a look at the Talk Page (at the very top), that is where the discussion happened in recent days. Why at the top you may ask? Because we have been discussing pictures on this Talk Page for a solid year.

The pics add to the reader's understanding as follows:

• Much mention is made of black skinned egyptians in the article, so Ahmose-Nefertari is shown as an example of a black skinned egyptian.
• The article mentions Queens from the South. Tiye is shown as an example of a queen from the south.
• There is a specific controversy over Tut, so Tut, his parents, and grandparents are shown. (Akhenaton, Tiye)
• At the UNESCO conference several scholars mentioned that they saw black people (in Egyptian art) in all kingdoms (Old, Middle, and New). Therefore, representative pics of Egyptians from all kingdoms were added (Khufu, Khafre, Mentuhotep, Hatshepsut, Ramesses the Great, etc.)
• There is a tabloid style controversy over Cleopatra, so another editor added her pic.
• The 25th dynasty ruled all of Egypt, and like Cleopatra, were from a different "kingdom/empire."

On the Talk page, four editors voiced support for the pics (view the top of the Talk page). One editor voiced support and then retracted support in the same day. These are the facts.

Doug provided commentary on the Tiye bust. I have never said anything about her bust or tried to make any points using her bust. Isn't Doug's commentary WP:OR. Is he a peer reviewed secondary source that can be used to discuss the attributes of Tiye's bust? Why is this bust not controversial on the Tiye page? Is anyone disputing that this is a bust of Tiye? Is anyone disputing that Tiye is Tut's grandmother, as DNA evidence has proven it? http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 figure 2.

Finally, I added the pics without changing a single caption or modifying the pics at all from their source Wiki articles. A different editor made a bunch of comments on the pic of the 25th dynasty and in typical sloppy scholarship fashion, this has been attributed to my edit. It's ridiculous. Be fair. Be impartial. Be reasonable.Rod (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In Doug's "looks dark doesn't she?" original research above, did it ever occur to you that she might actually have been dark? Can you prove that she wasn't dark, as your original research insinuates? Please review these quotes from peer reviewed secondary sources:

In the early 20th century, Flinders Petrie continued the discussion of Black Egyptians. Petrie, Professor of Egyptology at the Univ. of London, spoke of the "black queen" that was the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty. Petrie indicated that "southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty."

The British Africanist Basil Davidson stated "Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south : while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew."Rod (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This screed is an example of why discussion on these articles is so difficult. Tiye may have been "dark", or she may not have been, though I guess it's an open question how dark you have to to be "dark" or how light you have to be to be "not dark". As far as I know, we can't be sure of that, or even if she came from the "south". It's just a sculpture made of heartwood. It looks dark for the same reason that Tut looks pale in this sculpture from the same room in the same museum. The latter is made of plaster. It's absurd to ask why it is OK to have it on the Tiye page, but not on the race controversy page. It depicts Tiye. It does not depict "race". When it is chosen to go on the race controversy page then it is made to represent "race" by the editor who chooses it. OR, by the way, applies to articles. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss issues on Talk pages. However, there are many sources that discuss the bust, the headdress and the materials from which it is made. If one were to create an article on the bust comparable to the Nefertiti bust article then these could be used. No-one doubts that Egyptians of all classes probably ranged from fairly pale to fairly dark, with the latter clustering in the south and the former in the north. The problem here is the attempt emphasise a POV about the "race of Egyptians" and to use images to promote it. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We should have started this discussion with the statement that virtually none of the editors involved believe in the flawed social construct known as race. However, as mentioned at the UNESCO conference, race (black, white, yellow) will continue to be used when discussing Ancient Egypt because it was used historically and the public is still interested in "race", especially as it relates to A.E. Therefore, we are stuck having mindless arguments about a construct that we don't believe in, just to provide an overview of the history and current discussions regarding the flawed construct known as "race." Now that we've properly framed this debate, some characteristics/traits/etc have to be used to group people into "races." Peer reviewed secondary sources grouped some Egyptians into the black "race" because they had black skin, because of their bone structure, etc. Many of these sources are mainstream Egyptologists. Sources such as Flinders Petrie, arguably the father of Egyptology said the 18th dynasty was started by black queens from the south. I've added a pic of a black queen from the south, Ahmose-Nefertari to support this text. The public likely does not know what black Egyptian queens look like in Ancient Egyptian art. Thus, I inserted the picture. The picture is worth a 1000 words. The pictures enrich the article. That's my position.

