Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 19 March 2007

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

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

Sexology and sexuality B‑class High‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4	Archive 5
Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12	Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23

AIDSMAP report

I think it's significant to draw other editors' attention to AIDSMAP's report of the preliminary report of AIDS transmission in HIV positive men who resumed sexual relations before the circumcision wound had fully healed. If you read it you will see that there is a lot more detail of what happened and why the information was released at such a preliminary stage. <http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3CBF12A3-A1AC-4A0E-A79C-54FC6EF93E28.asp> At this moment the text of the article described this report as 'a news report'. I think it would be more accurate for the text to read as follows:

A preliminary report suggested that newly circumcised HIV positive men may be more likely to spread HIV to their female partners if they have sexual intercourse before the wound is fully healed. Researchers described the data as 'inconclusive' and stated that it 'may be due to chance,'<http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3CBF12A3-A1AC-4A0E-A79C-54FC6EF93E28.asp> but said it was important to put it on the public record at this time because policies on circumcision are currently being drafted.

I think it is better to use the link to the AIDSMAP report because it is fuller and more detailed than the others and also clearer and easier to understand. There is also a report in the New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/health/13prev.html> but it reads the same as the others, as far as I can see. Michael Glass 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New findings on Langerhans cells

I have inserted information on Geijtenbeek's new study on Langerhans cells. This study, which argued that Langerlin eats up and destroys HIV-1 cells, is in striking contrast to the previous hypothesis, which regarded the Langerhans cells as "target cells", weak points in the body's defence against HIV. We are then faced with the paradox of different commentators regarding the same cells as targets or protectors, and how to maintain a neutral point of view. I therefore changed the rest of the text to accommodate this situation. I have also put the Fleiss and Hodges hypothesis last, as it would appear to have been largely superseded by Geijtenbeek. Michael Glass 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention circumcision, thus including it here is OR. (Edited to add:) Nor does Geijtenbeek's letter itself (well, the abstract doesn't). We need to wait until someone links and discusses the two in a reliable source. Jakew 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether circumcision is mentioned but whether Langerhans cells are "target cells" for HIV or effective fighters against HIV. If there is some contrary evidence it should be mentioned. I see no particular problem with the sources quoted. After all, we quote your letter in this section, so why not refer to Geijtenbeek's letter? I agree that the wording should be trimmed; I don't think it should be removed entirely.Michael Glass 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about Langerhans cells, Michael. It's about circumcision. The only reason for discussing LCs is to discuss the biological mechanism by which circumcision affects HIV transmission. Thus, it includes papers that people have written about that subject, or works that explicitly criticise those papers.

Trouble is, we need something other than User:Michael Glass's assertion that it even relates to circumcision. If Geijtenbeek's research is relevant to the article, then surely you can find a reliable source that discusses it in that context? Jakew 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Langerhans cells, according to one theory, are "target cells" for HIV. However, there is new evidence that these cells excrete a substance that destroys HIV. It seems perverse to delete any reference to this finding simply because the study doesn't mention circumcision explicitly. It's like rejecting evidence, not because of credibility, but because it isn't on the correct form. Michael Glass 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The legality of circumcision

Although circumcision is traditionally regarded as legal, this usually applies to medical circumcisions. When it comes to others, there have been a couple of cases where people have been convicted of assault. I think it is important to note that fact. I believe it is also important to note that the forced circumcision of an adult is against the law.Michael Glass 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, forced circumcision has nothing to do specially with circumcison, it is a form of battery. Being forcibly stabbed in the genitals is no different than being stabbed in the chest, other than less life-threating, perhaps. Are you next going to go to Boxing and write that "forcibly boxing someone is illegal"? How about Surgery. that's even MORE invasive, and when forced has worse detrimental effects. Are you going to edit that as well? -- Avi 07:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, thanks for having the courtesy of at least talking about your edit. Let us look at the cases I cited. First, the case of a man named Baxter:

Baxter used a hunting knife to slice into his son's foreskin. He called 911 when his son began bleeding profusely.

