Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Linking to Whose Body

The nature of the link to "Whose body? Whose rights?" seems rather dubious to me. A bittorrent source and xvid codec are typical means for sharing pirated movies. Does anyone know whether this is legitimate? - Jakew 12:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BitTorrent is the least expensive way to distribute "¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights?". ¿Can you find a cheaper way? It was either BitTorrent or charge people for downloads. As for XviD, until one finalized the Theora-codec of Application/Ogg, XviD gives the best compromise between filesize and quality.
If this works out (and it seems to workout), we shall offer a lower quality version in MPEG#1 with a filesize between 500/600-mb so people can burn VCDs which can play in any DVD-player or computer.
--
Ŭalabio 01:11, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

According to this site, "Whose body? Whose rights?" is a copyrighted work (Copyright 1995, Dillonwood Productions), and is available for a fee. In this day and age, instructing people to violate copyright law is itself illegal, and keeping the paragraph would put Wiki at risk. In the US, certain breaches of copyright law are now criminal offenses under the DMCA. Consequently, I've reverted. -Jakew 01:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the guy who offered ¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights?. I got this response:

	From:	kristof
	Subject:	Re: ¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights?
	Date:	December 27, 2004 14:48:08 GMT
	To:	Ŭalabio

	

	Considering this whole issue about copyrights, I will now declare that I
thought this video was NOT for sale any more, which was the reason I was glad to
get a copy online, and which was the reason why I put up the torrent on my
webspace. I now want to appologize to the author for downloading an illegal copy
of his video. The torrent has of course been removed from my webspace, and I
have removed the file from my hard disk as well. I did watch the video one time,
and it only made me realize once more what's lost and why I should restore. So I
just hope the author understands this was a case of ignorance and not an attempt
to steal the nice work he did on this movie.

	Kristof

It seems that you are right. I would like to analyze your response not because anything is wrong with it but because it shows something is wrong with the system:

Jakew, 2004-26T01:47 (UTC):

According to this site, "Whose body? Whose rights?" is a copyrighted work (Copyright 1995, Dillonwood Productions), and is available for a fee.

This establishes context.

In this day and age, instructing people to violate copyright law is itself illegal, and keeping the paragraph would put Wiki at risk.

¡It is a terrible law which threatens the foundation WikiMedia.Org!

In the US, certain breaches of copyright law are now criminal offenses under the DMCA.

¡This is just plain wrong (morally, not factually)! Copyrightviolation should be only a tort where the violator pays damages equal to the loss of income.

Consequently, I've reverted.

As well you should. Now that I have the complete picture, I have no objections.

--

Jakew 01:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is evidence that the United States of America is a fascistic state. WikiMedia.Org should get out of the country while it still can. In the United States of America, it is illegal to save orphaned works by copying them off their deteriorating media. If I had my way, it would be fair use to copy works no longer in print, orphaned works would automatically inter the public domain, software and businessmethods would be unpatentable, and copyright would last only 14 years.

We do not see eye to eye, but I shall give you some free advice which just might save your country from becoming a dictatorship:

Demand that your voting machine use only open source for software and hardware (with open bidding on the manufactures so that multiple companies should make the voting machines), and demand a voterverifiable papertrail.

--

Ŭalabio 05:08, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable

I am deleting the following:

1) "anti-circumcision" is against the loaded words policy (see use of anti/pro prefixes).

2) "kooks" / "zealots" is inherently pejoritive and against the Wikipedia:Words to avoid as they are invariably intended to offend. I have never heard kook/zealot used positively or neutrally, but I could be wrong. There is no reason to degrade Wikipedia into name-calling just because we disagree on the topic at hand, but obviously such name calling works both ways.

I have no problem with including any criticism and linking to it, but there terms are not objective or warranted within the article itself as I understand NPOV philosophy. DanP 20:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To both Roberts, what is the disagreement here? We should follow Wikipedia's rules. DanP 18:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dan, we cannot change the title of an article, book, paper, or whatever, just because you don't happen to like it. Facts are not negotiable. Maybe you should lobby the authors of these pages to change their titles - then we can change the link titles. - Jakew 19:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True. But if the article specifically is pejorative, then referencing it with the same pejoratives is in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Otherwise, what should we do? Next we should reference criticism of circumcision by refering to web articles similarly titled by pejorative? Are you OK with that? DanP 21:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Referencing an article by it's title is acceptable. However, we should refrain from using perjorative terms in our own text. - Jakew 23:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-circumcision kooks

I reluctantly agree that it's normal to refer to an article by its title, however inflammatory. On the other hand, an article with an inflammatory title is not likely to be particularly persuasive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know about that Tony, it seems pretty much on the button. You think these extremists are sane then? - Robert the Bruce 16:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the term genital integrity so this article is my only source of information. I take the definition given in the first paragraph:

Genital integrity is a term that describes the principle that all human beings, males and females, should not involuntarily be subjected to medically unnecessary genital modification and mutilation, including male or female circumcision, or sexual reassignment-surgery , which includes intersexual children. Genital integrity is usually neutral with regard to voluntary procedures performed on consenting adults.
(emphasis is mine)

To me this sounds like an eminently sane proposition, indeed one that I should expect is supported by the vast majority of all people. Even if it were not, it is certainly a well formed and defensible stance and one consistent with principles of personal privacy, minimum surgical modification without consent and so on, which enjoy wide support. Finally, even if the so-called "genital integrity" position were not defensible as sane, the use of the word "kooks" would still be inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To my mind, if a person were to state that objection by itself, it would not be wholly unreasonable (even if it is a position that I disagree with). However, the objection that many people have is to additional ideas stated by (some of) these people. Examples include:
  • The Lexus-driving doctor conspiracy theory. This states that doctors and medical associations (including the AAP) conspire to promote circumcision, in order to fund their Lexus-driving lifestyles. It further states that doctors deliberately write fraudulent papers and fudge results in order to promote the practice.
  • The loss of sensitivity theory. This states that when circumcised, the sensitivity of the glans decreases over time. It is based on nothing more than the anecdotal reports of a number of men who happen to be circumcised (no comparison with controls or anything logical like that). It ignores the fact that all organs deteriorate through aging. When confronted with the scientific evidence[1][2][3] most of these people object strenuously, and some resort to amusing conspiracy theories. Herein lies the problem: these people are not interested in science or learning; they are interested in their agenda.
  • Examples can be found in Talk:Foreskin of deliberate attempts to deceive people in the medical literature.

I could go on... - Jakew 21:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you could. But none of these points relates to genital integrity as it is defined, which is simply a matter of avoiding conducting surgery on a person who cannot give his consent, where that surgery is not dictated by medical needs of the patient.

That is a very unkooky idea indeed.

I'd be quite happy to keep the citations in for now, weird titles and all, because I think they are self-discrediting. But they are not of very good quality and the descriptions are not much use. In particular the link titled "Anti-Circumcision Kooks" is utterly incoherent. I cannot make head or tail of it. It seems to have nothing to do with arguments against genital modification and everything to do with a chap who, from the quotes, appears to have a very bizarre obsession with do-it-yourself genital modification of some kind. A more descriptive title in the link might make it clearer who this chap is and why the link is considered to be a critique of genital integrity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Genital Integrity" appears to be a sugar-coated name that these people have created for themselves, not unlike "pro-life" really just means "anti-abortion". It is carefully crafted to appear thoroughly reasonable, and superficially the ideas expressed in this article are not unreasonable. However, that is not the real purpose of these people: that is to do absolutely anything to stop circumcision. Lip service is given to prevention of female circumcision, but it is unlikely that many of these people give a damn about that. Don't be fooled. - Jakew 21:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jake, what is unreasonable about ending medically unnecessary genital surgery on children? -- DanBlackham 22:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DanB, saying "I think that circumcision should be stopped because it is unnecessary" is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is creating deceptive web-sites, materials, and even papers. What is unreasonable is deliberately acting to conceal the truth about the procedure. What is unreasonable is creating bizarre and borderline insane conspiracy theories every time their theories are challenged. That is what I object to. - Jakew 22:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To those who value their freedom, what DanB says is actually unreasonable IF IT'S SAID TO RESTRICT a man's choice (which technically it does in the extreme interpretation, but I doubt his sentence meant that way). However, it is perfectly reasonable for DanB to say that pertaining to cases when it takes our choice away. Logically, you have to either agree with DanB's words, at least in the context they're given, or be promoting tyrrany in Wikipedia with advocacy of mutilation. Am I missing any alternative viewpoint? If you bothered to notice at all, my initial developments of the circumcision advocacy article had hardly any criticism - I try to extend the olive branch. Instead, what do I get? Foreskin restoration - trashed. DanP 23:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem, and it is my personal opinion only, with DanB's statement is that it excludes beneficial but not strictly necessary procedures. You might be okay with that, but I am not. Either way, our private opinions should not influence Wiki's articles. We should stick to the facts and private differences should make no difference. - Jakew 23:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. But private differences are a fact. Human variability and free will do not vanish at your command. Are you going to add "removal of the external ear has benefits" to the ear article or shall I? For any organ of anatomy, yours is not a very scientific view any more than environmental sciences saying genocide has food supply benefits. Such measurement systems are outdated. Your POV is that the benefits apply even if the mutilation is totally involuntary. My POV is that those are no longer benefits when a circumcised condition is undesirable, or when such benefits are potential, not actual. Loaded words seems to linger here. It may be intended as "benefit" by your side, but that is not the same as the definition of the word itself. Do I benefit if I lose at roulette? Do I benefit if I'm forced to play? Can such a word be applied even before I start playing? Or before I am born? Strange indeed that facts on your side are so amorphous. This should be "potential benefit" in the article, with clear respect for choices, instead of just our side being censored. DanP 00:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't really make sense of what either of you is saying. I only asked what the odd article at "Anti-circumcision kooks" had to do with critiquing the concept of genital integrity as defined in the opening paragraph.

Now Jake, you might say that the concept of genital integrity has been made up to sugar coat some other (unspecified) concept, but to me it seems to be perfectly defensible to state that any form of non-therapeutic surgical intervention should be performed only with clear consent. While this is at odds with the expectations of some religions, the medical profession is not, nor should it be, beholden to any religion. In common law such an operation is classed as an assault and a legally defensible excuse must be given for it. A society's determination of what constitutes a valid excuse for this operation will tend to vary over time, and (as with abortion) individual opinions will vary greatly within a society. I'm no opponent of circumcision where it is medically indicated in the view of a competent physician, but at present this is often not the criterion by which circumcision is carried out, and I think that opposition to religious or social circumcision is consistent with my views, although I don't in fact have an objection to circumcision provided it is performed in such a manner as to ensure it will have no medical ill effects. So I'm broadly sympathetic to the concept of genital integrity, without being an adherent. I could easily see myself changing my mind and opposing, say, Jewish circumcision if it is carried out without pain relief, and as the possessor of a prepuce I don't really understand why people should be eager to remove the prepuce of their male children. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As has been discussed above, it is appropriate to include these links, no matter how much you may dislike their titles. I've reverted their removal. - Jakew 00:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like you to address my legitimate question about the content of "Kooks" link. I will not remove any links for now, but I do need to be happy that they are appropriate. In what way is the "kooks" link a critique of the concept of genital integrity? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Social problems?

Jake, you've now claimed that there are social problems implicated in possession of a prepuce. I find this difficult to fathom, living in a society where the norm for males, by a very wide margin, is to possess a prepuce. In what way am I socially disadvantaged? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Social problems tend to depend upon the society in question. Among certain Native American tribes, munching on the hallucinogenic peyote cactus is the norm, but this would be problematic in many Western societies. I put it to you that because you live in a society in with most males are uncircumcised, the social problems do not occur. However, if you were to be transplanted into a society in which circumcision was the norm or even expected, the social problems would become more apparent. -Jakew 16:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm walking down the street in your home town. How does anybody know I am not circumcised? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My home town is probably not a good example, because I live in England. Instead, let's say you go to the gym in a Turkish town (where circumcision rates are more than 98%). You change, and other gym members can see that you're not circumcised. This carries a certain social stigma, and while perhaps not ostracised, people feel uncomfortable about it, perhaps putting some distance between you and them. - Jakew 18:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have serious doubts that this is an actual phenomenon in "gym members" environment. But I am heterosexual, so perhaps I don't see the whole picture here. I never notice "social" stigma directed at intact males, even in 98%+ male-circumcised areas. In any case, you should quote some sources before speculating on this. DanP 19:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Paragraph deleted now, but for future reference, here is a source [4] - Jakew 20:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
that reference only says fears of ostracism are a reason parents give to circumcise, not that ostracism occurs. --Hugh7 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about false statement

Some believe that parents also have a right to act in the interests of the child as they see it, as a preventive against possible health and social problems with which the prepuce is implicated.

Why was this added exactly? Genital integrity is for intactness of minors, whereas this is saying the opposite. DanP 19:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't added so much as edited. The original form read: "Some parents also assert a right to act in the interests of the child as they see it, as a preventive against possible infections with which the prepuce is implicated." I'd point out that the paragraph is about those opposing "genital integrity", so in the context it is valid. Perhaps we should remove the whole paragraph. What do you think? - Jakew 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure. Deleting has my vote. This article is about genital integrity, not opponents of it. DanP 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having read Jake's explanation, I think it makes sense (considerations of social pressure could play a part in a parent's decision). I don't mind if it's in or out, it's something that can be conjectured by the reader easily enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-circumcision

Can we agree on a "short" and "long" neutral version of the following:

Genital integrity advocates are sometimes called "anti-circumcision activists", though some of them find this objectionable because they feel (?).

We need a short version too for inclusion as a brief explanation in other articles, so as to avoid causing confusion. -Jakew 00:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's wrong to say that a person who advocates genital integrity is an anti-circumcision activist. For instance, one can support genital integrity without ever opposing circumcision as a medical procedure. If there is ever a reference to a genital integrity advocate, who is not anti-circumcision activist, being wrongly described in public, then that should be specifically and individually addressed. If it's a common enough error that it needs to be mentioned a lot then presumably there will be no shortage of specific cases and the context will determine which particular wording is used. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a mainly American (and British) context, anti-circumcision is probably a synonym. But obviously one could argue that for Intenet context, it can have connotations of bias against circumcised men (a totally different meaning!). Or, to some in Africa, it could mean opposition to female circumcision, but not male. We should respect the flavors of interpretation here. I propose "genital integrity activists, who oppose infant circumcisions", if it's male infants being referenced. Otherwise, change it accordingly. DanP 01:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can live with that as a short version for inclusion in articles, but I think we should incorporate a longer version into this article (not huge, just a sentence or two to explain). My feeling is that if you are unhappy about being called anti-circ activists, that's fair enough (it still seems odd to me in spite of Tony's comment, but...), but surely you don't mind the (true) comment that other people sometimes refer to you as anti-circ activists? You could use it as an opportunity to say why that is inappropriate. - Jakew 01:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I still propose we merge anti-circumcision into this article at this point. Even if totally appropriate, the loaded words take on the anti prefix is somewhat prohibitive. It's not a problem in your typical American jargon. It's mainly a problem when you write articles (meant to leave out ambiguity) on circumcision and some looking-for-trouble reader thinks your talking about bias against circumcised men, or adult circumcision, or specifically about females in Nigeria, or whatever else they imagine besides RIC. By context alone, if "anti-circumcision" were used in an article entitled "Infant male circumcision by the medical profession", I have no personal objection to anti-circ terminology used they way you intend it. But outside that context, there are more connotations. So in a strict sense, if you want to make anti-circumcision apply only to those particular persons, then the defintion of circumcision must change accordingly. By that no-so-rational change, an adult could never undergo circumcision because the word only applies to male infants. You have never proposed such a change in Wikipedia. Make sense now??? DanP 08:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of the loaded words policy is incorrect in this respect. Remember that we are not using the term directly per se, but discussing the fact that some people use the term. If we word it properly, there should be no need to worry about readers confusing the meaning (we could say something like "Some people call genital integrity advocates 'anti-circumcision activists', meaning that they campaign against circumcision of boys and/or men. However, some genital integrity advocates find this term objectionable, because....." - note that I included men because I have come across a few extremists - a small minority - who oppose adult circumcision on the peculiar grounds that men circ'd as adults might want to advocate infant circ).
What do you want to do? Should we launch an RfC to find out the community's assessment of the loaded word's policy's applicability? - Jakew 22:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For consistency, let's also ask in the same RfC if parents and doctors who strongly advocate circumcision can be labelled "pro-circumcision activists" in our various articles. I also propose an RfC to change initial use of the term circumcision to "The practice of circumcision, which some believe is a bodily mutilation when done to infants,..." in each an every article we use it in. That way objections with regard to genital integrity activists will seem clearer. Seem fair enough? Let me know your thoughts. DanP 11:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should be consistent. Let's apply the same criteria used for labelling anti-circ activists: they can be labelled as such if they a) are a member of a pro-circumcision activist group (such as the notorious YESCIRC, YESHARM, ABNORM, or the International Centre for Genital Mutilation), or b) have ever presented or attended one of the conferences or symposia organised by such groups. I think that's fair, don't you?
Secondly, while it's ok to mention fringe opinion in articles, doing so everywhere is overkill and harms the articles. But let me know once you've ensured that every reference to 'money' in Wiki says "Money, which some believe is an oppressive tool of the imperialist pig-dogs, ..." - Jakew 12:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is noted. Thanks for having a sense of humor. Seriously, the criteria you mentioned might also be applied to pro-mutilation doctors who attend American obstetric conventions. Your point about money -- a worldwide tool of commerce -- is hardly the same as a mainly gender-targeted child mutilation which plenty of folks object to outside whatever fringe you're imagining here (choosing no infant circumcision of either gender just as 85%+ of the world does is now fringe I guess?). In any case, I am fine with fewer rather than more numerous opinionated modifiers on any of this. Mere membership, presenting at or attending a conference, in itself lacks the "action" element and should not automatically qualify as political activism rather than merely support. If you want to say "genital integrity supporter" or "male circumcision opponent" that is more accurate, but some articles are starting to sound redundant and warped with the repetition. There is obviously more than one descriptive level on each side of this. We need not label every pro-circumcision article "a biased article shamelessly promoting childhood sexual mutilation". Any thoughts? DanP 15:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Circumcision Kooks 2

I still haven't got a reply from Jake about the link titled Anti-circumcision Kooks. Now someone else removed it but he then restored it.

Jake, could you answer my query about this link?

I would like you to address my legitimate question about the content of "Kooks" link. I will not remove any links for now, but I do need to be happy that they are appropriate. In what way is the "kooks" link a critique of the concept of genital integrity?

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Genital Integrity / anti-circumcision organisations

The links in the section Criticism of Genital Integrity / anti-circumcision organisations are full of false and misleading information. For example the following statement from Anti-Circumcision Groups [5] is totally false! "Deceptively, the name of one of these organizations, 'Doctors Opposing Circumcision', conveys an impression of authority, but in reality membership of this group includes only ONE doctor!" -- DanBlackham 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I think you're right. For instance, the organization lists as its staff two MDs: Denniston and Reiss, as President and Veep. You may like to note that in an edit, unless there is reason to doubt that the organization's claims that these two are MDs and members are true. The piece should also be correctly described as a personal opinion piece (it would be nice if we could find who the author is). Example:
In Australia, the president of the local branch of NOCIRC is a Sydney pediatrician, George Williams. I have debated him before medical audiences on two occasions and have found no substance to anything he has had to say. He and I were invited to a be interviewed live on Australia’s major mid-morning TV show in 2004, but he pulled out at the last minute, so a replacement had to be found to argue the ‘anti’ position. The fill-in was a doctor who is a regular medical commentator on TV. Despite this, his arguments lacked substance, compared with the case I presented based on medical scientific evidence.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Denniston is the founder of DOC. Their most vocal member, and Executive Secretary, George Hill is mysteriously not a doctor (he's a retired airline pilot). Denniston is an MD, though I don't know about Reiss.
Criticism of anything is inherently opinion. There is no need to explicitly say so.
The author of the page is Professor Brian Morris, of the University of Sydney's Faculty of Medical Sciences. - Jakew 15:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well they claim that Reiss is an MD on the web page, and I guess Denniston knows whether or not his Veep is a MD. They have no membership stats but I wouldn't be that surprised if they have one or two members and that some of them are also MDs. In Australia, for instance, ABC quotes circumcision rates as having plunged from 90% to 15% in a single generation, and this is mainly due to doctors refusing to do routine neo-natal circumcision. Dan B's criticism of the factual claim seems to be valid.

On the nature of criticism I disagree. "I have found no substance in anything he had to say" really isn't much good because it doesn't tell you or me anything except that the anonymous writer has a low opinion of whatever it is George Williams said to him. Now I'm in no way saying that this shouldn't be listed, but I am saying that it doesn't do a good job of criticising the genital integrity point of view--I'm sure I could mount a much more effective criticism just off the top of my head by giving specific references to the main tenets of genital integrity and exploring their pitfalls. Equally, I'm sure you can find far better references than that or than I could write (what I would write must in any case be disqualified as original research). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Anonymous writer"? Did you read my comment at all? Anyway, I shall mention these criticisms to Professor Morris. As far as writing criticisms goes, feel free to email them to me, and I shall publish them on the web. The page can thus be cited without original research (it is, after all, perfectly legitimate to comment on research that one has performed elsewhere). ;-) - Jakew 17:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to mention these criticisms to anybody you like. The piece is anonymous. Are you really claiming that the author is Professor Morris? Then you could certainly ask him to put his name somewhere in the article. I don't normally criticise layout, but this is a Wikipedia external reference to a rant whose first paragraph must be over five-hundred words. Another paragraph, containing, amongst other things, an extraordinarily defamatory attack on the science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke, must be around one thousand words long. A brief search on the net shows that the Sri Lanka police investigated allegations and cleared Arthur C. Clarke. The report was carried in a British tabloid newspaper.
Yes, you could quote my comments if I popped them on a website, but they'd still be original research. We should try to find sources that can be characterised as something other than "the opinion of Random J Bozo" because such sources are only useful in determining the opinion of a random bozo (such as yours truly), or a chap who sets out to discredit a prominent author using tabloid newspaper allegations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the author is Professor Morris. I know this because it is his website. See here. And it would be original research, but Wiki would not be the publisher of that research; rather, we would be citing external original research (which is allowed and encouraged). And I can't help but notice that you've just made a personal attack against yourself. Tut tut ;-) - Jakew 18:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have already mentioned this under circumcision advocacy (CA). Genital integrity (GI) in the context, where criticised, refers to persons or groups. I quote Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. It is not usually necessary to also describe opposing views I propose that these "criticism" sections and their links be move to their respective articles. Although they are not polar opposites, with regard to criticism they seem to be. So I'd like criticism of GI moved to CA, and criticism of CA moved to GI. Any objections? DanP 18:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I object. It's a crazy idea. It may not be necessary to include opposing views, but it surely makes for a more neutral, informative article. Views and criticisms should stay together for readability. - Jakew 19:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong to have criticism of ideas presented. However these ones aren't really very good. They're rubbish and frankly make the anti-genital integrity people look like a bunch of idiots--which I'm sure is not what Jake intends. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Robert Blair, I've reverted your recent edit. Why?

  • 1989 AAP: "authored primarily" is incorrect. Schoen was the chair of that committee, but there were many members.
  • 1989 AAP: " improperly cited a methodologically flawed" is incredibly POV.
  • 1989 AAP: "(meaning benefits that exist in possibility but not in actuality)." is not only POV but wrong. "Potential benefits" has a similar meaning to "potential complications" - that they could occur (and will, statistically), but aren't guaranteed to benefit a given individual.
  • 1989 AAP: "Although this statement carefully avoided recommending circumcision," Carefully avoided? POV.
  • 1989 AAP: "it was an embarrassment to the AAP" very POV.
  • You have censored relevant links.

I can't even edit junk like this inclusion. Reverted. - Jakew 22:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Schoen showed up at the meeting with the statement already written.

If you read the statement, you will see that the methodological flaws were acknowledeged but he still used it as though it was a perfect study. This is improper.

If you will read the 1989 AAP statement you will not find an actual recommendation for the operation.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1989

That is factual not POV, and anyway this is about genital integrity, not about circumcision. Remember that.

Robert Blair 23:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Firstly, do you have a source for Schoen having used the committee as a "rubber stamp"?
Secondly, it is correct that the '89 statement does not recommend the operation. Why not replace "carefully avoided", which sounds almost like an accusation, with "did not" - "did not recommend circumcision". That's NPOV.
I know this is about genital integrity, but it is not advertising space for these groups. It is important to remain neutral. - Jakew 02:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I'm sure it would be possible for you to edit to include factual information and exclude non-fact, instead of reverting something just because you disagree with the way it is presented. It isn't that hard. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would edit, Tony, as I indicated by saying "I can't even edit...". here, for example, I took some POV edits that were bad but had some usable content and rescued them. However, there are situations where an edit is so awful that you simply can't do anything with it. As in this example, where there might be perhaps one or two salvageable words left after excising the POV pushing. Have a look, perhaps you'll see what I mean. - Jakew 22:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The AAP issued yet another statement in 1989, authored primarily by Edgar J. Schoen, M.D., which improperly cited a methodologically flawed report on urinary tract infection to argue that neonatal circumcision has "potential benefits" (meaning benefits that exist in possibility but not in actuality). Although this statement carefully avoided recommending circumcision, it was an embarrassment to the AAP, and it set back the genital integrity movement.

  • In 1989, the AAP issued an addendum to its 1975 statement [6]. The committe was headed by Schoen. Citing "new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome", the AAP stated that male circumcision of newborns "has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."

Leave whoever wants to do so to fill in on the organisations that may have criticised this AAP policy statement and on what grounds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I admire your patience, Tony. I have two points about the resulting paragraph:
  • Change "an addendum" to "an update". It's a new document.
  • What on earth does the revised version have to do with anti-circumcision (or to use the euphemistic term, "genital integrity")? And if it has nothing to do with anti-circumcision, why on earth is it included at all?

- Jakew 23:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I took the word Addendum from the AAP document which I had open at the time. A change of AAP policy would of course have an impact on the genital integrity movement's perception of its success. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Realistically, they're probably feeling rather hopeless, due to the unchanged circumcision rates over the past 20 years (fig 1), and the number of studies revealing medical benefits of circumcision. I doubt you would argue that we include those too. - Jakew 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! Why on earth not? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the distinct impression that I am the only person wanting to decrease the amount of redundancy at Wikipedia... - Jakew 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. But what use would be an article about genital integrity without some kind of indication of how successful the movement has been so far? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that our activist friends will permit such a thing (they usually like to give the impression that rates are dropping like a stone, presumably in hopes of influencing sheep-like people), but I've no objection to such an inclusion myself. - Jakew 02:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If what you write is factual what can they object to? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify: do you mean literally "what can they object to", or do you mean "what can they reasonably object to"? Please see history of, for example, Male circumcision or Medical analysis of circumcision for details of what I'm talking about. - Jakew 02:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with unreasonable objections--ignore them. Only the reasonable objections--ones that can be explained and understood by other people not closely involved--matter. If you find that people are still objecting to additions that you think are reasonable, there are several good ways to get more reasonable people to visit the article and add their thoughts to the discussion.

This is what I find so frustrating about the ways in which things seem to be conducted on the circumcision-related threads. It's as if the participants were determined to drive away reasonable people with their edit warring and wild accusations. Small wonder that some editors end up wondering why their reasonable edits are being rejected by a small number of people whose determination to ensure that their strongly held point of view is represented outweighs the repelling effect of the shenanigans. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1989 AAP and others

Robert Blair, in two edits ("add history and websites." and "more additions to history section."), you've actually replaced the NPOV version agreed here with your own POV version, with no explanation and no note in the edit summary. If you object to the NPOV version, could you please explain why? You have not responded to my list of objections above... I wish you would discuss these things.

I've also added some notes about interpretation, to avoid slanting the discussion. I've also removed the statement about the Canadians rejecting Schoen - to my knowledge, Schoen wasn't even approached.

The paragraph beginning "The genital integrity movement entered the 21st century stronger than ever, and continues to grow in strength." is ludicrously POV, and reads more like an advertisement than a scholarly article. I've done my best with it, but it should really be removed. I've removed the second sentence ("The percentage of boys and girls whose genital integrity has been protected continues to increase. ") because it does not appear to be true.

I've also added a comment about the effectiveness of the mgmbill.org site. ("To date, the bill has not been accepted or endorsed by any politician.") - Jakew 15:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I tend to agree with you on all but your point on "The percentage of boys and girls whose genital integrity has been protected continues to increase. ". Protection, as handled by legislative and judicial bodies, is not identical to intactness -- they are pretty much semantically independent. One can be circumcised, and later recieve legal protections (perhaps viewed by some as having less utility at that point). Alternatively, one can have legal protection, and still be mutilated regardless. Unless percentages are substantially impacted by global migrations, it's fair to say legal protections have not decreased in any regions (do you know of any?). Whereas in some, they can be said to have increased (no matter the limited effectiveness). I do not see any problem with the sentence with regard to children. DanP 19:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jakew:

If you read the CPS 1996 statement, you will see that they cited Poland, but they did not cite Schoen. This is accepting Poland, but rejecting Schoen. They did not have to approach him. He had already published but they ignored it. The citation is:

Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(18):1308-12.

There are more ways to protect children than by legislative action. Parents protect children by refusing to sign consent forms for circumcision.

Robert Blair 22:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of wording etc.

I have done some editing to clarify the wording at several points, to add a little extra information and to qualify the use of the word 'intactivism'. The purpose of this was not to push any barrow except that of clear writing. I saw no reason to cloak the obvious conflict between circumcision advocates and the genital integrity movement in obscure wording. It is a fact that I think we can all agree on, whatever our opinions.

I think the main addition I made was to say that there is a widespread movement in Africa to abolish the practice of female gential mutilation. I have not documented this fact, but will do so a little later.

I think the main reorganisation was to group most of the material on female genital mutilation under one heading.

I hope that this will be a positive contribution to the article. Michael Glass 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ribbon image concern

The caption for the ribbon image states: "(Image courtesy of NoHarmm.Org and used with permission)". However, all images in Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. This means, among other things, that we can freely edit and/or reuse the image elsewhere. Can someone confirm that NOHARMM have granted permission for the image to be licensed under the GFDL? If not, we have to remove it. - Jakew 14:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With permission is okay. The article woman has two pictures with permission.

--

— Ŭalabio 08:02, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Accusation of anti-semitism & islamophobia

Previous articles on wikipedia which have since been deleted included a large number of citation about concern about media bias in favour of circumcision and against the Genital Integrity movement. In particulair the fear that academic and media organization have of being labelled as anti-semitic etc. if they seem to endorse Genital Integrity. Do you think that some of this should be included in this article? Sirkumsize 04:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted sentence and proper noun usage

The following sentence was deleted:

  • A minority of genital integrity supporters do advocate voluntary adult circumcisions.

I don't believe this is contradictory. Genital integrity is a principle usually applying to children and is not synonymous with intact. It does imply the genital's owner gets to choose. This perspective is common in some places like Africa, where puberty/adult circumcision is sometimes valued, but involuntary circumcision is not. (see for instance [7]) My point here was not to emphasize their support of adult circumcision is a form of genital integrity (one might try to make such an argument though), but rather my point was to highlight that they are entirely compatible and there are self-admitted pro-circ individuals who clearly fit into this category.

With regard to Intactivism, I am OK with it capitalized or in quotes when introduced in the article. But really, run a Google search for "lactivist" (breast feeding activists) and that word is rarely automatically capitalized as a proper noun in any articles. But genital integrity, I am thinking now should definitely not be capital, as the words are real words, we are not referring to a proper thing (the Association for Genital Integrity, etc.), and we never automatically capitalize political constructs (pro-choice, pro-life) when they are mentioned in a non-organizational context. DanP 13:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that other people cannot use English properly is no excuse, Dan. We should strive for excellence.
As for Genital Integrity, it ought to be capitalised, like Green politics. Lowercased, genital integrity has a different meaning (literally, integrity of the genitals). It is not a philosophy, nor a movement, just an attribute. It cannot hold opinions. Genital Integrity, on the other hand, is very different, and is what the article is about. - Jakew 17:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But Green is properly the name of the party, whereas one could say a "green party" (lower cased) if it's meant to carry a meaning of the same principle and not the organization itself. Remember, communist and socialist are not capitalized unless one refers to a unique and specific organization who labels themselves by that term. Also, one would not say a "Green thumb" or a "Green public policy"(capitalized) unless one were speaking strictly of the political party and not a concept. If you refer to the article on capitalization, these things would have to be proper nouns in the first place. They are not, because they do not indicate unique entities. It is valid to say "pro-lifer" or even "spammer" (despite Spam being a trademark) using entirely lower case. If you're saying genital integrity is a proper noun, I don't feel thats defensible unless you're refering to some entity (the "Genital Integrity Association",etc.). DanP 12:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dan, one should not say "Green thumb" because here we mean the colour green. "Green public policy" could be argued either way. If you mean the public policy of the Green party, it should be capitalised. If it adheres to the principles of that political movement, it depends upon whether you regard the term as generic (I would capitalise it, personally). If a trademark, you should capitalise it. Genital Integrity is used as a proper noun. It's really a shortened form of "The Genital Integrity Movement" (as can be seen from sentences such as "Genital Integrity does not oppose...". Were this article about "genital integrity" in an alternative sense, it would be a lot shorter, but it is really about the Genital Integrity aka Intactivist aka anti-circumcision movement (note that the last is not capitalised, as it is purely descriptive). - Jakew 16:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I doubt "green thumb" means your thumb is green. I will admit that I've gone back and forth a few times on capitalization with a handful of topics. There were times I did capitalize things that shouldn't have been. But in this case, I really think we should get someone else to moderate who is an expert in linguistics, as our fields of expertise don't seem to mesh well on this one. Is there any objection to that or putting my sentence back in that was deleted? Note that I used "genital integrity supporters" in the sentence, not "genital integrity activists". There seem to be no intactivists who are staunchly promoting either circumcision or sex-reassignment for adults, but it is theoretically possible. But one can clearly find supporters of leaving kids intact among pro-circs. Any thoughts on whether the scope is stated correctly in my sentence? DanP 14:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think "green thumb" (or fingers) refers to the typical colour of a plant, but yes I'm quite happy to ask someone who knows more about the subject. Perhaps one of the contributors to capitalization (had to force myself to use American spelling there) can help?
I think it was Michael Glass who removed the sentence. It's a bit awkwardly written, but I don't have a major objection. As for 'intactivists' promoting adult circumcision, yes they do exist. One posts fairly regularly at some of the pro-circ mailing lists. I'll put you in touch if you like - just drop me an email. - Jakew 15:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the definition

Yes, I did remove the sentence because I felt it was contradictory. I think it is more accurate to say that such a person opposes the circumcision of underage children but approves of the circumcision of adults. Michael Glass 28 June 2005 10:57 (UTC)

Michael, genital integrity is having the right to stay intact. The group of people I'm identifying don't just oppose a procedure like it's contraindicated or a bad idea or something, but believe it's the child's right to choose in adulthood. That is a different shade of meaning. Also, there are other kinds of opposition to circumcision or sex-reassignment that have nothing to do with genital integrity. Take for instance someone who opposes all medical technology, but doesn't really care about the kid from a rights perspective. My point is that the definition of genital integrity in this article does include some pro-circ and pro-sex-change individuals who distinguish between rights and preferences. DanP 28 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Dan, I believe that the term 'Genital Integrity' implies a belief that the natural state is to be preferred, at least in most instances. This would make it a bit like 'natural childbirth' which would normally imply a preference for a normal delivery, unless there was some overriding need, such as the safety or well-being of the mother or the child or both. 'Genital Integrity', as I see it, implies a preference for people's genitals being left as Nature fashioned them.

This does not mean that adults cannot choose something different for themselves, or that genital surgery cannot be resorted to in case of need e.g., in the case of testicular cancer, or to correct a congenital anomaly e.g, an undescended testis or hypospadias repair. But it does imply that the vast majority of people would be better off if their genitals were left as nature fashioned them. So, the use of the word 'integrity' implies more than a right to an intact body until one is old enough to change it to suit the latest fashion. It implies or states that the natural condition of one's genitals is what should normally be preferred. Michael Glass 29 June 2005 06:12 (UTC)

Michael, According to Tim Hammond's definition:
Physical integrity and self-determination are basic and universal rights recognized
by numerous international human rights treaties. The Genital Integrity Ribbon is a
compassionate expression of solidarity among children's rights advocates, as well as
a sign of one's commitment to protecting, for all individuals, these fundamental human rights.
According to the ICGI:
We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body.
Without sexual, racial, or religious prejudice, we affirm this basic human right
These are clearly rights-based, not preference-based. A man who is circumcised by free choice (regardless of outcome) clearly always had the right to stay intact, and thus still has genital integrity. I do not think we have data that extends this term to mean a physical state or even a preference. That would be genital intactness, not genital integrity. Perhaps keeping the intactivism article was desirable after all? DanP 8 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Dan, but this is just plain ridiculous: "A man who is circumcised by free choice (regardless of outcome) clearly always had the right to stay intact, and thus still has genital integrity."
Integrity. "The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness." [8]
This, my friend, is why "genital integrity" has a different meaning from "Genital Integrity". The former describes a state. The latter, as can be seen here, doesn't have an accepted meaning even among anti-circers! Michael argues that it (G.I.) is a belief that the state is desirable. Dan argues that it is a belief in the right to the state.
Perhaps you'll see why I prefer the term anti-circumcision. So much more straightforward. - Jakew 8 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

What we are dealing with here is analagous to the debate over anti-abortion/pro-life and pro-abortion/pro-choice. Different people, depending on their ideological stance will prefer different ways of describing their own beliefs and the beliefs of those they disagree with. Of course, Jake would prefer the term 'anti-circumcision'! As for the different ways of viewing genital intactness and genital integrity, this could be partly a difference between American and Australian English, so I wouldn't read too much into it. I, too, believe that people have a right to stay in one piece.Michael Glass 8 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

We can have differing opinions and still build a consensus. You both have very good points. Jake, with regard to the definition, I took the dominant one, according to the sourced I cited using "rights" as a basis, to be #1 "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code", like Scientific Integrity in Policymaking (which is capitalized only because it is the name of a report). Although I wish you would read proper noun and realize that genital integrity by itself is not the name of a book, a political party, or derived from a person's name, and that the term stands for a generic concept just as circumcision advocacy, social contract, or viridian design movement. We don't get a proper noun just because two words are used together. We need some unique group or thing (like "Genital Integrity Ribbon") which is a specific entity, not a generic concept. Anyway, on the definition side, obviously if integrity has three definitions, then genital integrity surely has three as well. This is more than intactness, even forced foreskin retraction is considered contrary to genital integrity but probably not on the grounds of staying "whole or undivided". DanP 8 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
Dan, Genital Integrity is a name for a specific entity - namely, the movement and philosophy behind it that we're discussing. It is not, however, purely descriptive, like 'circumcision advocacy'. As I've tried to point out, when used in a purely descriptive manner, it just means integrity of the genitals. It doesn't even state a position on whether this is a good thing!
It is only when it is used as a proper noun that Genital Integrity acquires the meaning discussed in the article. Then, it is the name for the set of ideas including, apparently, the idea that genital integrity is desirable, and the idea that people have a right to it.
As for your statement that "forced foreskin retraction is considered contrary to genital integrity", I think you are incorrect. Looking from an outsider's perspective, it seems that GI advocates generally disapprove of foreskin retraction, but this doesn't seem to be inherent in GI itself. Plenty of non-GI campaigners also advise against premature, especially forced, retraction. It seems to be supportive background material, if anything, rather than a core 'message'.
Random thought: instead of a rigid definition, perhaps it would be useful to treat GI as an umbrella term for a bunch of ideas and so on, maybe with subheadings for GI Movement, GI Ribbon, ICGI, etc.
Michael, I'm just curious. You say "of course" I would prefer the term anti-circumcision. Why? - Jakew 9 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Jake, I said 'of course' because of your position is in favour of circumcision. I have seen you use this term to label people. As I said before, I find this problematical because it tends to stigmatise people's views. Michael Glass 9 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)

Jakew, it is not a specific entity no matter how it is viewed by either side. Perhaps you see genital integrity as the capitalized Root of All Evil, but that does not make it so. A "movement and philosophy" is not automatically capitialized no matter how specific the meaning. We do not capitalize capitalist, socialist, fiscal conservative, or social democrat unless your talking about an organization by that name. The philosophy, or a general group who has such a philosophy, is still an ordinary noun no matter how narrow or wide its scope. Of course, you're right on not having a rigid definition, because there will be more than one point-of-view. Even umbrella terms like women's rights or alternative medicine are not proper nouns, no matter how they are promoted, no matter what is inherent in them, no matter what peripheral conceptualizations are tied to them, and no matter how they are seen by "outsiders". Obviously, if you were to try to make Wikipedia dictionary-perfect, one must replace circumcision with forced genital mutilation in most of the articles, as that is what has been actually promoted by your side (ie. the procedure performed on oneself is not promoted, but rather it's doing it to others under restraint that circumcision advocates pretend is semantically identical). Although, I'm glad we could find common ground on some of these aspects of the article. DanP 11:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dan, once again you overlook the difference between purely descriptive labels (eg., "fiscal conservative") and those with an artificial meaning (eg., "Green party" or "Genital Integrity"). As I have tried to show, if one uses it as an noun-adjective pair, it only means integrity of the genitals, and has no other meaning. The time may yet come when it enters the English language as a generic term, but that hasn't happened yet.
Secondly, circumcision always means circumcision. Forced genital mutilation can mean many things, and many would disagree that circumcision is one of them, myself included. Infant male circumcision, or if you must, infant male genital alteration, would be accurate.
A final point: I think most people would agree that advocating self-circumcision is highly dangerous and irresponsible. Perhaps you meant electing circumcision for oneself? - Jakew 18:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Jakew, no it doesn't always mean the same thing. I wish you would play by the same rules you invent. Circumcision can mean male or female. It can mean adult or child. It can mean frenulum, glans tissue, shaft skin, or any of the above. It does not always mean one act, or any one type of abuse. Most importantly, why are you even referring to circumcision? Genital integrity opposes any infringement of the right to stay intact, and does not contain the word circumcision. So you are sort of proving my point that you've violated your own doctrine of opposing artificial meaning (and non-artificial meaning comes from????). I hope we can see eye-to-eye on this point at least.
Forced genital mutilation is actually more specific and accurate when you speak in terms of the rights of genital integrity, which is exactly what this article refers to. I have no idea what you're getting at on the other stuff. The "oneself" I referred to indicates the lack of reflexive nature of the advocacy, not the execution of the procedure. That is why I said "promoted", not "performed". Let me emphasize that "green party" is not capitalized if it's not a party by that actual name. If one says "the Democrats are a very green party", that is not capitalized to "Green Party". It doesn't matter that they don't turn "green" into the Hulk, or have green thumbs, it only matters that the meaning is not a specific organization, but a general concept. The capital "Green Party" is reserved only for the organizations with that name, which "genital integrity" is clearly not limited to such organizational meaning any more than pro-life or pro-choice are. DanP 00:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Electro-Anarchy

Excuse me for butting in, maybe this has already been covered, but why does a particular fringe group deserve such a large portion of this article's time? Is that appropriate? Would it be appropriate to fill half the article on "Pro-Life" with the extralegal antics of Operation Rescue nuts, or to hijack "Animal Rights Movement" with a detailed list of the crimes of the ALF? It seems to me like someone was attempting to construct a strawman here. -Kasreyn 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There's a two-sentence article called Association for Genital Integrity that I think should be merged with this article. Benami 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Johntex\talk 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Jakew 12:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

um WTF, a geocities link (didn't even realize Geocities still existed!)? Lordkazan 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the links, (both pro and anti) are extremely poor. Often amounting to one persons opinion and their take on the 'evidence'. To quote one such source:
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_record.html#anchor1r
"It is nowadays thought that the foreskin might have served as some kind of protection from shrubs, rocks etc. when our ancestors were still walking around naked and "all fours". In other words: it is a by-product of evolution [1]. Since this is no longer the case, the foreskin has become a liability: instead of offering any "protection", the warm and moist area under the foreskin acts as an ideal breeding ground for a host of bacteria, fungi and germs which are known to be responsible for a variety of diseases and infections [1], [2], [20]."
That is, as an item, the most laughable tract I've seen in a long time. It certainly should qualify as some form of pseudo science, or at least an abusive use of "fact". For instance all body parts are a "by-product of evolution". He concludes instantly then that as we're bipedal creatures who wear clothes (presumably) we no longer require it and it is "a liability" then quoting 3 seperate reference sources put together by the very "pro" circumcision group this guy supports. Circular logic a-go-go! The human body itself is a hive of bacteria, fungi and germs - the penis no more so. His "Allegation 2" is in itself completely unsubstantiated, and inaccurate (as are many of the others - including the use of the inflammatory comparing in Allegation 8 of FGM to the 'removal of the whole penis' clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of what is involved in FGM (i.e. not the complete removal of the vagina).
The Circinfo link meanwhile is actively sponsored by a pro-circumcision organization/lobbyist. Geocities one is so poorly founded and based, quite literally, upon information on Circinfo and the other above link, that it's little more than a Mirror with a few extra links.
The links section could do with an extensive pruning to remove what are little more than poorly substantiated and/or argued pieces of "evidence" clubbed together making bold accusations of "myths" and "lies".--Koncorde 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That is one laughable passage :D stripping the geocities link Lordkazan 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a web directory

Excluding critics and neutral sites, I count 26 external links. Many of these are little more than duplicates of others, offering no additional information. Few are encyclopaedic.

I therefore propose to identify the 10 most useful sites, and keep those but delete the rest. Would anyone care to nominate sites to be kept? Jakew 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

10 seems like a good number. As for specific links, I think that the links to NOCIRC, NOHARMM, and MGMbill.org are among the most useful. Christopher 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been bold and chosen 10, including the ones you mention. It may not be the best selection, but it is at least a selection. Jakew 10:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks to be a good selection of the links. Good job Lordkazan 13:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Move, merge, and rename request

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was} move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Controversies" makes more sense to me, as there are several. Two examples are the controversy over non-religious neonatal circumcision and the controversy over adult circumcision campaigns to combat HIV. I think it might be misleading to suggest that there was only a single controversy. I'm not entirely opposed to Joe407's suggestion, but I prefer the more concise titles.
    There seems to be quite a lot of overlap between the history section of this article and the history of male circumcision article. This can — and should — be fixed regardless of any other changes: having similar content in multiple places is an indication of poor planning, and in the case of these articles it seems to encourage one-sided histories that are arguably POV forks. Since historians have generally documented the history of circumcision (as opposed to the history of circumcision controversy, or for that matter the history of circumcision opposition), I would think that history of male circumcision is a more appropriate place for much of this material.
    For discussion of whether to spin out part of the history of male circumcision article, I suggest Talk:History of male circumcision. Jakew (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Comment

Jakew - you say that wikipedia is 'not a web directory' but what is your criteria for listing some organisations and not others? Perhaps the 'Positions of advocates and critics' article hit a raw nerve with your personal bias?

This is not an article worth bickering over - there is a list of 'Genital integrity organisations' and a list of anti-foreskin articles - why not complete the list of GI organisations and link to an article comparing the opposing views? This page is a service to the public, not an outlet for your ego or your own opinions 87.194.80.255 17:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#MIRROR ("There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.") and WP:EL (in particular, WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view, which states that "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views."). Jakew 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It is clear bias to allow links to specific articles on one side of the argument but only organisations on the other. YOU are advocating 'undue weight' by linking to GI organisations and then articles criticising them. Where are the links to articles criticising the anti-foreskin crowd? I repeat my opinion that you are targeting 'Positions of advocates and critics' because it upsets your personal stance and the one-sided way in which you wish to portray the Genital Integrity movement. Your claims of neutrality are laughable. 87.194.80.255 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no explicit decision to allow articles on one side and organisations on the other. However, links are supposed to be relevant to the subject of an article. Notable organisations are relevant, as are articles specifically about those organisations. There are currently 10 genital integrity links - twice as many as for critics - and we do not need any more. We could, in principle, replace some of the existing links, and I would welcome any suggestions you may have.
I suggest, incidentally, that you familiarise yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Jakew 18:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Jake, I'm sorry; I'm trying to 'assume good faith' but I'm finding it difficult to do so with someone who claims to be neutral on a subject yet slurs those who have an alternative point of view ('...deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision'). Are you assuming good faith? You have a solid record of attacking the 'Genital Integrity' movement on wikipedia (anyone who wants to check that can look at various relevant history pages) and insisting that your point of view is 'neutral' - an impossible claim, especially for a man who was circumcised by his own choice. I respect your point of view but it is clearly not 'neutral'. You are for parental choice - fine - I am for individual choice. This is a difference of opinion and I respect it - do you? 87.194.80.255 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) First of all, it should be noted that the Genital Integrity movement has never claimed to be "neutral." It is the belief of those who believe in Genital Integrity as a basic human right, that there can be nothing said in favor of the forced circumcision of minors, because the facts are against it. The fact is that in newborns, the foreskin is perfectly healthy tissue, not a medical condition or birth defect.

"The principle of the law is that parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child. With no clear and present medical indication of need, no parental duty or right to consent to circumcision can exist. Medical indications for male circumcision never exist in the newborn period. The Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics has long recognized that parental permission is limited to diagnosis and treatment of disease. If no disease is present, then there is no parental power to grant permission for removal of healthy tissue."

Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England, Book I, Chapter 16: p. 434 (1765-9)

There are issues for which there cannot be a "neutral stance." Male circumcision, no, infant genital mutilation, is one of them. Why is there not a "neutral stance" for female genital mutilation? Why is female genital mutilation starkly opposed, without concidering the "potential benefits?" There is at least one "study" that suggests FGM may have prophylactic properties. No one dare argue the "pros" in this issue.

Statements to the effect that "circumcision is a parental choice" are misleading, and are used by proponents of circumcision to divert attention from questioning the fact that circumcision may indeed be a medically necessary procedure. It is misleading, not to mention fraudulent, for doctors and/or proponents of circumcision to present the genital mutilation of newborns as this "decision" which parents have to make. In reaping profit for a medically unnecessary procedure, esp. in a non-concenting individual, a doctor is committing medical FRAUD.

SECOND of all, beware of Jakew. He is most definitily NOT a "neutral" proponent of circumcision, speaking ill of defenders of individual human rights, esp. the Genital Integrity of non-concenting individuals, and citing "the benefits of circumcision" whenever he can. His only saving grace is that he is consistent, signing everything he says as "Jakew." Kogejoe 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind all participants in this discussion of WP:NPA, which, in a nutshell, states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". It seems that this discussion is beginning to veer away from improvement of the article, towards espousing personal views of the topic and of other contributors. Please, let's all take a deep breath and compose ourselves before collaborating on improving the Genital integrity article. Thank you very much. Joie de Vivre T 05:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Kogejoe incorrectly attributes a quotation above to "Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England". In fact, it is quoted from a letter from Doctors Opposing Circumcision to Pediatrics. Geisheker JV, Denniston GC, Hill G. Use of Federal Funds for Medicaid Non-Therapeutic Circumcision is Unlawful. Pediatrics. P3R, 27 June 2007. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/119/4/821#9715 Jakew 11:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I do, in fact quote from the letter. However, it should be noted that everything in that letter is properly and duely cited, and all of the sources can be properly verified. (The bibliography can be found at the end of the letter.) In fact, Blackstone was only one of the references, and Jakew is correct in stating that I incorrectly attributed the quotation, as I did forget to mention the other references in the above quote.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402. Available at: http://www.swarb.co.uk/c/hl/1985gillick.shtml
Foetus and Newborn Committee. FN 75-01 Circumcision in the Newborn Period. CPS News Bull Suppl. 1975; 8(2):1-2.
Committee on Fetus and Newborn: Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, Sixth Edition. American Academy of Pediatrics; Evanston, IL, 1977:66-67
Joie de Vivre made a point that we should be commenting on the content, and not the contributor. Therefore, the content of the letter to Pedriatrics begs genuine concideration, and that it was written by Doctors Opposing Circumcision is irrelevant.
The subject of discussion was initially "a neutral stance."
I think that the statement of the fact that advocates of Genital Integrity have never claimed to be of "a neutral stance" begs reiteration. Those who promote ethical and legal practice need not defend offenders. It's the job of violators of human rights that need to explain why they do what they do.
Furthermore, it is a double-standard for someone to be adamant about "a neutral stance," esp. when he/she is not him/herself of a "neutral stance."Kogejoe 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion that everything in DOC's letter is 'properly and duly cited' is, to say the least, questionable. Take a look at the response further down on the same page. Jakew 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean your responce done by YOU?

The entire premise of the responce to the letter is flawed because it is based on the assertion that circumcision, which doesn't immunize against anything, can indeed be compared to a vaccine, which does. You mistakenly assert that circumcision does indeed prevent HIV contraction, when the very conductors of the HIV/Circumcision "studies" warn that circumcision is completely useless without condoms.

There are recent findings by one E.J. Mundell that put the recent African HIV/Circumcision studies into question. The entire premise of the recent studies is that circumcision reduces HIV infection by removing the Langerhans cells found in the foreskin, which were supposed to be the "prime port of entry for HIV." If Mundell is correct, the exact opposite is true (the Langerhans cells offer PROTECTION against HIV contraction), rendering all of the above studies completely moot. One must wonder how the conductors of such studies arrived at their seemingly optimistic conclusions.

Assertions that "circumcision helps prevent HIV in the US" conflicts with reality. The fact is that despite having the highest rate of circumcision in the industrialized world, it also has the highest rate of HIV. The fact is that circumcised victims of HIV die every day. The fact is that in 1981, when the HIV epidemic struck in the US, 90% of US males were already circumcised. The fact is that circumcision did not and does not prevent HIV in the US. The question is, how do advocates of circumcision expect it to be any different in any other country?

The response to DOC's letter is flawed because it begs the question. It is based on the assumption that circumcision does indeed function like a "vaccine" that conclusively prevents HIV and/or any other STDs.Kogejoe 05:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect on several points. Firstly, 35+ observational studies and 3 randomised controlled trials provide in vivo evidence of the protective effect (in the assessment of the World Health Organisation, they "prove [it] beyond reasonable doubt"). They do not, however, establish the mechanism by which this takes place. Studies of this kind cannot do so: they can measure the difference, but they cannot explain it. If de Witte's theory (Mundell is reporting on a study, the abstract of which is here) is correct, then we might speculate that the mechanism for this protective effect may involve something other than LCs. But, much like arguing about whether rain dances work or not, when the rain comes, for whatever reason, it is wet.
Second, there is no way of knowing whether circumcision 'worked' or 'did not work' in the US, because there is no way of knowing how badly the US might have been affected if circumcision were less prevalent. Unfortunately, a simplistic cross-nation comparison of rates of circumcision and HIV is inherently flawed, and is particularly prone to confounding factors (as circumcision reduces - but does not eliminate - the risk, other factors may increase it, so any model has to take all factors into account). It is unfortunate I suppose, since if epidemiology were that simple there would be no need to conduct complex and expensive studies.
But this is becoming somewhat tangential. And I note that you say nothing about the issue which we were discussing, which was whether DOC's claims were 'properly and duly cited'. Jakew 09:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DOC's claims WERE properly and duly cited. DOC's sources can be properly verified. I'm not even sure why you mention the Fergusson study. If the conclusions were of any relevance, they would have not been withdrawn.

You can keep mentioning "studies" and "assesments," but they are at odds with reality. None of them can validate your claim that "circumcision prevents HIV," because, as evidenced "in vivo" by the countless HIV infections and deaths of men despite their circumcised status, it DOESN'T. "Studies" and "assesments" that don't correlate with reality are flawed and cannot be used to assert anything. I dare say the people at WHO have their heads up their arses.

The rain dance analogy is quite weak, but perhaps one good turn deserves another; studies that claim that "circumcision prevents HIV" are like studies that continue to assert that the earth is flat.

As a procedure that does not conclusively make one immune to any kind of disease, no, circumcision cannot be considered any form of "vaccine," so no, it is NOT a procedure doctors should be performing, let alone presenting the "decision" to parents to concent to. In gaining profit for a procedure that offers a patient absolutely no theraputic value, and questionable prophilactic value, doctors that circumcise infants are guilty of medical fraud, and should be ready to be held accountable for their actions.

So then, as DOC properly points out, federal funding for such a worthless procedure in children is unlawful.

I believe that at this point, I'm just going to keep repeating myself, so I will leave it at that. People can keep bringing up study after study (nevermind that these "studies" have been conducted by biased advocates of circumcision who have been trying to find a disease for their "cure," and who's goal has been to establish the forced circumcision of all males all along...), but those studies are inherently flawed if they cannot correlate with reality. Furthermore, even if these studies DID ever find a link from circumcision to HIV, my personal belief is that it should be up to a MAN to make this choice. It should be up to a MAN to decide whether or not to take this measure of "protection," or whether or not he wishes to forgo the procedure and use condoms instead. It should not be up to parents or doctors to make a man's sexual decisions for him.

As I've already pointed out, the Stallings study suggests a "protective measure" for girls and women. Yet, it's against the law to mutilate a girl or woman, and parents that exercise their "parental privilege" get thrown in jail.

The same should apply to parents and doctors of circumcised MALE children.

May Genital Integrity one day be an EQUAL RIGHT for BOTH genders, and belligerent doctors and parents one day get their comeupance.

Peace Kogejoe 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of the article is disputed? Joie de Vivre° 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Jakew 10:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This article badly needs references. In particular, the lead and overview are completely lacking in references, and, I suspect, may be unsourceable. In addition, the history section appears to consist mostly of primary sources that do not directly refer to the subject of the article; instead they are presented as an original synthesis that purports to be the history of Genital Integrity.

Have any scholarly publications actually discussed and defined the subject of the article? Jakew 11:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added some references. I don't know if any scholarly publications actually have discussed the genital integrity movement and its critics. Michael Glass 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's the ultimate test for whether it belongs in Wikipedia. I'll wait for another month or so, to give plenty of time to find reliable sources, and if none are found I'll nominate it for deletion. Jakew 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Genital integrity is certainly mentioned in the scholarly literature. This may be seen from Google Scholar [9]. Michael Glass 19:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Many of the results seem to be trivial usage of the phrase. However, it may be that there are sufficient substantial sources to provide a definition and meaningful content for the article. Since most of the 'sources' cited in the article don't even mention 'genital integrity', I suggest that a rewrite is needed. Jakew 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

History

The first four paragraphs of the 'history' section seem to be a somewhat one-sided view of the history of circumcision, rather than a history of 'genital integrity' per se. Do any reliable sources establish a direct link between this material and the subject of the article? If not, I propose to delete these four paragraphs. Jakew 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem lies in the title. "History" could be taken as a history of the genital integrity movement. I see these sentences as relevant, but the section would be better labelled "Background information." The four sentences in question are well documented but the arguments of those pushing for circumcision are not mentioned. I agree that it would be more even-handed to outline these arguments.Michael Glass 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Michael, the new title is a slight improvement in terms of clarity, but we still need sources that explicitly make a direct link between this material and the subject of the article. As far as an even-handed history of circumcision goes, remember that we already have history of circumcision, and we don't need a duplicate. What we need to concentrate on is significant events in the history of (or background to) the 'genital integrity' movement, as determined by reliable sources. Perhaps a pertinent question is: do any reliable sources actually discuss this issue? Jakew 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with sources

Since it is apparently necessary to clarify my serious concerns about the sourcing in this article, the following is a breakdown of all sources cited in the article, except Darby 2005.

The following sources are self-published:

  1. http://www.icgi.org/
  2. http://www.studentsforgenitalintegrity.org/
  3. http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/US-MedicalEthicsReport.pdf
  4. http://www.noharmm.org/#ribbon
  5. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
  6. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=7&id=72&Itemid=51
  7. http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html
  8. http://www.mgmbill.org/usmgmbill.htm
  9. http://www.mgmbill.org/usmgmbillstatus.htm
  10. http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com
  11. http://www.nocirc.org/
  12. http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/
  13. http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

The following sources do not even mention 'genital integrity', and thus apparently fail the requirement of no original research that sources are 'directly related' to the subject of the article:

  1. http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/valencia1997/
  2. http://www.cirp.org/news/1966.07_Foley/
  3. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/leitch1/
  4. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/apa1971/
  5. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/preston/
  6. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1971
  7. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/cps1975/
  8. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1975
  9. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/
  10. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/686 (different link to preceding source)
  11. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma/
  12. http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm
  13. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/circumcisions/circumcisions_region.htm#figure
  14. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/circumcisions/circumcisions_race.htm
  15. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06970_6.x
  16. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07072_1.x
  17. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor
  18. http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1
  19. http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/taylor2007

The following sources contain trivial usage of the term only:

  1. http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf
  2. http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/

The following source contains some material suitable for inclusion:

  1. http://www.menstuff.org/calendar/workshops/awareness.html

Finally, I have not checked these sources:

  1. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5014815715543061897&q=%22outlook+video%22
  2. http://www.legislation.govt.nz

In short, this article has some serious sourcing and original research problems. Jakew (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks for all the work you have done here, Jake. I will go through all the sources you have cited and linked here and then make a more detailed response. Michael Glass (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael, I look forward to your comments. I hope that you can see why I'm so concerned about this article. Jakew (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, you have labelled the websites of all the genital integrity organisations as self published. The verifiability policy insists that we use reliable sources for information, and reliable sources are defined as academic articles and respected mainstream publications. However, the verifiability policy has this proviso WP:SELFPUB:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I believe that this provides enough room for us to have an article on genital integrity, its meaning and its use.

A second point that you make is that a lot of references are to articles that do not mention the term "genital integrity". My own view is that this material might be useful as background information to the genital integrity movement, but that it is mostly not about the genital integrity movement itself. For instance, Jon D. Levenson's article, "The New Enemies of Circumcision" does not mention genital integrity. My own view is that people have been praising and criticising circumcision for more than 2000 years, whereas genital integrity is a relatively new term. It is used by anti-circumcision groups, as your list shows, and it is now beginning to be used in academic articles, as you have also demonstrated.

The significance of the term, I think, is that it treats circumcision, female genital cutting and to some other surgery as a violation of human rights. This is quite explicit in genital integrity literature:

  • "Genital Integrity…is the principle that all human beings—whether male, female or intersexed—have a right to the genitalia they were born with." [10]
  • "Students for Genital Integrity (SGI) is group committed to ending the pratice of forced genital cutting; a human rights abuse perpetuated on children by adults. This abuse is often done in order to conform the body to a particular society's concepts of aesthetics and normality" [11]
  • "The Association for Genital Integrity is a Canadian group ... The Association seeks to promote the right of every child to bodily integrity. [12]

I believe that we could have an article on this term and do it in a way that conforms with Wikipedia policy. Michael Glass (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, thank you for your comments.
I think that SELFPUB addresses the situation where an article is about a person or organisation, and the source is published by the same person or organisation. I'm not sure that it is intended for situations where the article is about a political viewpoint, and the source is published by any person or organisation holding that viewpoint. Having said that, I think it would be within the spirit of policy to allow some self-published sources, providing that the conditions you list are met.
One of these conditions is that "the article is not based primarily on such sources". In other words, the majority of sources used in the article should not be self-published.
Your response to my second point is slightly confusing. You appear to agree that the sources I listed are mostly not about the subject of the article, which would appear to indicate that they fail no original research. However, it is unclear whether you think that they should be replaced, or that this material should be deleted.
You remark that 'genital integrity' may be a relatively new term, which is interesting, and may shed light upon the problem. If 'genital integrity' is indeed a neologism, this may explain the sourcing difficulties and may be a good argument for renaming (or deletion). Perhaps it might be better to think of some other names for the article, and/or how it relates to others in the circumcision constellation?
My main concern with the article is that if we were to remove the sources that are not directly related to the subject, the article would then be based primarily on self-published sources. And if we were then to address that issue, we would end up with a small stub of an article that cited perhaps 5 sources. In short, if the article were edited to conform to Wikipedia policy, it would almost disappear. And that's why I'm so concerned about it, and why I think that, as a minimum, a rewrite is needed.
I'm also concerned about single-viewpoint articles in general. Not only are they difficult to properly source (because sources tend to be about the subject, rather than other people's viewpoint about the subject), but they tend to easily become POV forks; consider the "background" section which is largely "history of negative statements about circumcision". I think that the same problem is true of "circumcision advocacy". Perhaps we should consider merging both into a neutrally-framed topic with a wider scope: something like 'politics of circumcision' (not the best name, I know, but I'm just thinking of ideas)? Jakew (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake, for your detailed comments. I am confused about the reach of the SELFPUB rule. If it is a strict policy that we can't use self-published material then we're bound hand and foot in writing about just about anything! There is also the problem of defining what self-published means. Is it confined to individuals or does it also cover organisations? If it covers respectable organisations, who determines respectability? Wiki policy, when pressed, can produce strange and paradoxical results. An old Bishop once advised people not to press the paps of Scripture too hard, or they will yield blood and not milk. Similarly with wiki rules, our reading of them needs to be tempered with common sense. They are guidelines to be followed, not weapons with which to fight a culture war.

Let's take, for example the History of Circumcision website [13]. It is a personal website of Dr Robert Darby, and as such, is not supposed to be used under Wiki policy. However, this website reproduces material that he and others have published in academic and other journals, so when it does that, it would, I think, be in order to provide a link to this material, provided it was a direct citation to the original material. (This is the same, as what we do with material reproduced on your website or on CIRP.)

Genital integrity is a relatively new term, and its use reflects a significantly different way of thinking about the genital cutting of children. Circumcision has long been criticised as cruel, risky and against nature. Now, however, it is being criticised as a breach of human rights. This, may mark a significant paradigm shift, such as what occurred when people put aside their considerations of orthodoxy and heresy and began to formulate the right of human conscience in matters of religion or when people threw aside medical and sociological theories of homosexuality and began thinking in terms of gay rights. Thinking about circumcision in terms of the rights of the individual puts the issue of infant male circumcision in a different light, so the term has more than passing significance. It also has significance because this term is also being used to cover female genital cutting and the sexual reassignment of intersex infants. Thus genital integrity, when used by activists, could be evidence of a different way of thinking about genital surgery.

So is genital integrity a neogolism? The fifth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the neogolism as applying to new words and concepts in theology, while the Macquarie Dictionary applies it to new words and phrases. As genital integrity is not a single word, it is not a neologlism in the primary sense of the word. Gential integrity is hardly a novel phrase. I found genital integrity used in the medical literature about the surgical treatment of cryptorchidism [14] Another example referred to nutrition and its effect on genital integrity [15]. Other papers listed in Google Scholar reveal that the term is used in psychoanalytical literature. Nor is genital integrity being used in a metaphorical sense, such as the way the phrase level playing-field is used. Rather, the term is being used in the primary and literal sense of the words, rather like the legal phrase due diligence, where the legal meaning is a specialised understanding of the literal meaning of the phrase. Therefore branding genital integrity a neogolism is questionable.

You also raise the question of what I want done with material that is not directly related to genital integrity but is about opposition to circumcision or criticism of that position. The question you ask implies that anything that is not directly relevant must go because it is original research. My position is less black and white than that. I am open to the possibility that some of it might be irrelevant, or better in another article. However, some of this material might be relevant as background material. For example, Douglas Gardiner's famous paper [16] considers the advantages and disadvantages of circumcision, but it does not ever consider that taking a child's foreskin might have human rights implications. Compare this with "We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without sexual, racial, or religious prejudice, we affirm this basic human right."[17] and it is obvious that the International Coalition for Genital Integrity is considering the question in a different way.

You have expressed concern that an article on genital integrity might become a POV fork. This is not my intention and need not be the result of dealing with the term. It may be that the whole topic would be better covered by a general article on the politics of circumcision. I am open to that possibility. However, for the moment, if we concentrate on what can be done with the article on genital integrity that question can be left until later. After all, Wikipedia has articles on Right to life and Pro Choice. i think, however, that one important thing about genital integrity is the fact that people are beginning to question infant and childhood genital cutting from a human rights perspective. Michael Glass (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the point of WP:SELFPUB is that the mere act of publishing (for example) a website does not create a reliable source. As a hypothetical example, I could easily create a website called "International Coalition Against Genital Integrity", and I could publish anything I wanted on that website. In fact, it would be no more difficult to put words on that site than to scribble on the notepad on my desk. In contrast, if I were to write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, it would be checked by the editor and by the reviewers, who would judge whether it was worthy of publication.
In the case of material that is reprinted on a personal website, we must cite the original source. We can provide a convenience link to the reprint, provided that it is an exact copy of the original, with no alterations. There is no need to provide a convenience link, and if there is doubt, it is generally best to provide only the citation.
My concern is that we seem to have a bunch of self-published sources, a bunch of sources used as original research, but very few reliable sources that actually say anything about genital integrity. You suggest that "genital integrity ... reflects a significantly different way of thinking about the genital cutting of children". If we had a source that made such an argument, it would be exactly the kind of thing we should be citing in this article. Jakew (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, thanks for your comment. Of course I agree that if there was an academic article that argued that the genital cutting of children was a human rights violation, then we should cite it. Margaret Somerville did make such an argument. Here is a link to what she wrote. I don't know who has suggested that the human rights argument is a new and different way of thinking about the circumcision of children, so I wouldn't push for this to be published on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think it would be in order to point out any evidence of the development of such thinking, and if a link could be found it would be good to include it.

You have written that as anyone could create a website saying just about anything, they are inherently unreliable. While of course that is a possibility, in practice, most websites are put up by real people who believe in what they are communicating. This, I am sure, applies to your website and also to those like Robert Darby, who put up a website saying what they believe in. By rejecting all private websites, or all websites of people we disagree with, we lose valuable information. This problem is partially covered by the use of courtesy links but it does seem paradoxical to accept second hand information about a group but not to be able to use information from their own website about their official policy. Michael Glass (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I fear that I didn't express myself clearly. If Somerville had argued that the subject of this article ('genital integrity') was a new way of thinking, it would certainly be suitable for inclusion. However, as far as I can tell, she didn't even mention the subject of the article. The point is that sources need to say something about the subject. Please see WP:NOR and WP:V (and, for background, WP:N).
As for losing valuable information, it's a possibility. But in practice, if information is truly valuable and the subject is notable, then it is likely to appear in a reliable source. So the main effect of excluding unreliable sources is to raise the average quality of the source material.
In principle, if we're writing about a group, then we can use information from their website provided that most of the article is drawn from third-party sources, which tend to be more objective. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake, for your feedback. We have reliable sources arguing that the genital cutting of children is a human rights violation. Margaret Somerville is one who argues this way and Hanny Lightfoot Klein, a noted critic of female genital cutting, [18] makes a direct comparison between the reasons given for female and male genital cutting. Human rights concerns are touched on in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy on circumcision [19]. i agree that I have not found any evidence that anyone has argued that this is a new development. Such an argument is not in Douglas Gardiner's famous paper [www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/], and this fact might be noted. However, to go to the next step and argue that the human rights argument is a new development would indeed be a novel argument, and therefore against Wiki policy. If you read my previous comment you will see that I agreed with you that we would need a reliable source to state explicitly that viewing the genital cutting of children as a human rights violation is a new thing.

So I don't think we're in disagreement about how how to interpret most Wiki policy. We may disagree on how much use we can make of activist websites but I think that this is something that we can negotiate on a case by case basis. Please check out what I have written and let me know if there are any other concerns that we need to discuss and address. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I'm afraid I don't even understand why you're talking about whether the genital cutting of children is a human rights violation. I can't see what direct relevance this has to the subject of the article.
My main concerns, noted above, are that a large proportion of the sources cited in the article are not directly related to its subject, and their usage is therefore original research. After these, the second largest block of sources are self-published.
What we ought to have, however, is a substantial number of reliable, academic sources that have something to say about the subject, and the article should report what they say about 'genital integrity'.
So the present sourcing in this article is inadequate. I'd like to know whether it's possible to correct this by deleting inappropriate sources and replacing them with more appropriate ones, if they are available; whether we should broaden the scope of the article by renaming and/or merging, thus increasing the number of relevant sources available; or whether we should delete the article. Jakew (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, The reason I am noting that some people like Margaret Somerville have argued that infant circumcision is a human rights violation is that this is the position taken by people and organisations that use the term genital integrity. I don't think there is a problem of quoting information from genital integrity websites to illustrate their position on what genital integrity stands for. I see no problem in pointing out that this term has been used by people in academic literature. I don't think there is a problem in pointing out that not all opponents of circumcision have argued that infant circumcision is a human rights issue. The purpose of this is to document this movement and where it stands in relation to others who might be inclined both to agrree with its position and those who might oppose it. If there has been some academic discussion of this movement, both you and I would welcome its addition to the article but even without this I think we can say something meaningful about this movement while staying within the bounds of Wiki policy. Michael Glass (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, Wikipedia's policies are essentially that we don't write about a subject unless others have already done so in reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, we limit our coverage to what has been said about the subject in those reliable sources.
I would be grateful if you would read WP:N#General notability guideline. Jakew (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, I have read the policy guideline and I also note that it is to be applied with commonsense. Now, about the notablilty of the use of the term genital integrity":

  • An article in the British Journal of Urology, 1999: [20]
  • An article in the J Law Med 301 (2000). [21]
  • An article in the American Journal of Bioethics [22]

Google Scholar gave about 93 hits for "genital integrity" This, I believe, is enough to establish the notability of the term according to Wiki policy. Michael Glass (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, could you please explain how the above sources constitute "significant coverage": "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"? Jakew (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, first you argued that the sources of the article were self published and therefore not to be regarded as reliable. In response I pointed out the provisos in the policy about self-published and questionable sources. Now that I have provided sources from the academic literature you challenge me to show that they are significant coverage. This begins to look like trying to answer the Irish Question: if you try to answer it, the Irish change the question. I am not here to play games. I am here to work with you and other editors to improve the article Here are other articles from the academic literature that use the term genital integrity. Taking all these articles together I believe that they provide enough evidence to establish that the term genital integrity is used.

  • An article in the Medical Anthropology Quarterly states "Violating the genital integrity of a child or poorly informed adult as a prophylactic against avoidable diseases is, at best, putting the cart before the horse, and at worst a breach of human rights." [23]
  • There's an article in a book entitled "Understanding Circumcision" entitled "Attitudes of Egyptian Intellectuals towards Genital Integrity for all." by Seham Abd el Salam Mohamed [24]
  • This abstract [25] mentions the International coalition for Genital Integrity
  • An article in the journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health uses the term genital integrity [26]. For example it describes Attorneys for the Rights of the Child as "an international network of attorneys, encourages professionals in various fields, including medical ethics, psychology, and children’s rights to incorporate genital integrity awareness into their work. In addition, they assist in legal cases when a baby is circumcised without the consent of the parents or when there is a complication or death due to a circumcision."
  • An article In Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2005 contains the following: " It is striking that the anti- circumcision movement speaks of ‘genital integrity.’ On March 3, 1989 the General Assembly of the First International ..." [27]

In your next response can you say something positive about improving the article? Michael Glass (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I'm trying to help you to understand policy. I've shown you that self-published sources are generally inadequate. I've shown that sources need to be directly related to the subject of the article. Then, to show you the inclusion criteria for topics in Wikipedia, I asked you to read WP:N#General notability guideline. Clearly stated in this is a requirement that sources contain significant coverage of the topic.
I'm not asking you to show that reliable sources contain trivial use of the term. I'm asking you to show that reliable sources have something meaningful to say about the term which we could actually report in the article. Jakew (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, it seems that when a website has something to say about genital integrity you brand it as unreliable. When an unquestionably reliable source mentions genital integrity you brand it as trivial. I will now illustrate why I get the feeling that you are playing games. Take one of the links I provided [28]. It is also on your own website. [29] It says:

The genital integrity movement
In 1996, Mann[50] noted that public health and human rights were undergoing major transformations, producing more dynamic and challenging linkages between them, through their association. Many years earlier, children's advocates had created non-governmental and professional organizations to protect the rights of children to their genital integrity (Appendix 1). These organizations assert the principle that, where minors are concerned, "the unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession," such interventions being "violations of human rights and a breach of the fundamental code of medical ethics"[2], and that educated professionals have an ethical duty to protect the health and rights of those with little or no social power to protect themselves[51,52]. Details of one such organization, NOHARMM, can be found at the website detailed in Appendix 1.

You cannot argue that the article is trivial, because you put it on your own website. You cannot argue that the source is unreliable because it comes from the British Journal of Urology. You cannot plead ignorance because the article is on your own website. So I ask you, does it or does it not say something meaningful about genital integrity? If so, why didn't you link it to the article yourself? Michael Glass (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I would agree that this article meets WP:RS. However, it contains only trivial usage of the term. The section you quote only uses the term once, and fails to define it. At best we could say something like this:
  • Hammond does not explain what he means by genital integrity, but indicates that it is something to which children may have a right.
That's exactly what I mean by 'trivial'. Jakew 13:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake, Are you defining the rights of children as trivial? I suggest that we quote the passage because it explains what the genital integrity movement is about in plain English. Michael Glass 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, usage of the term is trivial in the sense that we get no important information about the term itself. The passage doesn't even mention a 'genital integrity' movement. There is a single reference to 'genital integrity', which is not presented as a movement, but as something to which one might have a right.
Suppose this article were about 'green vegetables', and we had a source that began:
In 1996, Mann[50] noted that public health and human rights were undergoing major transformations, producing more dynamic and challenging linkages between them, through their association. Many years earlier, children's advocates had created non-governmental and professional organizations to protect the rights of children to their green vegetables (Appendix 1).
What does this hypothetical passage tell us about the topic? It tells us very little about green vegetables, only that children may have a right to them. Nor does it indicate that there is such a thing as a 'green vegetables movement'. Jakew 12:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, Please stop playing games. The whole passage that I quoted is under the heading, "The genital integrity movement". The passage, together with the heading, is in the article. It explains what the movement is about. Your analogy makes about as much sense as saying that the anti-slavery movement says nothing about slavery or anti-slavery, or that gay liberation says nothing about liberation or gays or the liberation of gays. In short, your analogy is a nonsense. Michael Glass 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I am not playing games and I remind you to assume good faith.
I hadn't noticed the heading, which changes the context. I'd therefore agree that the passage is suitable for inclusion.
So that's a start. Now, are there any other reliable sources with significant coverage? Jakew 14:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I apologise for becoming annoyed when you overlooked a heading that you had yourself quoted on your own website, and that I had quoted above. Headings are not noted for being inconspicuous, but I also find it easy to overlook something if I don't want to see it. I have added references and quotations from Hammond to the introduction to the article. Michael Glass 20:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was not obvious that you had quoted a heading, Michael - it appeared to be a sentence fragment. Thank you for adding Hammond to the article. I've altered the text slightly to reflect the topic discussed by the source.
To repeat my question above: are there any other reliable sources with significant coverage? Jakew 11:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you define 'significant'? Michael Glass (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:N states that it "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". Let's say that there's enough material in a source to allow us to write at least one paragraph discussing what the source says about genital integrity. Jakew (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision_controversies/Archive_2&oldid=1136614451"