Regarding Tut, we have no problem adding highly contentious modern renderings (Nat. Geo) of his flesh tone, but here it is contentious to add a bust of his grandmother that was made by the Ancient Egyptians, not some modern company.Rod (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Tiye, her article states: Tiye's father, Yuya, was a non-royal, wealthy landowner from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmin, Upper Egypt is generally considered the south in the context of the A.E. civilizationRod (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is probable that Tiye's father was based in Akhmin, yes, but it is also speculated that he came originally from Asia, on the basis that his name appears to be non-Egyptian. You must know this because it is in the article you've just referred to, but you just omit that aspect of the content. And, of course, we don't know where Tiye's mother came from. So, it's speculation piled on theory and conjecture, with fragments of evidence (though, of course we also have the actual bodies of all these people, from which "race" has also been interpreted in competing ways!). We shouldn't be quoting archaic sources like Flinders Petrie for crying out loud. As for Amhose-Nefertari, like Tiye and Tut, she's black in some images and she isn't in others like this one. Since she was her husband's sister, it's unlikely that their skin-colurs were really dramatically different, and there are many cases in which the same individual will be depicted as black or as brown or as pale, as with Tut himself. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::As for it being flatly untrue that you (Rod) added the gallery without consensus, I can't find the consensus. There's a discussion which ended over a year ago, then there is you adding to that discussion at 3:20 am yesterday. At the very same time you started adding pictures. You had no consensus for that.. You then added a gallery, for which I also see no consensus. As for adding grandparents, really? Specific images that have had specific discussions from RS on both sides of the debate might be added with discussion, but not this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Doug that was a point I tried to make. Specific images, that have specific discussions in RS that represent mainstream views of the debate should be the means for selecting images. As a side discussion from the talk page, this entire article seems to be a POV fork, which are generally discouraged. I wonder if this article should be nominated for deletion, though given the passion it seems to engender that will be a controversial move. A point to all concerned, NPOVN exists to provide an external view, if you all pile on you will deter outside comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I remember the entire history of this. The content was originally in the Afrocentrism article. A dispute arose with an editor called user:Deeceevoice, who wanted to promote the Black Egyptian position. She and user:Dbachmann clashed, and then the spin-off Race of Ancient Egyptians was created, which then went through various name changes and was itself spit into the "Controversy" article and the "Population history" article. Then there was yet more expansion of the "Black egyptians" material, leading to another spin-off (or POV fork) the "black Egyptian hypothesis" article. Other articles like Km (hieroglyph) have been drawn in. It's became a bit of a swamp. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the history as I remember it. The A.E. Race Controversy article was written in a fashion that promoted the POV of any debunked theory except the Black theory. Editors of good faith enriched the Black theory section (which is in an article alongside several other FRINGE theories that have been completely refuted by mainstream scholarship). The Black theory section became long and the A.E. Race Controversy article became longer. There was a consensus to split the articles due to the length of the A.E. Race Controversy article. Editors that are pro and con agreed to the split. The black theory article became a place to discuss the black theory, it's history, and any modern findings. The majority of the balance can be found in the A.E. Race controversy article, however the black theory article is also balanced as Yalens, Aua, Doug, etc. ensure that it remains that way (and I appreciate them keeping everyone honest).

Moving on to the mainstream view. The mainstream view is that Ancient Egyptians are mixed and the population included red skinned people from the north and darker skinned people from the south. According to mainstream scholarship, Egypt colonized the South at a very early stage in the civilization and mainstream scholars agree that this interaction with the south intensified in the New Kingdom. Greeks and modern historians routinely refer to black skinned Egyptians (in addition to red Egyptians and comments about symbolic colors) and most of the scholars at the UNESCO conference agreed that at least 1/3 of the A.E. were black/negroid. None of what I just said is controversial.