Rulli said Baxter inflicted not only physical damage to his son, who received stitches, but probably also psychological damage.

On Dec. 7, a jury convicted Baxter of assault of a child in the second degree. <http://www.cirp.org/news/thecolumbian12-16-04/>

I contend that this had everything to do with the fact that Baxter tried to circumcise his son. Of course I agree that it was a form of battery.

Now let's look at another case:

A 77-year-old Turkish national who performed ritual circumcisions on seven boys was convicted Tuesday in Germany of causing dangerous bodily harm and fined 2,100 euros. Prosecutors told the state court in Dusseldorf that circumcision was only allowed in Germany for medical reasons and could only be performed by surgeons. Traditional Turkish Muslims practise circumcision on boys aged 6 to 11 as a manhood initiation ritual. <http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Germany_fines_circumciser_for_initi_10172006.html>

Here again, the man was convicted of causing "dangerous bodily harm". Let's pass over what the prosecutors alleged about the law and note that the police said he used dirty instruments and university scientists said he did not follow the rules of hygiene. Nevertheless, he was prosecuted for performing ritual circumcisions and convicted, and this had everything to do with the fact that he had circumcised the boys.

Now let's look at a third case:

Man sues for circumcision

BRISBANE -- A district court has awarded a man R35 000 for nervous shock after a botched attempt to circumcise him with a broken beer bottle in a drunken attack.

Mr Irwin Brookdale, 34, was drinking with a group of Aborigines on the banks of a river in the far north Queensland state last year when he fell asleep and passed out. A woman with the group, Gladys, felt down his pants and realising he was not circumcised, exhorted the others to make a man out of him.

Mr Bookdale landed up in hospital and had to have a corrective therapeutic circumcision the next day.

Making Australian legal history, the award was made against Ambrose John Neal for unlawful wounding. -- Sapa-AFP <http://www.dispatch.co.za/1997/10/09/page%2015.htm>

Once again, a man was unlawfully wounded. This was when he was assaulted with a broken beer bottle in an attempt to circumcise him. Once again, this battery had everything to do with the fact that his assailants tried to circumcise him against his will.

Pointing out these facts is simply to acknowledge that this kind of thing happens, that it is wrong, and that forcible circumcision is an assault and a battery. I hope that this clarifies the point that I am making. Michael Glass 08:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I don't think anyone disputes your "point" but it is a non-point. It's needlessly specific, just like there's no need to specifically say that stabbing someone in the eye is illegal on Tuesdays, because it's illegal on every day. Excluding surgery, it's illegal to forcibly cut any part of another's body. We don't need to specify particular body parts, or days of the week, because the general rule applies. Jakew 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jake, if thugs were kneecapping people to stop them talking to the police it would still be an assault, but the motivation would be significant. When zealots drove planes into the World Trade Centre, it is suicide and murder, but if we deliberately excluded any mention of what might have motivated this attack, that would be perverse. Similarly, when drunken louts forcibly circumcise a man to make a man of him by circumcising him, their motivation is significant. Suppressing any mention of forced circumcision is quite curious, Michael Glass 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not, unless suppressing information about forced drinking to make a man out of someone or forced raping of a woman to make a man out of the rapist is similar. Forced circumcision is not a crime because of the circumcision, but because it is an example of forcing one persons will on another in a way that causes harm. That has nothing to do with the ACT being performed, any more than stabbing someone has to do with surgery. Michael, your zeal to place anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling. Are you certain you can edit this article neutrally? What are your motivations with this, Michael? -- Avi 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I look forward to your annotations on the cooking article, noting that cooking and eating your children has been found to be a crime in at least three jurisdictions. Nandesuka 21:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, perhaps it's about time you looked at what you are doing. You give yourself away in this phrase: "anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling". Of course you blame it on my "zeal" but what does it say about you? It reveals your zeal to remove anything that will even tangentially cast circumcision in a poor light. And this is where the trouble lies. I don't mind if there are things that are pro or con circumcision in the article. But you do. You'll fight tooth and nail against anything that is even tangentially "anti circumcision" in your eyes. That is your bias and I can't see how you can edit this article neutrally. What are your motivations, Avi? Michael Glass 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You quoted Avi as saying ""anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling" when what Avi actually said was "Michael, your zeal to place anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling.". By omitting a few choice words one can completely change the meaning of something. Neitherday 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Neitherday. Michael, looking at this conversation, it strikes me as somewhat apparent as to who is allowing their point-of-view to color their editing. No one denies you your right to feel that circumcision is the worst think since mass murder--but you may not edit the article with intent to color it that way, as you have selectively edited my words. Also, that is exactly my problem with CIRP. Do you see what removing, or even not highlighting, a few words can do to an article? Micahel, I seriously suggest rethinking how you edit, and re-reading our NPOV policies. You can add, and have added, a lot to this article, but you have allowed, and are allowing, your point of view to color how you edit, to the point that some things you add (legality) border on the absurd. It makes it very difficult to assume good faith when you ad legality to circumcision, but not to barbering, becuase forced haircutting is a crime too, you know. You are smart and knowledgable, and have the ability to add much to the article, but it must be in accordance with wiki polices and guideline and I am afraid you are failing that at current. Thank you. -- Avi 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I did quote you selectively, and I do regret that this caused needless misunderstanding. Both you and Neitherday missed the fact that I said it was a phrase and that you blame it on my zeal. It wasn't my intention to state or imply that this was your view. However, you did give yourself away when you blamed me for my zeal to place anything that will even tangentially cast circumcision in a poor light. If you can't stand anything in the article that in your view might, even tangentially, reflect poorly on circumcision, what does it say about your bias? What does it say about your bias when you delete even mentioning the fact that some have argued against the legality of infant circumcision? What is absurd about documenting this fact? Even the rules of Misplaced Pages say that minority views have a place in articles, as long as there isn't undue emphasis.

It seems that forced circumcision is a very sensitive point with you and a couple of others. In fact, it is so sensitive that you are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any mention of this fact. I don't understand why forced circumcisions are so sensitive that you don't even want them mentioned. The arguments you use are strong on rhetoric but weak on logic.

You said, " No one denies you your right to feel that circumcision is the worst think since mass murder" Where is your evidence? That is not my view, and I find it hard to assume good faith from a person who assumes that it is. Michael Glass 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside of you creatively editing their statements, Avi has never so much as implied that anything should be left out on the basis that it puts circumcision in a poor light. The point Avi appears to be making is that you use that as a criteria for what should be put in. Neitherday 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. I put material in the article, together with links, that show that forced circumcisions are illegal. Avi deleted it. See the edit record. He then said, and I quote the sentence in full: " Michael, your zeal to place anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling." So he finds potentially troubling anything that even tangentially casts circumcision in a poor light. This is clear evidence of his point of view and his bias. It appears he divides information into two camps: information that is even tangentially in favour of circumcision he has no trouble with; information that even tangentially casts circumcision in a poor light he finds potentially troubling. He is entitled to his point of view, of course, but it is not value free. Maybe that is why he accuses me of believing that circumcision is the worst "think" since mass murder, when I never said nor implied any such nonsense. Michael Glass 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for that edit to the cooking article. Nandesuka 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If all you can do is sneer, don't expect me to take you seriously,Michael Glass 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to introspect here and understand why this addition of yours was absolutely, unquestionably, completely inappropriate. If you can't or won't see that, then I despair of future interaction with you. Nandesuka 02:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I was using tongue-in-cheek humorous sarcasm when I said "worst thing…". Your edit history here implied to me that you were perceptive enough to understand that and had enough of a sense of humor (remember Furphy?) to crack a smile. I see that I was wrong on both counts. Sorry. It still does not change the fact that what you added has no more bearing in the circumcision article than statutes about cannabalism have in cooking articles, other than, of course, your desire to throw everything negative about circumcision in this article. -- Avi 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, please assume good faith and discuss the content of the article, not your opinion of other editor's motives. -- DanBlackham 06:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for an answer from Mr. Glass that speaks to the issues and adequately assuages the issues raised by myself, Nandesuka, and Neitherday. Can you think of a valid reason Mr. Glass's edits belong here when he is not tagging cooking with the illegality of cannabalism, surgery with the illegality of slashing, and boxing with the illegality of assault and battery? Remember, good faith is assumed only in the absence of contrary evidence, and I am waiting on Mr. Glass to provide the answers to our questions so that I may continue to assume good faith. For no one would argue that putting information in an article for the express purpose of denigrating, or casting aspersions on said topic, is a violation of WP:NPOV and may be sufficient contrary evidence to look with askance on the user's edits. Maybe you can help us out by finding a valid, wiki-acceptable justification for Mr. Glass in this case. Can you? -- Avi 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the concern being expressed is not about inclusions that "even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light," but your "zeal" to insert such text. If, hypothetically, you were insistent about inserting text that, equally tangentially, cast circumcision in a good light, the concern would be the same.

There is a real problem with your recent edits, as others have pointed out. Surely you'd agree that an article on cooking does not benefit from discussion of the illegality of cannibalism? If so, then why can't you see that an article on circumcision does not benefit from discussion of the illegality of battery? Jakew 13:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the information Michael is suggesting back into the article in a manner I hope will be seen as less POV. Neitherday 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At last, someone has seen that the material on forced circumcisions that I have drawn to people's attention has some relevance. I notice that the material added has avoided using the term 'forced circumcision' and I am going to wait until I have thought about it thoroughly before suggesting any improvements. As for the other comments, I think it would serve no useful purpose for me to respond to them. Michael Glass 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that you won't, because it reinforces the validity of the questions raised. But, it is your perogative. However, remember that the assumption of good faith is not required where there is contrary evidence. No less than three people have asked for your motivations, Mr. Glass, and your silence does nothing other than act as a tacit admission, I am afraid. Your call. -- Avi 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Glass, please review the WP:NPOV#undue weight section. You have not even answered the questions here, and you resort to adding more tangential information to push your own anti-circumcision agenda. Explain to the rest of the editors why such detail is needed, please. And why we have seen no similar edits to cooking, yet. Thank you. -- Avi 14:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass3/ -- Avi 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I'm glad you found the article interesting. I also found the the WP:NPOV#undue weight section very interesting and instructive. Your comments about me are opinions, not facts. Your argument that my silence implies consent is your opinion. Your argument that I have added "tangential information" is your opinion. My opinion of your biases are the mirror image of your opinion about mine! So let's agree to disagree. When it comes to edits, let's try to put our personal beliefs about each other to one side and, as we say in Australia, play the ball and not the man. Michael Glass 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE VIDEO!

Delete the link to the video at the bottom at the site. I tried but it came back. That was torture. A little baby! MEAN... He was shouting as hell. Misplaced Pages can't link to a video like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jannizz (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

ConsumptionJunction.com - "a sicksitenetwork.com site". "You are one of 12,967 Sick Fucks". Hardly seems encyclopaedic material. Jakew 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a circumcision video from intact.ca, a more tasteful source than the previous porn ad laden site. I also added a warning as to its graphic content. Neitherday 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to lead

The following changes have been made on several occasions:

• Change "Three randomised trials have provided "firm evidence" that a man's risk of acquiring HIV is" to "Three randomised studies indicate that a man's risk of acquiring HIV through vaginal sex is".
  • Problem 1: "randomised studies" is not terribly meaningful. "Randomised trial" (or "randomised controlled trial") describes a very specific methodology which the studies used.
  • Problem 2: "through vaginal sex" is probable but unproven. All sources support the assertion that the risk is reduced. Some suggest this as a mechanism, some just state the known facts.
• Insertion of "No data is available on whether a woman is more likely to acquire HIV through sex with an HIV-positive circumcised man or an HIV-positive intact man."
  • Problem 1: this is unsourced.
  • Problem 2: even if it were sourced, the best that could be said is that So-and-so reported that it was true on such-and-such a date.
  • Problem 3: it directly contradicts ref 94 ().
  • Problem 4: it uses the ambiguous and POV term 'intact' instead of the neutral term 'uncircumcised'.

Jakew 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How is 'intact' more ambiguous and POV than 'uncircumcised'? Are you sure the former term doesn't just contradict your own POV? Mister 'private researcher'? 87.78.176.207 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV. I don't understand the phrasing of "circumcised" as the standard type of penis, with others being "uncircumcised". In nearly all cases, they are not going to be circumcised. It doesn't make sense to use "circumcised" as the reference point, a) circumcision is not the starting point, and b) something like 80% of the men on earth are intact. I would support using "non-circumcised" over "uncircumcised". Joie de Vivre 21:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion here. Jakew 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the quotes on "firm evidence". The article is about a controversial topic. If every single sentence anyone disagrees

were on quotes half of the article would be on quotes.Waisberg

Maybe so, but there are NPOV issues with taking such a stand. It's better to make it clear that this is a quote rather than Misplaced Pages's opinion. Jakew 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to endorse what Jake wrote. Putting those words in quotes managed to quieten down a lot of disagreement. As I see it, it's a win-win for all. For those who agree with the researchers, the words are there; for those who have concerns or reservations, the words are in quotes, so it is clear that it's the researchers' opinion and not Misplaced Pages's. As a result, its someting we can all live with. Michael Glass 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Glass and Jake on this one. Sometimes, using direct quotes is the best way to go when there is significant controversy. -- Avi 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

information about forced circumcisions

I have tried to add more information about forced circumcisions to this article. This information has been rejected by two other editors, Nandesuka and Avraham who have taken turns to delete my contribution completely. They have alleged that:

• There is undue weight.
• I have not responded to their questioning of my motives on the talk page.

If there is undue weight, I invite them to trim the addition. There is no requirement for me to answer their questions about my motives or respond to their acccusations. I believe that what they are doing is against Misplaced Pages policy and I urge them ro reconsider their actions. Michael Glass 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered our questions above as of yet, Mr. Glass. -- Avi 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on your questions here, it seems some clarification would be helpful. Your edits, especially these most recent, but many over the past few months, have been perceived by a number of different editors to be violations, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle, of wikipedia's policy of the neutral point of view. This last sequence with the "forced circumcision" was of the more vlatant type. You have been asked by at least three editors above to explain your edits in an NPOV way. You have not done so; moreover, you continue to add what sems to be "biased editing" with th eintention to actively push a point of view. There is strong contrary evidence against assuming good faith, not the least of which is your refusal to answer civil questions. Your rights to edit this articleare currently in no way shape or form infringed, but other editors' rights to maintain the article in accordance with wikipedia policy are not infringed either. -- Avi 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I refused to answer your questions because they are put in such an uncivil and hostile way, and they make accusations that I totally reject. You have accused me of not explaining my edits in a NPOV way. You have said that there is strong evidence that I have not acted in good faith. You have accused me of repeatedly and persistently making edits that are either blatantly or subtly NPOV. Then you turn round and accuse me of not responding to your civil questions!

However, to return to the latest edit, the only substantial criticism is that it shows undue weight. Your text says:

On rare occasions, circumcisions of adult males have been performed as a form of

My proposal says:

On occasion, circumcisions have been performed as a form of sexual assault, as part of forced religious conversionsor in ethnic-religious conflicts.

What's the problem? Where does this edit overstep the mark in your opinion? Which information would you like to remove? Please explain. Michael Glass 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles