Talk:Circumcision advocacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

[Advocating Circumcision Today]

Why are we referencing this site? It appears to be a defunct site from 2003. Half of the links don't work, and it's almost certainly a personal website. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of making some blacklist of the dreaded "Anti-Circs" I am inclined to agree with you. Indigo Jones

I guess I get bundled in with the anti-circs, primarily because I fail to qualify as a pro-circ, and this is a dispute lacking a recognized neutral ground. So, as an honorary "anti", let me tell you that there's no "anti" black list. There is, however, definitely a list kept by the "pro" group. I know because I'm on it, as pubic enemy #3. Alienus 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Section titled "Have advocacy efforts affected circumcision practices?"

Currently the section titled "Have advocacy efforts affected circumcision practices?" appears to be pure original research. Have there been any studies written, or authors who have written, about the effects of advocacy on circumcision practices? Or is this section merely advancing a "new analysis or synthesis of published data"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any information on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Philo - is defending the same as advocating?

The article refers to Philo's defence of Jewish circumcision. Is Philo's defence of the practice against criticism the same as advocating for the practice? If so, according to whom? In general, who classifies Philo as a "circumcision advocate"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone who identifies Philo as a circumcision advocate? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

Recently, Alienus reverted some improvements made to the article by Jayjg. In doing so, he:

• Reintroduced discussion of Advocating Circumcision Today, which as noted above, appears to be a poorly-designed personal website that is no longer maintained.
• Reintroduced pure original research ("Circumcision advocates may undertake...") about what advocates may or may not do.
• Reintroduced off-topic discussion of the merits of masturbation, which distracts from the subject.
• Reintroduced off-topic discussion of the history of circumcision, which distracts from the subject.
• Removed wikilink to Medicaid.

Hence, I'm reverting. Jakew 19:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my suggestion by coming here to Talk instead of just reverting without explanation. I have indeed reverted some changes by Jayjg. However, these changes were not actually improvements. Briefly:

• act-now.org is brought up as an example of how "circumcision advocacy" is a term used by some advocates, whereas Jay's version makes it sound otherwise. Regardless of the subjective quality of the web site, suppressing any mention of it would be POV, hence unacceptable. WP:NPOV is not negotiable.
• The definition of circumcision advocacy is accurate and not OR. If you have some sort of specific complaints, I suggest altering the text instead of removing it.
• The article already mentions masturbation, you would like to omit the relevant and cited fact that masturbation is harmless and NOT prevented by circumcision. Omiting this would be POV and WP:NPOV is not negotiable.
• Actually, what's reintroduced is the history with regard to advocacy, which is entirely relevant.

In short, these deletions all serve to harm the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article. Therefore, I will be forced to continue restoring the text if you attempt to remove it without an acceptable explanation. Your explanations thus far are not acceptable. Thank you for understanding. Al 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• A site that is used as a source must conform to WP:RS, thus act-now cannot be included. This is not POV. If you dislike the change of wording, explain what is wrong with it.
• If the definition of circumcision advocacy is accurate and not OR, then it should be easy (or at least possible) to find sources confirming it. The fact that none were supplied even though each of the four sentences had been tagged with a {{fact}} request for some time suggests the opposite. It is difficult to alter a paragraph when WP:CITE and WP:NOR require that it is deleted.
• Masturbation is mentioned in passing as one of the arguments of advocates. Discussion of the accuracy of their claims is beyond the scope. It is ridiculous to argue that not saying something is POV.
• There is no indication that this history is remotely relevant to advocacy.

Jakew 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have addressed my concerns, so my stance remains unchanged. Al 20:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alienus, why don't you actually find some sources for the unsourced original research I've removed. Oh, and can you find someone who lists Philo as a circumcision advocate while you're at it? It's the Talk: section just above. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A research paper in The Journal of Medical Ethics [1] uses the term "circumcision advocasy" to refer to pro circumcision groups. As it is looking in general at medical procedures such as routine immunisation as well, even though the results could be taken as anti-circumcision they are not as single issue "anti" organisation as they are primarily looking at the wider child rights issue. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 14:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Authors: FM Hodges (well known activist, co-editor of the proceedings of NOCIRC's 5th, 6th, and 7th symposia[2]), JS Svoboda (activist founder of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, described on their website as "An international network of attorneys and supporters now addresses the multi-faceted issue of genital mutilation of children, particularly the practice of male circumcision."), and RS Van Howe (presenter at numerous NOCIRC symposia, as well as a Strategies for Intactivism conference). Jakew 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what point your post is making other than that the authors are anti circumcision. This is a paper published in a reputable journal thus satisfying WP:RS that uses the term "circumcision advocasy" with no special explanatory definitions. From my research paper reading experiences that usually means it is generally understood term by all sides of an issue. Have you objections to it being included to illustrate Al's point and if so why? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought that you were stating that they were not anti-circumcision. You may care to note that the article already cites that article in the introduction. It's entirely possible that the term is generally understood, but the fact remains that we need to cite a source if we're going to define it. Alternatively, we must leave it undefined, as those authors did. What we cannot do is to declare that, in using the term, they meant something that we, the Wikipedia editors, just made up. That's original research. Jakew 15:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right that OR is always a no-no. I'll be honest that in my web searches I can only find the term in context - ie it is used purely to describe a pro stance without any capitalisation - unlike for example Pro-life which is a separate well defined term. Maybe the AfD should be revisted as so far I haven't found anything to justify it as needing an article to explain what it means - it's just two words that describe something in the same way as "chocolate lover" or " tennis enthusiast". I will also admit I'm new to this topic so may be missing something! Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. If you want to nominate it for deletion a second time, I'll certainly support you. Jakew 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it further I think this article should be changed to a redirect to Circumcision#Cultures and religions which explains the reasons why circumcision takes place. What do you think of this? I have left a message on Michael Glass' talk page as he seemed to be the person most in favour of keeping this as a separate article last time. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the article in itself. However, it manages to touch on a raw nerve with some people. I am still in favour of keeping the article, but making sure that it is accurate. If defining the term 'circumcision advocacy' is a problem, then don't define it! The term sounds like Plain English to me.Michael Glass 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The "raw nerve" it seems to touch is the "Wikipedia:No original research" nerve. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The question I'm asking is why this is an article at all as it just seems to be two words of a sentence rather than a separate identifiable group. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing I can see in the term 'circumcision advocacy' that implies that an organised group of people is involved in advocating circumcision. However it is clear that there are people, who for a variety of reasons are advocating circumcision. It seems reasonable to study this phenomenon, just as it is reasonable to study the Gential Integrity movement. Michael Glass 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Circumcision advocates", a term used again and again in this article, and the research done here, implies an organized movement. And while it may seem reasonable to you to study this "phenomenon", that goes beyond the mandate of Wikipedia and into the realm of original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some obvious differences come to mind. Firstly, the G.I. movement invented that term themselves (presumably because anti-circ is too direct and doesn't sound positive). They have defined what they mean by it in numerous places (several different definitions, actually, but at least there are sources) Next, there are identifiable people and organisations associated with this movement - NOCIRC people and symposia, ICGI, NOHARMM, NORM, etc, and this fact is documented. So the principle difference here is that there is actually something to study, without having to make any interpretations or perform any original research. Jakew 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayjg - if it was a movement it would be hyphenated or capitalised as in Pro-life. We don't have a chocolate lover article even though a google search returns 14,000,000 hits [3]. Circumcision advocacy returns 251,000 [4]. I'm not attempting to trivialise the debate but show that this is not worthy of an article. If groups perform circumcision then of course they advocate circumcision otherwise they wouldn't do it. Just to clarify my motives I don't believe in tampering with someones body unless medically necessary - I don't even agree with having your tonsils out unless really necessary. If your body has something it must be there for a reason - even the appendix may have a role in the immune system and it was thought useless for many years. However I do agree with immunisation as it is medically proven to of benefit. My only interest here is article accuracy and neutrality - what have I missed - where is the group calling it's self Circumcision Advocacy or called by that by it's opponents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOPHIA (talk • contribs)

Jake, can you document your claim that "circumcision advocacy" is a term invented by the Genital Integrity movement? If so - and this would need to demonstrated - it seems clear that the term or related are quite widely used. There is, for instance, the use of the term in the Benatar article, which you included on your website. There is also the use of the term in 'Advocating Circumcision today' . Now I am aware that the website seems to have been left unmodified for the last several years. Nevertheless, the fact that the word was used on this website demonstrates that wherever the term started, it has spread to other groups in the community. Michael Glass 13:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I meant that the G.I. movement invented the term 'Genital Integrity'. I apologise for not being more clear.

My point was that there are no shortage of organisations and persons clearly identifying themselves as 'Genital Integrity advocates'(*). However, only one web site is in existence (barely) that identifies as an advocate of circumcision, and that is not notable nor worthy of mention.

• - another interesting difference. One article is about the concept (or arguably, goal) of the persons/organisations, while the other is about the persons/organisations themselves. Is this distinction important, and could it point towards a solution? Jakew 14:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(Thanks to Jakew for signing for me above!) The research I have done so far does not support calling "Circumcision advocacy" a neologism. The example given on that page is Mental illness which a google search returns capitalised hits and many references as titles [5]. The same is not true of "circumcision advocacy [6]. In fact most worryingly it's the wikipedia article that tops the list. I know I'm new to the page and I know how I would feel if someone came along and wanted to delete an article I believed in. All i can say is I have no agenda here and am genuinely interested to see the justification for this as an article. If you have gone through this before then please point me where to read up on it. I have read the last AfD and to be honest it looks like a balance of interest groups which is not the same as NPOV. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 14:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the big problems with Wikipedia; someone decides to do some original research on a topic, and creates an article on that topic. It survives AfD, partly because the wealth of use of primary sources convinces people not familiar with WP:NOR that "there must be something to it, look at all the references", and partly because activists militate for its survival. It is then mirrored all over the internet, so that the net is filled with information about the topic, all coming from the original article. Eventually it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical text commented out

I've commented out the following (bold) text:

Historically, circumcision was argued for on religious or traditional grounds, as in Genesis 17:9-14 or Exodus 12: 43 - 49. In the Book of 1 Maccabees, the zealots went so far as to forcibly circumcise any uncircumcised boy in the land of Israel (Maccabees 2:45-48)

My reasons are as follows:

• Having reviewed the relevant sections of Genesis and Exodus carefully, I can find no arguments for circumcision. God simply ordered it. I suppose we could rephrase, but do we really want to identify God as a circumcision advocate? Except for the O.R. problem, I don't have a problem with doing so personally, but some people might find it offensive.
• Secondly, while I couldn't find Maccabees online (I didn't try terribly hard), and so I can't comment on the details, did any argument for circumcision occur? From the description, it would appear not.
• Thirdly, I have concerns about describing people as 'zealots'. It seems awfully POV. Jakew 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Even worse, it appears to be yet another attempt to use primary sources to do original research. One cannot use the Bible to "prove" the history of "Circumcision Advocacy"; rather, one must quote the views of scholars who have written on the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noted your comments and have changed the text accordingly. The Bible does present circumcision as a command from God to the sons of Abraham. However, as early as the First Century, Philo was defednig circumcision on other grounds. I think it is useful to start off from the religious base and show that circumcision advocacy quite early took on other aspects, such as health or moral questiions. I think we can do that without committing the sin of having an original thought, which, as we all know, is not allowed here. Michael Glass 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I ask again; has anyone referred to any of this as "circumcision advocacy", or the individuals as "circumcision advocates"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And what is the difference between the history of circumcision and the history section of this article? Can someone explain to me how a group who perform circumcisions for what they see a positive reasons are not circumcision advocates? In which case how can this be a separate article from circumcision? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To borrow Jayjg's brilliant analogy, "Can someone explain to me how a group who eat broccoli for what they see as positive reasons are not broccoli advocates?" Jakew 10:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's going to start the Broccolism article???? Then we can POV fork to Broccoli advocacy. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 12:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ROFL! Jakew 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually - silliness aside there is more justification for Vegan advocacy as google shows [7] but the Veganism article covers all the reasons people become vegans - there is no need for a separate article. Unless I hear a convincing argument pretty soon I'm going to refer this to AfD giving all the reasons I have above. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 13:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

When I googled vegan advocacy I got 296,000 hits and I got 216,000 for circumcision advocacy, so what's the point? I think it's quite reasonable to study circumcision advocacy for the following reasons:

Reasons given for circumcision have changed and developed over time.

There have also been recurring themes, such as claims about religion, health and sexual sensitivity.

There is abundant evidence of an emotional involvement in the procedure.

It is also reasonable to be cautious about removing the article in the light of the following:

The article deals with issues in a different way from other Wikipedia articles.

This article is contentious, and one side, but not the other, has pushed to remove it.

The question of circumcision is particularly controversial and hard-fought, with people dividing sharply on ideological grounds. Any one-sided push to remove an article may suit some ideological agenda.

In this article, content debate has been particularly detailed and hard-fought, even over apparently small details. If people find it so important to argue these points, it suggests that this article has more significance, not less.Michael Glass 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see your google list as it is significantly different to mine. Mine threw up capitalised phrases and wikipedia was not the top link. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and should not host articles that are trying to make a POV point that is not supported by the evidence. Instead of telling me why people fight over an article (which I well know) please explain why this article exists and what research supports it? I could deal with a lot of articles in a different way but they would present my POV which quite frankly no one should care about or have to read as it is precisely that - my POV. The valid points you make above such as change over time and recurring themes should be in the main Circumcision article supported by WP:RS sources. I personally would say that leaving this article standing is serving a particular POV and not doing the genuine debate any service. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, SOPHIA, if you look above you'll see that we've been over this with Michael before: Talk:Circumcision_advocacy#Original_research. For some reason he cannot seem to understand that pulling together a bunch of primary sources to create a novel narrative is original research. He seems to get stuck on the "but it's all sourced, and it's all about what I'm talking about". When that fails, he falls back on "people have an agenda for removing this". And Michael, the fact that 3 or 4 Wikipedia editors have argued about whether or not this article constitutes original research does not make it "more significant". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, I'll respond to your points in order:

I use Google from Australia and I put in the phrases without double quotation marks. Here are the links vegan advocacy circumcision advocacy.

I agree that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you feel that any part of the article makes a POV point or makes any point that is not supported by evidence, please point it out. I would be happy to work to remedy any such point or agree to its removal.

The article is to examine circumcision advocacy. The Macquarie Dictionary defines advocacy as an act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending, active espousal. and this is my understanding of the word. The article considers the history of circumcision advocacy from the time of Philo to the present day and deals with other matters such as questions of money, and the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts.

Reasons put forward for circumcision have changed over time while other arguments come up repeatedly. I am glad we agree that this is valid and that at least some of this material could be in the main article. However, when I checked the main article on circumcision, I found it is already 53 kilobytes long [8] so adding more material may not be such a good idea. It is therefore practical to keep discussion of circumcision advocacy in a separate article, as at present, and simply link it to the main article.

I note your concern that the present article is pushing a particular POV. Where is the article doing this? What POV is it pushing? Much of the article says that certain people argued for circumcision and briefly noted their reasons. I don't see anything in the presentation that is openly critical of any person's position. Is this the problem that you see? Whatever problems there are I would be happy to work on them.

If the problem is with the title of the article, then I would be glad to work on devising a better title. Michael Glass 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

JAYIG, I'll respond to your points in order:

Original research policy says research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. The article collects and organises information from existing sources. 'Pulling together a bunch of primary sources' is another way of saying the same thing, and this is what we are encouraged to do.

When we pull such sources together and write them down we get a Novel Narrative. However, the policy doesn't prohibit novel narratives. It can't, because that would stop everyone from writing anything! To be prohibited by the policy you have to do more than collecting and organising information and writing it down. If you are to establish that anything in the article is original research, you have to be able to show that it goes beyond the collecting, organising and writing down the information. This you have not done.

What objection to you have to having the article all sourced? Are you suggesting that this is a fault? Please refer to the policy on verifiability.

What does the article say that offends you? Chanting Original Research doesn't establish your point. What are you on about? What values are you pushing? How does the article threaten your values?

I believe it is significant that the people who use the original research criticism all have strong views in favour of circumcision. That's different from saying that the article is POV or biased. If you had said that the article is biased or POV I could accept that. I don't want biased or POV articles on Wikipedia, either. If you had said that parts of the article are not relevant, I could accept that. However, I can't see that the article is original research as defined in the policy and I can't accept that line of argument as legitimate. With all due respect, you appear to be using the term original research as a means of censoring verified information. Michael Glass 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which of the sources you have listed (including Biblical passages) discuss "circumcision advocacy"? The answer is simple; none. It is you who have decided that these sources are about "circumcision advocacy"; that is your "unpublished theory/argument" and "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." You want to write an article about "circumcision advocacy"? Then use sources which discuss "circumcision advocacy". You can't, of course, because there are no reputable sources that do; it's a term and a theory made up by radical activists, and which you are now using Wikipedia to promote. And please avoid the ad hominem arguments; the article does not "offend" me or "my values", it's just against policy. Moreover, though you keep claiming that I have "strong views in favor of circumcision", it is in fact the case that there are quite a number of admitted anti-circumcision activists who have edited these articles (including you), and they tend to color anyone who opposes their policy violations as "pro-circumcision" and "attempts at censorship". As I have said before, I am not "pro-circumcision", I am "pro-Wikipedia policy". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayig, thank you for explaining that you are value free and only want to promote the good of Wikipedia. You seem to be troubled by admitted anti-circumcision activists . Now that's a value-laden statement, isn't it? Do you still maintain that you are value free? I don't care if you regard me as an activist or not. I believe that in this case the difference between us is about the use of words.

I see circumcision advocate or circumcision advocacy as a simple use of plain English words. Turning these simple English words into a definition doesn't make sense to me. I agree that the words were probably first used by people who are against circumcision but the term circumcision advocate has been used in the Washington Post and in the British Medical Journal so I don't think it is legitimate to treat it as if it was newly coined or that it had any special meaning or resonance beyond the plain meaning of the words. It's not like right to life or right to choose which have taken on a life of their own or like daylight saving which has a specialised meaning. Rather, it's like the term gun control which is used quite widely by people to refer to those who want tighter controls on firearms, and it doesn't matter any more that it might have originated with people who wanted to put more restrictions on guns. In my opinion, circumcision advocate and circumcision advocacy simply refer to those who advocate circumcision. I can't see that there is a problem with the words. In fact, no-one suggested that there was any problem with the term for months and months after the article began.

Because I regard these words as plain English, I can't help but feel that your objections to them are simply a device to stifle discussion. Perhaps I am wrong, however, and you have a different term that you could suggest that could be used to refer to those who defend or plead on behalf of or promote circumcision. I emphasise once more, I am not interested in attacking circumcision advocates in this forum. The article doesn't push an anti-circumcision agenda. It gives plenty of space to the arguments of pro-circumcision advocates, which is what it should do. That's why I can't understand what the fuss is about and I can't understand why you want to can the article. Michael Glass 03:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, I am not "troubled" by "admitted anti-circumcision activists" per se, but rather by their regular and persistent attempts to violate Wikipedia policies on any article even remotely related (and even completely unrelated) to circumcision. This is also why you don't understand why I want to "can the article", because you persist in trying to frame it in pro-circumcision vs. anti-circumcision terms. My issue with the article has nothing to do with the position the article takes (pro, anti, etc.), but rather because it consists entirely of original research. You've been told this by at least four editors, yet you cannot seem to hear what they say, and instead keep insisting on framing it in your "pro vs. anti-circumcision" "trying to censor" paradigm. Until you finally come to understand that this is an issue of Wikipedia policy, not circumcision viewpoint, you will never get it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Legal and economic aspects"

Can someone explain how this section is not yet another section entirely devoted to original research? Does even one of the primary sources listed there mention "circumcision advocacy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if these points are valid they do not belong here but in the main Circumcision article. I'm also waiting for answers from someone to the points raised above.Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the "original Research" tag is a smear. On going through the section it appeared to exceptionally well referenced; there was hardly a clause without a link. The only possible objection to the whole section that I can see is that some parts are not strictly relevant to circumcision advocacy. It is certainly relevant if people are pushing circumcision to make a quick and easy buck, and this section shows that some people are doing just that. I would be happy to change the section so that it is more clearly linked to circumcision advocacy. Michael Glass 00:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree. From the evidence you cite below, it is apparent that some physicians are performing circumcision to make money, but not that they are pushing circumcision in order to do so. Jakew 10:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Profiteering from circumcision if it can be referenced should be in the main circumcision article - not here. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, profiteering from circumcision is fully referenced. Please don't take my word for it. check the links for yourself. If there's a problem with any of the links, please let me know. In the mean time, here are a few gems.

Reference 1:

In addition to cultural values and the desire to fit in, circumcision evokes another consideration—money.

I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it," says Wiswell. "Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time." [9]

Dr. Kenneth Baker, past chairman of obstetrics and pediatrics at Union County Regional Medical Center, a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Medical Director of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, says, "I just spoke to a pediatrician who said he only does it because it's easy money. It's $150 to $175 for less than five minutes' work. It doesn't get any better than that."

Dr. Oliver in Sylva agrees: "The doctors I hear are screaming that they have lost income by this ban."

In fact, recent data indicate that states whose Medicaid programs pay doctors more than $60 per circumcision have almost twice as high a circumcision rate as states that pay under $50. North Carolina pays about $200. (The national average is about $85.) Here, where one out of every two pregnant women (and their babies) is on Medicaid, one quick circumcision per week would increase a physician's income by about $10,000 a year. [10]

Reference 2

Brennan recalled interviewing one patient who claimed he underwent a circumcision after being approached by a recruiter in the men's room.

"The recruiter came in and said, 'Hey, yours looks like a Volkswagen. Do you want a Mercedes that looks like mine? Come on, I'll take you to California,' " Brennan said. "When our medical director examined him, he still had a piece of wire in him that they used to suture him up, and his girlfriend, who was doing the translating, said to me: 'It no work no more.' "

During the trip, the patient also underwent two procedures that he did not need, Brennan said.

Recruiters selected patients who had good health insurance but earned low wages, Brennan said. Their incomes made them more likely to take money for a California weekend of sun and surgery. [11]

Reference 3

Hospital Offers Cut-Rate Surgery to Boost Business

Aug 23, 8:59 am ET

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A private hospital in Hong Kong is offering discount packages and fixed prices for some operations in a bid to attract patients during the territory's crushing economic downturn.

"Currently, private hospitals have only six percent share of the market and private hospitals will need to come up with all sort of ways to fight for market share," the Union Hospital said in a statement obtained on Friday.

Most Hong Kong residents balk at seeking treatment at private hospitals, which are notorious for charging astronomical fees that shoot far beyond original estimates.

Under the new offer, circumcisions will be fixed at a price of HK$9,300 (US$1,192). Previously, they ranged from HK$8,660 to HK$18,050.

The prices include surgery fees, consultation, anaesthetic fees and hospitalization. It did not explain why prices had varied so much previously. []http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters08-23-02/]

There are other references, of course, but these are the main ones. I can't see any assertion in that section that isn't fully referenced. Therefore the label original research is a smear. I don't know who put that label there, but if it isn't gone in 24 hours I'll remove it myself. Michael Glass 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All fascinating, Michael, but the connection with the subject of this article is unclear. Doctors are the ones who perform circumcision, and like the rest of us, they have to earn a living, so it should be no surprise that they charge for it. In a free market, if something is demanded it will likely be supplied. Where is the advocacy? Nobody is identified as advocating circumcision in these links. Nobody even appears to be advocating circumcision in these links. What is the relevance? Jakew 10:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jake, I consider that these excerpts and the links that lie behind them are important. In the case of the first example quoted, doctors were quite open about their financial interest in this procedure. In the second example (lumped with the first - sorry about that) doctors were using their political connections to preserve their incomes. In that case they pushed hard to have the subsidy reinstated. The next example was one of fraud, where scouts lured vulnerable and ignorant people into having unnecessary operations to defraud insurance companies. In the last case, the cut price circumcisions were offered in a bid to attract patients. In all these examples the doctors were promoting circumcisions for monetary rather than medical reasons.

You are, of course, correct in saying that this is how the free market works. You are also correct in saying that the word 'advocacy' wasn't mentioned. Nevertheless, the implication is still clear: there are cases where circumcision is being pushed on members of the public, not for medical need but to enrich the doctors. In one of the examples this touting for business was clearly criminal; in the other cases it could hardly be said to be ethical. All of the examples that I quoted involve offfering circumcision to the public and all but the first one involve some active pushing of the procedure to the public. Therefore I would suggest that this section os relevant to an article on circumcision advocacy.

Secondly, I note that you said nothing to defend the label original research. It is quite indefensible. Whatever other objections may be raised to the content of this section, no-one could fairly argue that it fits the definition of original research. Michael Glass 11:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I understand that you think that these things are important. Nevertheless, you have not made a good case for discussing it in this article. The problem is that there is little evidence of promotion of circumcision. Take the last case, for example. They set a fixed price to attract patients, but is this promotion? Come on, can you really imagine anyone suddenly deciding to get circumcised on the sole basis that the price is now predictable? It seems improbable. Yes, they might decide to use the services of that particular hospital rather than another, but it is not advocacy of the procedure itself. You might as well say that nationalising healthcare is circumcision advocacy because it ensures that it's available to all who need it.

Take the first. Wiswell says that he has friends who make money from circumcision, but do they promote/advocate it? No idea. It is quite feasible that they are urging parents to choose not to circumcise, but perform it because they demand it.

The strongest (or perhaps I should say 'least weak') evidence that you have is the Independent Weekly article, but this is poor. It does in fact mention circumcision advocates, but only in passing and to mention their position on medical benefits. Nobody quoted in the article is identified as such. It is not stated that the doctors you quote actually advocate circumcision (given the second-hand testimony and his association with NOCIRC, one must take Baker's testimony with a pinch of salt, but I digress). Two senators are quoted as saying that while they have not received correspondence from doctors in favour of the procedure. The delightfully named Rep Redwine explicitly states "In no way did the medical community [financially] influence the decision to reinstate Medicaid funding for circumcision." Senator Lee is reported as saying that he received complaints from doctors about the cut in funding, but this is not advocating circumcision but funding.

As for OR, I didn't feel that it needs defending explicitly, as it is perfectly obvious that it is. The inclusion of such text in an article on circumcision advocacy implies that it is relevant to that subject, which is a novel interpretation, prohibited by policy. Jakew 12:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Original research can be extensively referenced, but that doesn't mean it's not original research. Indeed, this is a fundamental facet of the policy, so it astonishes me that Michael still doesn't understand this. None of the sources discuss circumcision advocacy at all; Michael has merely done a bunch of reasearch from primary (and often dubious) sources, and put it together into a novel narrative. Michael, please review the WP:NOR policy carefully; perhaps this has been the problem from the start. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If people are offering cut price circumcisions as a way of boosting business, that's a promotion. Wiswell's comment is that some medicos look at a foreskin and see $175. It doesn't sound like a case where they're turning down easy money. In the Independent article - which uses the terms 'circumcision advocates' and 'funding advocates' - the lobbyists got to the Governor to restore the funding for circumcisions. the fear expressed was that poor boys wouldn't get circumcised (and some doctors wouldn't get the fees for doing it). The fourth example is about criminal behaviour. I would be happy to see this information in an article on circumcision funding. However, to say that it is original research to collect this information is simply nonsense. To imply that physicians may on occasion show an inordinate interest in money is utterly unoriginal. People have been saying that for centuries. Here are three examples:

God heals, and the doctor takes the fee.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Doctors are just the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you.

Chekhov (1860-1904)

They answered, as they took their fees,

"There is no cure for this disease."

Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) [12]

Now, about the policy that I'm supposed not to understand. This policy says:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Jayiig apparently wants to stifle source based research. This goes against both the letter and the spirit of the policy, which strongly encourages such research. Michael Glass 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No Michael, I want to stifle original research. Which of the sources you have listed discuss "circumcision advocacy"? The answer is simple; none. It is you who have decided that these sources are about "circumcision advocacy"; that is your "unpublished theory/argument" and "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." You want to write an article about "circumcision advocacy"? Then use sources which discuss "circumcision advocacy". You can't, of course, because there are no reputable sources that do; it's a term and a theory made up by radical activists, and which you are now using Wikipedia to promote. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't like Biblical passages? I removed them. Now where is the unpublished theory in saying that this person or that advocated circumcision? Where is the analysis? Where is the synthesis? You accuse me of trying to advance a position. What position? All I can see is an ad hominem attack, so please stop. Michael Glass 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, it's very simple. Who defined Philo as a "circumcision advocate"? Who defined Maimonides as a "circumcision advocate"? Was it a reliable source? Or was it User:Michael Glass? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayig, why did you make those changes if you don't agree with them. This is Loony Tunes. Please see my comments above. Michael Glass 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I made those changes so that it is abundantly clear where the original research lies. You have identified Philo and Maimonides as early circumcision advocates; please provide reliable sources for that novel theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't get out of it by trying to re-word your way away from the request for citation. You insist that they are circumcision advocates; provide reliable sources which support that novel theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't. You said it. Go play your word games with someone else. Michael Glass 04:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If they're not circumcision advocates, then what are they doing in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the term

I've removed the following from the introduction:

The term 'circumcision advocates' can be found in the Britiah Medical Journal [13], the Washington Post [14] and the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center (opposed to circumcision) [15] . One complementary medicine website talks about anti-circumcision and pro-circumcision advocates [16].

The first link is a letter to the editor from "George Hill, retired", the second is not from the Washington Post but rather from an article on a "medical news" website of unknown provenance which paraphrases a Washington Post article, the third is Ron Goldman's personal anti-circumcision website, and the fourth is again from a "complementary medicine website" of unknown provenance. None of these count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, George Hill. The retired airline pilor, co-maintainer of CIRP, and exec sec'y of DOC. Jakew 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the mistake about the Washington Post, but a letter published in the BMJ is still in the BMJ. Now I have put some more links up and I hope that this will show you that 'circumcision advocate' is part of the language. Michael Glass 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed answers.com, because it is a mirror of Wikipedia. I've also removed a mirror of dmoz, as this is not an encyclopaedic source. Jakew 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've removed this as well

Another website describes Dr Thomas Wiswell as a circumcision advocate [17]. The term also appeared in a letter published in the British Medical Journal [18]

Who is Harvey Kipnis, and why would we care what he says? Also, as said before, a letter to the editor from a retired airline pilot (even if he is an anti-circumcision activist) is simply not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What is notable is the naked prejudice displayed. To reject an example of word use in the BMJ just because the writer is a 'retired airline pilot' and an 'anti-circumcision activist' is a specacular example of bigotry, but it is also monumentally hypocritical. Jayig uses 'anti-circumcision activist' himself but questions the use of 'circumcision activist' by others. This is narrow-minded and partisan pedantry; it is not scholarship. Michael Glass 22:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael, please try to deal with policy. That George Hill is an anti-circumcision activist (or, as he prefers, "advocate for genital integrity") is not in question; nor is it particularly relevant. The bottom line is that a letter to the editor from a non-medical activist simply does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Again, you need to focus on policy, not your assumptions about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If a letter to the editor from a non-medical activist simply does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, then I trust you will not object if someone removes any references in circumcision related articles to letters to the editor written by non-medical, pro-circumcision activists. -- DanBlackham 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss Jayjg's point, Dan. Activism is not particularly relevant one way or the other (though it could be argued that an anti-circumcision activist might be more inclined to identify people as circumcision advocates than a disinterested party). Jay's point, as I understand it, is that a letter to the editor is not the most reliable of sources for establishing a completely novel 'fact'.

Personally, I agree in part and disagree in part. I would say that a letter is acceptable, but must be considered on the merits. The principal problem with Hill's letter is that he simply asserts that various people are circumcision advocates, so it is merely an opinion. The value of that opinion rests entirely on his qualifications to make such a claim (apparently none). If he had made a case that they are, citing references to support his case, then it has value that is independent of his authority. But he didn't. Indeed, the first part of his letter appears to consist of little but ad hominem attacks against HIV researchers. Jakew 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm starting to go through the article and clean up the original research, since you seem unwilling to do so, or unable to understand the policy. You have personally described or defined a whole series of individuals as "circumcision advocates", but "Michael Glass, teacher" does not count as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia, even if he manages to get a letter to the editor published in an online medical journal. You need to start finding scholarly sources dealing with the topic of "circumcision advocacy"; you are not the authority on this topic, and you cannot start deciding what is or isn't Circumcision advocacy, who is or isn't a Circumcision advocate, what the positive or negative effects of "Circumcision advocacy" are, etc. I can only encourage you to read the WP:NOR policy again; we need to have sources on "Circumcision advocates" and "Circumcision advocacy" in this article. If all your sources are about Circumcision, not Circumcision advocacy, then the information belongs in an article about Circumcision. And please try to keep your response to Wikipedia policy, avoiding speculating on editors motives, beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has been cut down a lot, with much material removed for reasons that I cannot agree with. Briefly, if someone advocates circumcision, they are a circumcision advoate. I don't see why they need to use the exact term for themselves. Given this, there is no basis for removing well-cited material about these circumcision advocates. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:NOR prevents us from being the first to identify someone as a circumcision advocate, or declaring that what they are doing is advocating circumcision. It's a novel interpretation.

Remember that Wikipedia is here to summarise existing knowledge. This limits us to discussing what others have said about this subject, or people that have been identified by others as advocates. Jakew 08:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea of labelling 'circumcision advocate' as a new term is just a convenient excuse for removing material. Both 'circumcision and advocate are ordinary English words. Pretending that they become a definition is humbug. It is a blatant attempt of people with one point of view to control the language and thus control what can be said. It is ideologically driven drivel and is a misuse of Wikipedia policy. Michael Glass 12:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you hold this belief, Michael, but making such accusations doesn't help. Policy applies to this article, just as it does to others, and legitimate concerns have been raised. Jakew 13:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy is not something floating in the sky. It is a bunch of words that we have to interpret. And when it comes to interpretation, we don't always agree. Like Michael, I'm a bit baffled by your suggestion that it is OR or POV or otherwise against policy to call someone who advocates circumcision a "circumcision advocate".

Consider that someone who advocates abortion rights can be (and often is) called an "abortion rights advocate", and no further evidence is needed. It is logically impossible to advocate abortion rights without becoming an abortion rights advocate.

Likewise, if you were to advocate circumcisions, you would automatically become a "circumcision advocate", no matter how much or how little you protest. Think about it; WP:NOR is not intended to overrule common sense, just to stop people from inserting their own opinions as fact. If we can't come to an agreement, perhaps we could add it to our RFM. Al 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you can find examples in which others have identified these persons as 'advocating circumcision', please go ahead and include them. I just want to be sure that it is not merely the opinion of Wikipedia editors that the people or actions qualify as circumcision advocacy/advocates, because that is what is prohibited by policy. Jakew 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're going to need to explain why advocating circumcision is not sufficient to qualify someone as a circumcision advocate. I would suggest that anyone who advocates circumcision is automatically a circumcision advocate, so there is no further judgement necessary, hence no role for additional parties.

Consider that if some person were quoted as saying "I hate Jews", there would be no need to find someone else calling them an anti-semite in order for us to use that term here. By saying they hate Jews, there are inherently admitting to being anti-semites. It would be original research to just state that someone was an anti-semite, but if we cite their admission, then there is nothing original about our input.

I hope this is clear to you. Al 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What can this article add that isn't covered in Circumcision? Sophia 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Circumcision article is already 53 kilobytes long. This article adds addition information to the History of male circumcision article about people who promote or advocate male circumcision. -- DanBlackham 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we merge in stuff from here to the history article or is it mainly duplication here? Sophia 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I'm actually quite apathetic about whether this content stands alone or becomes part of the parent article. I can see how someone might not want to swell the parent any more, but that's simply a practical matter. What concerns me more is whether the content itself is balanced and neutral. Al 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, the fact is that there are no shortage of RS identifying anti-semitic actions and anti-semites. There may be disagreement on the details, but there is something meaty to write about. Books have been written on the subject. Numerous articles have been written on it. It has notability. It is not something that Wikipedia editors have just, more or less, made up.

Now, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's article on that subject, but because the subject is so well-known, the chances are good that if anyone wishes to include, say, Mr Adolf Hitler as an anti-semite, it's not original research because at least one author (ok, thousands in the case of that particular example) will have done so previously. That's because it is already a field of knowledge. Definitions exist in the literature. Where there is controversy over the inclusion of a particular person/action, it's easy (in theory) to determine the appropriate course of action according to policy.

Now here, it is not an encyclopaedic topic, and as far as I know, nobody has dedicated an article to the subject of circumcision advocacy before. A consequence of that is that there are very few RS upon which to draw. The solution to this is not to ignore policy, but to think 'hey, maybe this should be deleted or moved somewhere relevant to topics that other people have written about.' Jakew 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jake, with all due respect, you have not addressed the issues I raised and you have once again reverted to the version you prefer, without first building a consensus. I do not think your actions are as productive as they could be. The first step you can take to improve on them is to answer my questions directly.

To remind you, I am skeptical of the notion that it is somehow original research to call someone an anti-semite when there are reliable sources that have them making clearly anti-semitic remarks. Likewise, if someone makes remarks that clearly advocate for circumcision, I see no reason to censor ourselves in the name of neutrality. I can see that, in cases where there is some doubt or controversy, it might be best to avoid the label unless we can attribute it directly to a reliable sources, but I don't think this is what we're facing here. Thank you for understanding. Al 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example which should be helpful. On the National Vanguard article, we don't say it is a antisemitic, racist, neo-Nazi, and homophobic organization. Rather, we say It has been described as "anti-Semitic," [19][20][21] "racist,"[22][23][24] "neo-Nazi,"[25][26][27][28] and homophobic. [29] Even if we think facts are obvious, we don't invent our own classifications, we just report what reliable sources say. As for consensus, it already exists, that we must follow policy. I have disputed that any of these claimed "circumcision advocates" actually are "circumcision advocates"; that claim, in fact, is just a novel thesis invented by Michael Glass for this article. So, provide some reliable sources stating they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayig accuses me of calling people circumcision advocates without authority and yet has called someone an anti-circumcision advocate without quoting someone else to say this. In the example he supplies above, the National Vanguard article quotes three sources for saying that NV is anti-Semitic. The first reference doesn't use this term anti-Semitic [30]. The second reference mentions anti-Semitic material and anti-Semitic messagesl but it doesn't say directly that NV is anti-Semitic [31]. The third reference does indeed say that the National Alliance is virulently anti-Semitic and that the NV and the NA are battling over who is carrying on the anti-Semitic legacy of someone else, but once again it doesn't directly say that NV is anti-Semitic [32]. Of the three websites referred to, one is from the NV, another is from the Jewish Anti-Defamatiion League and the third one is the Jewish Exponent and depends heavily on Anti-Defamation League material. The links show quite convincingly that NV is anti-Semitic; what they do not show is that NV has been called anti-Semitic. Besides, the sources are either from NV or they are Jewish organisations, and might therefore be regarded as unreliable. In other words, Jayig is trying to tie up this article in a straitjacket that he doesn't apply to himself and that doesn't apply elsewhere on Wikipedia. Jayig's claim that you can't call someone a circumcision advocate unless someone that he approves of has already used these exact words about that person is a load of humbug. Michael Glass 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first link was sneaky vandalism introduced by a National Vanguard supporter, now removed. The third link describes them as anti-Semitic, and the second reinforces that. The ADL is not a "Jewish organization", and the intro does not say that they are anti-semitic, merely that hey have been "described as anti-semitic". You claims of "humbug" and double standard are disproved. Now, where are the reliable sources describing the various individuals you have listed as "circumcision activists" "circumcision advocates"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first link, sneaky vandalism or not, was supplied by Jayig to this discussion, so he must take responsibility for putting it there. The second link does not contain the words 'described as anti-semitic" as Jayig asserts, but, as I wrote, contains the phrases "anti-Semitic material" and "anti-Semitic messages". Here is what Wikipedia says about the ADL: 'The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an organization founded by B'nai B'rith in the United States whose stated aim is "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."' The discussion was about the phrase "circumcision advocate" not "circumcision activist". it is Jayig's, accuracy that is in question here. Michael Glass 13:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's absurd that you should try to make me responsible for the content of vandalism, and the other link provided is a reliable source which describes the group as "anti-Semitic". And what is under discussion is reliable sources which refer to these individuals as "circumcision advocates". Where are they? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Jayjg referred to this: "George Hill is a retired airline jet captain, father of an intact son, and advocate for genital integrity. He is the Executive Secretary of Doctors Opposing Circumcision http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org" [33] Jakew 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the careful analysis, Michael. I think that Jakew is simply misunderstanding WP:NOR, which is unfortunate. While I'm sure he's not intentionally trying to be biased, he may well not realize that he appears to be using a higher standard for others than he would allow to be applied to himself.

As editors, we must be impartial, but there's no need for us to play dumb. Even if not a single WP:RS actually calls the NV anti-semitic using that term, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that they are anti-semitic, so we can safely draw this uncontroversial and painfully obvious inference without running afoul of OR.

Again, the purpose of WP:NOR is to prevent editors from substituting their own opinions for facts, and it's not intended to stop editors from using their brains entirely. If something is genuinely uncontroversial, there is no need to cite support for it. I would also say that Jake's denial that these people who advocate circumcision are circumcision advocates does not consistute genuine controversy because it is prima facie impossible. If I were to deny that Hitler is a Nazi, insisting that he only said Nazi things without being a Nazi, why would anyone take this complaint seriously?

I'd like to offer another analogy. Let's say I have a WP:RS that says John Doe owns a dog named Spike, a dog named Rover and a dog named Pookie. Is it OR to say that John owns three dogs? Do I need to find some RS who I can quote as saying "John has three dogs" or does it suffice to support my claim by referencing the quote where John lists the names of his dogs? In other words, is analytic logic now considered OR? Because, if it is, then how can we do anything at all? Al 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, there are problems with your examples. Firstly, there are many, many sources that identify Hitler as a Nazi. I doubt that any reliable sources dispute the claim, but in the hypothetical case that there were, both could be presented in the text. There is simply no need for OR in either case because of the notability of the subject matter and the huge volumes of source material.

Similarly, if John Doe's dogs are notable enough to be discussed in an encyclopaedia, then much will doubtless have been written on the subject, and inevitably, someone will have commented on their number. Again, no OR is needed because such basic 'analytic logic' (I prefer the term 'counting') will have already been done, and can be referenced.

On the other hand, if only a couple of off-hand references can be found to his dogs, then one has to ask why on earth we should dedicate an article to the subject. The obvious answer is that we shouldn't, so again, the matter need not arise.

The problem with this article is that it is fundamentally original. Nobody else has ever (to my knowledge) written a book or article on the subject. It shouldn't, according to policy, exist. Nevertheless, it does, but that does not mean that policy can be ignored. Jakew 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jake, thank you for conceding to my argument: I think that we agree that counting is not original research. Now I'd like you to consider that recognizing that someone who advocates for circumcision is a circumcision advocate is an even smaller analytical step than counting three dogs. Al 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I didn't agree to your argument. Please read my comment again.

As I've said before, if you can find sources stating that these people advocate for circumcision, it would be a good start. What we must avoid, though, is making this interpretation ourselves. Jakew 12:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that counting is original research? If so, I wonder how high the standards are for reliable sources of counting. Al 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps John Doe owns more dogs than that; how would you know? Jake has understood the original research policy quite well, and I (and others) don't recognize any of these individuals (e.g. Philo, Maimonides, etc.) as "circumcision advocates", so you'll have to find some reliable sources which identify them that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Macquarie School Dictionary defines 'advocate' as someone who speaks in favor of a person or cause. Therefore, anyone who speaks in favour of circumcision can be fairly described as advocating circumcision, be they Philo, Maimonides or Jake Waskett. I say that all the authority you need to describe someone as a circumcision advocate is that they fit the dictiionary definition of the word advocate. nor is there a problem in doing so. Unlike such words as racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and so on, the word advocate is essentially neutral. Its use by people who are both pro and anti-circumcision demonstrates this fact. That is why i continue to assert that there is no problem in using this plain English word to describe those who publicly defend and promote circumcision. Michael Glass 14:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A "circumcision advocate" has a special meaning, which is undefined. Are they in favour of circumcision for everyone? Mandatory circumcision? Circumcision as a parental choice? Circumcision for adults? Circumcision for infants? Is anyone who responds to or refutes claims of a "genital integrity advocate", by definition, a "circumcision advocate"? Is it anyone who thinks there are benefits to circumcision? The latter is, in fact, how they are defined by "genital integrity advocates", but where are the reliable, scholarly sources which have discussed this topic? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. Various medical organisations recognise benefits. Are they advocating circumcision, even though they specifically do not recommend routine (ie universal) circumcision? I even recall Marilyn Milos of NOCIRC stating that there are rare instances in which circumcision is necessary. Taking the broadest definition, that makes her a circumcision advocate, yet surely it's absurd to say so of her. Without a specific, verifiable definition, it's a difficult subject to write about. Jakew 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it turns out it's surprisingly easy to write about, just not in a way that doesn't violate WP:NOR. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The medical consensus is that, while circumcision has some benefits in some cases, these are not sufficient to justify routine surgery. In other words, they don't forbid it, but they also don't endorse it unless there is a specific medical reason. This is not advocacy. In contrast, the people this article is aboout endorse circumcision even when there is no specific medical reason. This makes them... advocates. Pretty simple, really. Al 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, but the trouble is that this narrowing of the definition is the sole invention of User:Alienus. Jakew 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It's just using common sense. There are some people who have clearly advocated circumcision. I can see no problem in pointing this out. Michael Glass 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with History of circumcision and Circumcision

Before I put the tags on I want to just check that there is general support that this article is a bit of an anomaly and that the content here would be better placed in the above two article. Certainly the 21st century section in the history article [34] could definitely do with some content addition. However what is most interesting is that there is no section of Circumcision where this article is referenced as the "main article on this topic". This shows its odd status and the fact that the info is better elsewhere as the chances of anyone finding it are reduced by it's apparent lack of importance to the central topic.

I think the benefits will be that all there OR/RS spats will be irrelevant as we will not be trying to pin things down to such a narrow term. We will also concentrate the information in places where it is more likely to be found by the reader and we will avoid duplication of data. Sophia 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jakew 11:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this matter, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Couldn't this also be interpreted as good reason to create a section on Circumcision that references this article as the main article on this topic? Al 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It could but for such a well established subject normal information flow would have it work the other way - a subject will swell and need to be sectioned off. To go the other way does stray into the murky world of OR. Sophia 11:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please merge. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 16:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a reasonable argument. There's no reason to suppose in advance that a section on circumcision advocacy in the circumcision article deserves to be broken out. I support integrating it, then doing the stub/fork thing if science necessitates it. Not sure it'll solve the current OR/RS problem, though. Al 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that the article should be merged with the general article on circumcision. This, hopefully, will stop valuable information from being edited out on some flimsy ground. Michael Glass 14:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify, Michael: do you mean that it should only be merged with circumcision and not history of circumcision, or are you happy with whichever is appropriate for given information? Jakew 14:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the tags are on so we should allow a day or two before we start moving stuff over to the other articles but it would be helpful if everyone could read through this and decide where they think everything important should go. Sophia 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge yet -- 90% of the work done on all of the circumcision articles (history, medical, etc.) has been done on the parent article, Circumcision. I would prefer to wait until that has been gone through at least once, and then spin off/merge/whatever. -- Avi 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Some content could be usefully merged into history of circumcision, but I honestly can't see anything that would enhance circumcision. Perhaps it's time to renominate this for AfD? Jakew 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Text Jakew keeps removing

I just finished reading the text Jakew deletes, and found it interesting, well written, and pertinent. What problems do you have with that text Jakew?TipPt 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did not originally delete this text, but I support its deletion. The reasons are discussed above, so rather than repeating it, why don't you read what has already been discussed? Jakew 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Important text that must not be lost in any move

The following text is important to keep. The paragraphs could go in the History of Circumcision (history) or in the general article (general) but they should not be lost. In the case of the circumcision rates, the material should be transferred to the general article except for where it duplicates material already there.

The 1st century Jewish author Philo Judaeus[35] defended Jewish circumcision on several grounds, including health, cleanliness, fertility and as a symbol of "the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure" [36] Maimonides argued that circumcision was instituted for moral reasons, 'for perfecting what is defective morally' [37] See also "Circumcision: A Jewish Inquiry," Midstream 38 (January 1992) pages 20-23 [38]. (history)

Some circumcision supporters have expressed a preference for the look of a circumcised penis [39]. One stated "Improved appearance and sexual appeal" as an advantage of circumcision [40]. Another said, "circumcision is a beautification comparable to rhinoplasty, and a circumcised penis appears in its flaccid state as an erect uncircumcised organ - a beautiful instrument of precise intent." [41]. Another stated, 'While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect." [42]. One Nineteenth Century surgeon said. "Those cases in which the glans presents a moist, semi-oily appearance, with papillae strikingly developed about the corona, long thickened foreskin, pliant and giving, large and often tortuous dorsal veins, go to make up a picture that is exceedingly tempting to the surgeon’s scissors." Dr Edgar Spratling, 1895, "Masturbation in the Adult", The Medical Record, 48:442-43 [43]. (general)

== Money ==

Some obstetricians have been accused of using circumcision as a quick and easy way of making money [44]. Medicaid funding for infant circumcision used to be universal in the United States. However, 6 states had abolished the subsidy by 2000 and by mid-August 2005, 16 of the 50 states had abolished Medicaid funding for circumcision [45], something that anti-circumcision campaigners have documented [46]. When the Medicaid funding subsidy for circumcision was abolished in North Carolina it was noted that some doctors and medical lobbyists resisted this, giving a variety of reasons, It was also noted that they stood to lose money from the subsidy cut. [47] There is a report of a Hong Kong hospital setting a fixed price for circumcisions as a way of attracting patients during an economic downturn [48]. In 2004, There are reports of health insurance fraud involving circumcisions by Paul Rubin in the Phoenix New Times, 24 April 2003 and 1 January 2004 and by Christopher Snowbeck in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 26 March 2005 [49]. Meanwhile, New Mexico legislated mandatory insurance coverage for male circumcision in 2004 [50]. (general)

A Missouri study [51] found no significant difference between uninsured and privately insured patients in regard to newborn circumcision., The study was done in the years 1997-2001, before Missouri abolished the Medicaid subsidy for newborn circumcision (2002) [52]. (general)

== Changes in circumcision rates==

While neonatal in-hospital circumcision rates in the U.S. were 64.3% in 1979 and 65.3% in 1999,[53] significant changes took place. Circumcision rates amongst Blacks rose to equal the rates amongst Whites and the circumcision rate in the Western states declined sharply. The National Center for Health Statistics attributes this partly to an increased birth rate amongst Hispanics in this region. [54] A recent study, however, using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, concluded that: "There was a significant increase in the rate of newborn circumcision between 1988 and 2000. The increase may be related to increased recognition of the potential medical benefits of circumcision. However, the increase may also result in a higher incidence of surgical complications of circumcision.[55]

In the United Kingdom circumcision rates have steadily declined since the 1930's, and non-therapeutic circumcision is now rare [56]. Circumcision is declining in Canada [57] and has declined from 95% in the 1940s to less than 1% (as of 1995) in New Zealand [58]. The circumcision rate in Australia rose slightly from 10.7% in 1996 to 12.7% in 2004 [59].

It is hard to determine how much these changes were due to lobbying for or against circumcision or to other causes. In North Carolina in 2002, opponents of circumcision urged the abolition of the Medicaid subsidy for circumcisions while some obstetricians and gynecologists lobbied hard for the retention of the subsidy. Nevertheless, the effect of immigration of people from non-circumcising cultures was also noted [60] . (Merge with the general article except for the parts which duplicate existing material.)

The pretext for removing this material was that it was not relevant to circumcision advocacy. When the material is merged that will no longer be the case. Michael Glass 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. I hope one of tthe benefits of this merge will be that problems of relevancy will go away as these quotes are obviously either about circumcision or the history of that subject. Sophia 07:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Some editing will be needed, and it's probably best to make decisions about where text belongs (if it belongs anywhere) on a case-by-case basis. In particular, we need to edit paragraphs such that the focus is the new article's topic, assess whether the information is relevant and notable in the new context and indeed whether it actually benefits the article, and ensure that it conforms to policy.

I suggest making the focus improving the articles rather than preserving text. Jakew 09:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all gone quiet here. I'm not an expert on this subject but if no one else does the merge soon I'll do it myself - you have been warned! Sophia 15:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of us are involved in that RfM, and therefore asked to limit our participation in these articles in the meantime. Al 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course - I'd forgotten I'd seen notices about that. I'll leave things be until it's all settled then as it will need everyone's agreement to wind up this article. I was just aware that I'd set the tags and then wandered off to other things and needed to check back to help if necessary. Sophia 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The time seems to be right to now merge this article so I shall start reading through and moving stuff to where I think best. I will admit to not being an expert in this area and have only suggested this merge due to the lack of supporting evidence from the on-line searches I have done. So if I mess up please be nice to me and I will have no problem if others disagree and put the info in what they consider more suitable places. Sophia 12:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)