Getting back to the point. I hear a consensus that pics are okay in the article, as long as they are discussed individually on the Talk page first. This seems extreme, but it's the only consensus we have been able to reach in a year of discussing this topic.Rod (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Doug, my initial edit on Jan 5th at 19:20 was to add 2 or 3 pics. After discussing that edit on the talk page, I thought it might be a good idea to add a gallery so that more pics could be added in an aesthetically pleasing way. That's the entire crux of this discussion. Afterwards, a lot of discussion was generated on the Talk Page. Four editors agreed to pics in one form or another during the ensuing discussion on the Talk page. Many of those discussions have now been collapsed on the Talk page, so you would need to review the older versions of the Talk Page in history.Rod (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does the term "red skinned people" have to be invented? Just avoid calling them "white"? Of course red/ruddy has regularly been used to mean "flushed with health" in many contexts. And so has "black", to mean the same thing - coloured with health, or "tanned", as opposed to deathly pale. Famously, Homer describes Odysseus turning "black" to refer to his recovery of health. This is why simply quoting colour-terms like this as if they map onto modern racial usage is next-to useless unless it is done through expert knowledge of how such terms were used in specific context and what they meant at the time. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision

Circumcision - weight of medical purposes

This article is having great difficulty having its NPOV issues addressed. Right now there are several problems which I will delineate as follows. Keep in mind, these are not the only problems the article has, but the main issues currently going on.

Major users involved that believe there is a NPOV violation: Me User:Tumadoireacht User talk:Hans Adler

Major users involved that do not believe there is a NPOV violation: User:Zad68 User:FiachraByrne User:Jmh649

The problems:

• 1) Undue weight given to the medical purposes of circumcision
• 2) The article's failure to identify the problems found in a conclusion drawn by a study that determined that circumcision does seem to adversely affect sexual function. (split out to separate section below, with ScienceApe's permission) Zad68 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant talk pages: 1 2 Keep in mind that these issues were also brought up before and can be found in the archives here with no resolution in sight, Talk:Circumcision/Archive 78

The problems in detail with rebuttals and answers:

• 1) I along with other users have voiced our concerns with the article giving weight to the medical reasons for circumcision. Our contention is that the vast majority of circumcisions performed in the world are done for religious and cultural purposes, not medical purposes.

Rebuttal: User:FiachraByrne:

The strongest justification for this is that the preponderance of scholarly sources on circumcision are medical. If you search a database like Web of Science for the topic "Male Circumcision" for the years 1945-2013 it returns 1,325 articles and reviews (1,144 and 181 respectively). According to Web of Science's system of article categorisation, the topic-area count for these publications breaks down as follows:

Rebuttal: User:Zad68: Exactly so... to close this loop, the relevant policy is indeed WP:WEIGHT as ScienceApe identifies. This policy states that we need to represent viewpoints in proportion to the prominence found in the published, reliable sources. As Fiachra shows, a review of all the reliable sourcing available shows that medical aspects are the most prominent view found in the sources, and that's why this article is organized per WP:MEDMOS.

Answer: The assertion that the vast majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical has not been demonstrated, but even if it is true, this seems to be a case of Ignore all rules. Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, and the main impetus behind it are due to cultural and religious reasons. Throughout the history of mankind, various excuses have been used to justify circumcision. For example to discourage masturbation, or to maintain personal hygiene. The most recent rationalization are medical purposes. These medical purposes however mask the true rationale behind why circumcision is performed, and have very little to do with why the vast majority of why circumcisions are actually performed. No major medical association advocates routine neo-natal circumcision other than the recommendations of the WHO for certain HIV endemic areas in Africa. Medical rationale is often used as a mask to push a pro-circumcision bias. Putting the weight of the article on the medical purposes for circumcision is inconsistent with reality and serves as a vehicle to push a bias, and therefore is hurting the article.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it."

Rebuttal: User:Jmh649: Ah following the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages is not "gaming the rules".

Answer: My arguments were strawmanned and are being misrepresented. I never suggested following the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages is gaming the rules. My contention was that even if the majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical, weight should not be placed upon it for the aforementioned reasons. ScienceApe (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It is a surgical procedure even when done for cultural or religious reasons. There are medical textbook dedicated to it . We do not call C-sections non medical just because a large proportion of them are done for social and cultural reasons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Argument from analogy fallacy. C-sections are not done for social or cultural reasons. You also constructed a strawman. The issue is not whether or not the procedure is medical, the issue is whether or not weight should be put on the medical purposes of circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they are. In China, C-sections are done so that the baby will be born at the exact moment that the grandmother's astrologist says is most auspicious. In the US, they're done so that the mother can arrange time off work or child care in advance, or so that she can be certain which doctor will do it, or because she's afraid of going into labor on the weekend (when some people believe that less experienced personnel are on staff at the hospital). If you spend ten minutes with your favorite search engine, you will easily find sources like this that show the many non-medical reasons why Western women request medically unnecessary C-sections. On average, studies find that about 5% of women in the UK and the US request C-sections purely for non-medical purposes, and the majority of those requests are granted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a red herring, and it's still an argument from analogy fallacy. Circumcisions have been practiced for thousands of years for religious and cultural reasons. This is immensely important to circumcision that can not be understated nor trumped by the medical purposes of circumcision which is really little more than a new excuse to rationalize routine neonatal circumcision. C-sections have no such association with culture or religion, the analogy is utterly bunk. ScienceApe (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The tables provided by Fiachra showing the distribution of the scholarly sourcing clearly show that a medical presentation is appropriate for this topic. The "ignore all the rules" justification for reorganizing the article content (if that's even what is being proposed?) isn't really even an "NPOV" issue. Zad68 01:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The best I can decipher from this TLDR mess is that ScienceApe wants to use primary sources to give undue weight to certain views. And Gosh Help anyone who has to read through all that (exhausting the patience of the community is the phrase that comes to mind). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually Zad68 pasted a lengthy piece in the middle of what I wrote which turned what I wrote into a mess. But no, that's not what I suggested at all. Read the paragraph beginning with, " The assertion that the vast majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical has not been demonstrated, but even if it is true, this seems to be a case of Ignore all rules." ScienceApe (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I put what Fiachra provided in a collapsable box so the context is maintained but it does not take up too much vertical space. Hope that works for everyone. Zad68 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, I'm not contesting the number of scholarly sources that medical circumcision has at this time. ScienceApe (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

But I am. NPOV policy says that the emphasis the article should have is proportionate to what's found in the reliable sources, so what's found in the sources is essential to this NPOVN discussion. I guess now that we have both stated our views we should let others comment. Zad68 02:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I already answered that argument which I delineated above, you have not rebutted my answer. ScienceApe (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, although the Misplaced Pages content rules as applied to the reliable sources support the current article layout, I think you're saying "ignore all the rules" and reconfigure the article in some unspecified manner, based on your views. I don't feel this is a supportable suggestion. Zad68 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy, you misrepresented my position. I made it clear that the article has to reflect reality. ScienceApe (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible ScienceApe that your own biases might be informing your contribution to this topic? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem fallacy. ScienceApe (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Technically, no, that was a question. Ad hominem would be "Your own biases informing your contribution to this topic." - assuming you could call that a personal attack. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you do not understand what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is not necessarily a personal attack, but it can come in the form of a loaded question. The question he asked was loaded, and any answer I give is entirely irrelevant to the arguments I make whether I'm biased or not. The arguments stand on their own merits. ScienceApe (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of course it was. As the question Is it possible that your own biases might be informing your contribution to this topic? could be asked anytime anywhere to anyone on Misplaced Pages (and the answer is pretty much always "Well, of course"). It's hard to treat it as anything other than an ad hominem. NE Ent 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This table of sources is a perfect example of the evils of statistics when done improperly. The table is from "web of science", which is clearly extremely biased with respect to religious sources and therefore to say that "vast majority is medical" is ridiculous. Also notable in this table is undercoverage of historical, sociological, antorpological sources , so I guess the search (or the source) was rather dubious quality. - Altenmann >t 05:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• What "evils of statistics" are we talking about here? I just want to get on the same page so I can weigh in on a statistical issue, considering I'm a statistician. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) =o

  I thought I explained: the selection of sources is non-representative, hence inherent bias in statistics. - Altenmann >t 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  P.S. A closewr look shows it is even worse: The preface says : "preponderance of scholarly sources on circumcision are medical." and as a proof a table is given which contains only medical. I cannot believe ther are no historical sources, so clearly this table is red herring. - Altenmann >t 07:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  P.P.S. In this table most entries are in "Infectuous diseases" DO we really need most content of this wikipedia article devote to infection? (i.e., the argument that wikipedia somehow must reflect %% of publications looks rather dubious). - Altenmann >t 07:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Proof by many examples ≠ proof by counterexample (i.e., you haven't proved your point). Show a database of many scholarly (by their terms) nonmedical papers. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Let's not play games. I can readdress the same to the original statistician: the onus is on him to convince us that that his sample is representative. (are you really a statistician? ) And contrary to your "≠", I did prove my point: there are non-medical articles (are you really questioning this?) and they are NOT counted in his statistics. Hence his statistics is not truthworthy. - Altenmann >t 09:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• A diarrhea of words followed by QED is is both incredibly annoying and one of these. In any event, I'm not going to grace this thread with another response given the former - all you needed to do was hyperlink something. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we can somehow de-emphasize the medical sources for what is clearly a surgical procedure. That it is most often performed electively for cultural or religious reasons does not change that basic fact. Rhinoplasty and Breast implant surgery are often elective and driven by cultural reasons, and appropriately, we base those articles on medical sources, and the same should apply to this article. The article currently states, "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure." Accordingly, a balanced presentation, neither pro nor anti circumcision, is appropriate. I oppose transforming the article into an argument against circumcision, based on non-medical sources. The article already links to Circumcision controversies and Ethics of circumcision, which are the appropriate places for such material. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy, and I already addressed this argument with Jmh649. What circumcision is has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. The area of contention is with the weight of the article being put on the medical purposes for circumcision. You are invoking an equivocation fallacy by equivocating the medical purposes for circumcision with the medical aspects of circumcision. Your examples relating to plastic surgery have medical aspects, but little if any medical purposes behind them. Another strawman fallacy, no one ever proposed transforming the article into an argument against circumcision or even a discussion on the ethics of circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WRT "C-sections are not done for social or cultural reasons" Actually they are. In Brazil more than half of women deliver by C-section and more than 80% of the upper class do. In the Nordic countries the section rate is 14%. The Women in Brazil are the same physically as those in the rest of the world. Were does the more than 60% difference come from? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a red herring. I looked at the article you linked and I think an argument can be made that this has nothing to do with culture, but it really doesn't matter because your analogy is still fallacious. Circumcisions have been practiced for thousands of years for religious and cultural reasons. This is immensely important to circumcision that can not be understated nor trumped by the medical purposes of circumcision which is really little more than a new excuse to rationalize routine neonatal circumcision. C-sections have no such association with culture or religion, the analogy is utterly bunk. ScienceApe (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision - sexual effects

There is a contentious statement in the article regarding circumcision's impact on sexual function:

"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function."

I found the term, sexual function to be nebulous and subject to interpretation. One of the sources found here, expounds on what it meant, "The literature review does not support the belief that male circumcision adversely affects penile sexual function or sensitivity, or sexual satisfaction, regardless of how these factors are defined."

I wanted these other qualifiers which explain what sexual function means, included in the article.

Furthermore the source outlines clear problems with the conclusion it drew. "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."

user:ScienceApe: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.

Rebuttal: User:Zad68: ScienceApe, you appear to be focusing only on the AAP Techical Report here, which is just one of the four sources cited. You copied-and-pasted a lot of the AAP's discussion detailing the primary sources they reviewed in performing their synthesis of the source data to come to their conclusions. This is what we use secondary sources for: their conclusions drawn from the primary sources.

Answer: The other sources do not invalidate the problems the AAP Technical Report identified. ScienceApe (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify my position: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 Technical Report (direct link to the full report) ScienceApe is referring to here cites five different primary sources in coming up with its overall assessment of the evidence, which they summarize at the top of their section titled Sexual Function with There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men. They then go into a bit of detail about their assessment of one of the studies they cite, which used IELT as a measure. This AAP Technical Report is just one of four different secondary sources used here. It seems to me it would be WP:UNDUE to have the Misplaced Pages article go into significant detail about just one of the five primary sources that just one of the four secondary sources discusses. Zad68 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because ScienceApe disagrees with the conclusions of the best available sources does not mean that there is a NPOV issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Another extremely long mess which fails to come to a decipherable point, but it seems that ScienceApe isn't recognizing that every secondary review has a discussion section that mentions strengths and weaknesses of studies, and we don't need to give undue weight to one small portion of one of many reviews. I do not see a NPOV issue here, but it is very hard to follow ScienceApe's posting style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well instead of criticizing everything I wrote, just ask me what you are unclear on. Can you tell me where in those secondary sources it abolishes the problems the AAP report identified with its own study? ScienceApe (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to reply here since apparently the discussion on Talk:Circumcision#Sexual Sensitivity Damage Dispute is silent - I provided a citation review for you there and added a meta-analytic review, one that acknowledged no limitations in its analysis, to the article. Best, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Seppi333 what you added is yet another WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source that supports what all the other sources say on this point, maybe that will resolve it. Zad68 04:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

From A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise? I will paste the relevant portions here for clarity,

Scientific evidence regarding the sexual effects of MC does not substantiate the purported harms to sexual pleasure. The better-quality studies (in terms of sample size, rigor of methodology, accuracy of analysis of findings, and generalizability of results) have found no adverse effect of MC on penile sensitivity , sensation during arousal , sexual satisfaction , premature ejaculation , intravaginal ejaculatory latency time , or erectile function . Two RCTs found MC does not adversely affect sexual function, sensitivity or satisfaction , with one of these studies showing that the sexual experience of most men was enhanced after circumcision . Some studies have found that MC reduced the risk of premature ejaculation .

This citation supports the view that circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function, which is fine. But it does not absolve all of the problems identified in the AAP report. The AAP report identified the following problems with their conclusion,

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.

In particular the imprecise nature of self-report, ages and coexisting medical conditions is problematic in any study. ScienceApe (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If the statement quoted at the beginning of this section is "contentious", then ScienceApe should be able to furnish reliable sources that contradict that language. We don't have a standard that all problems with a study be "absolved" (whatever that means), since academic studies are expected to identify potential problems, and every study has some problems. I do not see the NPOV problem here, unless evidence can be produced that the quoted statement does not accurately summarize what the range of reliable sources say. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When I said the statement is contentious I merely meant that it's the object of scrutiny in this case. I don't think it needs to go, I think the problems with that conclusion need to be made clear. Do we also have a rule that states that the problems identified in a study should not be mentioned too? To leave out clear problems with the imprecise nature of self-report and the other issues the report mentioned is giving the article a slant. ScienceApe (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe's suggestion is a sensible one - namely to include some detail on the reservations about that statement contained in the article it is lifted from. 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 acknowledged for thousands of years that one of the primary purposes of circumcising the male foreskin and frenulum is to diminish sexual pleasure ? It is remarkable that cutting substantial bits off the business end of the main human male sex organ and leaving a scar is so thoroughly "normalized ' including this current refusal to consider psychological and physical consequences, particularly in the light of the rightly loud horror at doing similar cutting to female sex organs. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe, your argument still isn't addressing the undue weight issue. We use secondary sources for the conclusions they draw from their overall assessment of the primary sources. The AAP's overall assessment of the primary sources is that "There is both good and fair evidence". They don't say that there's excellent evidence, they don't say that there's terrible evidence. We reflect that in that article by using the same kind of somewhat qualified language they do: the article says that the procedure "does not appear" to have a negative effect. It would be be overstating it if the article said "definitely does not" and it would be understating it if the article said "might or might not". And again the AAP source is just one of four now five sources all stating basically the same result. Why don't you think it would be undue weight (a NPOV problem) to have the article carry a chunk of content about the comments just one of those secondary sources had about one of the primary sources they reviewed? If we went down the path of having the article include detail of every secondary source's commentaries about every primary source they used for every place a secondary source is used, the article would blow up in size by a factor of 10. And per the other noticeboard discussion you've started here, it appears you want the article to emphasize medical effects less and not more so it's very unclear what content change would make you happy here. Zad68 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Good, fair, and excellent are weasel words, they don't properly reflect problems with a study. My contention is that none of the secondary sources can absolve many of the problems identified in the AAP report. Namely the imprecise nature of self-report, bias due to age or co-existing medical conditions. You're invoking a slippery slope fallacy, and are basically trying to rationalize leaving out very important information. NO. You are strawmanning me again, I've already addressed this fallacy. You are invoking an equivocation fallacy with the word "medical effects". My position has always been that there is undue weight being put on the medical REASONS for circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reboot; source request

ScienceApe, without all the sophistry above, the first issue in a POV discussion should be reliable sources; where is the secondary reliable source that you want included? I've read through as much of this dispute as I can stomach, and have yet to see one reliable secondary source that ScienceApe wants included. I found one discussion on article talk that mentioned several primary sources (surveys and such). Please justify the NPOV tag with a secondary reliable source that is excluded so others can understand what the dispute is. Could you also please avoid all of the excess markup, bolding, etc along with the discussion of argument style? Reliable secondary sources that you claim are excluded or not given due weight will suffice. If those sources are about health or medical content, they must conform to MEDRS, and should not be primary sources. If they are about societal or cultural issues, they can go in Society and culture if they are good secondary sources and if due weight warrants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandy is correct. I would also add that this board is not the ideal place for sorting this. These arguments should be on the discussion pages of the relevant articles. If there is a problem with the process of sorting Misplaced Pages guidelines, then come here, but actual debate about content to include or legitimacy of sources should be a part of the archival records of the talk page of the articles. If anyone would like to move most or all of this discussion to the circumcision talk page then I would support that move and think it would be a good thing. This noticeboard would be a great place to post a link to that discussion and to make any requests for help interpreting NPOV policy. If this content remains here rather than on the circumcision talk pages, it will not be obviously available to other people who have these discussions in the future. These discussions will happen again in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to move this back to the article Talk page, I think there is some benefit in getting this aired out in front of a wider audience than the relatively few editors who edit the article and its Talk page regularly. I'm afraid if it goes back to the article Talk page, the same editors will recycle it back up again after a few weeks, and that really wastes a lot of time. Maybe if we have a more public discussion here, the matter can be more decisively settled one way or another and that will discourage its reappearance. We can certainly put a note on the article Talk page linking back to this discussion (updating it to point to the archives when it gets archived) so that it won't be lost. Zad68 15:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zad68; it would benefit the article for a broader audience to see the sources upon which the POV tag is based. From what I've seen so far, this is not a dispute that is going to be sorted on article talk. And unless there are reliable secondary sources behind the POV dispute, the NPOV tag needs to be removed from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to Sandy -- it already has been removed, by me about two hours ago, see my note on the article Talk page about it. Zad68 16:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. But with regard to sourcing and the overall article presentation, Zad68 and Jmh649 (Doc James) have already explained quite well to ScienceApe and others why the Circumcision article is the way that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No Flyer22, all of my arguments have been repeatedly rebutted using fallacies, in particular strawman fallacies, which deliberately tried to misrepresent my position. Zad68, nor anyone else has been able to respond to the core issues I've raised. ScienceApe (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandy I don't appreciate your condescending tone. You have been very rude in all of your posts made in regards to this discussion and to me, we don't care about what you can or can't stomach, so either keep it to yourself or recuse yourself from the discussion. I already explained what the dispute is, I admit it can be a bit wordy and difficult to get through it all, but so far you're the only one who has even complained about it. You're also invoking a strawman fallacy. All of the relevant secondary sources are on the article. That's not the problem, the problem is a general assessment of the editing practices going on at circumcision. The organization of the lead, and the body is giving undue weight to the medical reasons for circumcision under the auspices that there's a preponderance of scholarly sources for the medical aspects of circumcision. People have been equivocating the medical reasons with the medical aspects, and then using the alleged preponderance of the medical sources to justify putting weight on the medical purposes of circumcision. My contention is as follows:

Answer: The assertion that the vast majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical has not been demonstrated, but even if it is true, this seems to be a case of Ignore all rules. Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, and the main impetus behind it are due to cultural and religious reasons. Throughout the history of mankind, various excuses have been used to justify circumcision. For example to discourage masturbation, or to maintain personal hygiene. The most recent rationalization are medical purposes. These medical purposes however mask the true rationale behind why circumcision is performed, and have very little to do with why the vast majority of why circumcisions are actually performed. No major medical association advocates routine neo-natal circumcision other than the recommendations of the WHO for certain HIV endemic areas in Africa. Medical rationale is often used as a mask to push a pro-circumcision bias. Putting the weight of the article on the medical purposes for circumcision is inconsistent with reality and serves as a vehicle to push a bias, and therefore is hurting the article. ScienceApe (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Some problems that I already mentioned 1 year ago

I wrote down an incomplete list of severe POV problems with the article in January 2013 when I was shocked to find someone had passed this abomination as GA. The reaction of the article's owners suggests they found this list rather dangerous: (Only) a Vodafone IP from Frankfurt, Germany replied directly, setting up the red herring of questioning the motivations of 'intactivists'. (At the time the topic was big in Germany. Legal opinion in Germany was getting around to the position that circumcision of minors is illegal, and the big political parties had to ignore most of the medical associations in order to legalise it.) Then Jmh649 (signing as "Doc James") simply claimed that Zad68 had fixed the problems. However, Zad68's edits in the intervening time (combined diff over the 3-4 days in question: ) did not fix the POV problem at all, as (e.g.) the article continued and continues to place undue weight on sources favourable to circumcision and to downplay the cultural and legal issues.

So here is the list from January 2013. I think all of it still applies even today:

• "No major medical organization recommends universal circumcision for all infant males or banning the procedure." This is misleading. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) states in its position paper, which is referred to elsewhere in the article: "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medi-cally qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case."
• "Significant acute complications happen rarely, occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States. There is an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000." This is badly in need of globalisation, as the numbers will likely be significantly worse in some countries.
• "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." This statement is seriously POV and supported through selective quotation. Decreasing sensitivity has always been the main purpose of circumcision (although the article does not seem to mention this fact anywhere), and some studies have shown it is effective.
• The words shock and trauma do not appear even once in the article. These are very significant adverse effects of infant circumcision. When the prepuce is torn off the penis, many infants fall into a shock that makes them go through the following extremely painful operation without crying or indeed any reaction. Some studies have measured this pain. Others have documented circumcision-induced trauma after a year or even in teenagers. The KNMG paper says about this and the previous point: "Alongside these direct medical complications, psychological problems and complications in the area of sexuality have also been reported, as have extreme pain experiences in newborns causing behavioural changes which are still apparent years later. Similarly, the high social costs of circumcision as a result of complications have been cited."
• There are countless citations to a severely biased advocacy document: American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision (2012). It was written by a committee of circumcision advocates. The literature review in this document has a cut-off date right after a number of major studies that would have significantly changed the outcome if they had been included. There is a lot of convincing criticism of the paper here: (It's an activist source, but that does not invalidate the concrete, verifiable points of criticism such as: "In its recommendations for future research, the AAP report calls for research into potential benefits . There is no mention of future research into the harm .")
• "There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in high-risk populations. Whether it is of benefit in developed countries is undetermined." This is very one-sided. To quote the KNMG position paper again: "Due to the large number of medical benefits which were wrongly ascribed to circumcision, it is frequently asserted that circumcision is ‘a procedure in need of a justification’. In recent decades, evidence has been published which apparently shows that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS, but this evidence is contradicted by other studies. // Moreover, the studies into HIV prevention were carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, where transmission mainly takes place through heterosexual contact. In the western world, HIV transmission is much more frequently the result of homosexual contact and the use of contaminated needles. That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions."
• Just like the AAP advocacy paper, the article makes no attempt to weigh the purported benefits of circumcision against the adverse effects. The KNMG has done this, and the result was not favourable for circumcision.
• No discussion of male circumcision is complete without a comparison with female genital mutilation, especially with female genital mutilation of types Ia and Ib.
• The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article, although that title redirects to it.
• Judaism: This section misses the chance to mention the motivations for circumcision in Judaism. According already to Maimonides: "One of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision." The latter reason of course points to possible adverse effects later in life, or even earlier for those who are less sensitive to begin with. Maimonides has been very influential on this topic.
• The article says "Circumcision may be medically indicated for phimosis ". This is a way to avoid saying that there is less invasive treatment for phimosis and that the prevalency of phimosis diagnoses is primarily a function of the prevalency of non-therapeutic circumcisions, and that almost every diagnosis of phimosis in a very young boy is deceptive or the result of violent or otherwise inappropriate 'hygienic' interventions, usually due to misinformation.

Hans Adler 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution