Talk:National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Brian Morris 1.1 Members? 2 Protecting 2.1 Changes 3 Citations 4 Otto Verdoner's opinion 5 Date NOCIRC was founded 6 Diving in 7 Note about the scope 8 Otto.

[edit] Brian Morris

Brian Morris is not a reliable source WP:RS. He is a pro-circumcision activist and his article is full of misinformation. For example he states that there is only one doctor in Doctors Opposing Circumcision, "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!"

The quote from Morris about NOCIRC is hearsay. The person who wrote Morris claims he was a member of NOCIRC, however NOCIRC is not a membership organization. In other words, there are no "members" of NOCIRC. -- DanBlackham 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

When NOCIRC received its 501(c)3) status, it was determined that NOCIRC would not be a "membership" organization. When I wrote the NOCIRC newsletter, I used the word "member" for those people who asked to be signed up on our mailing list. It does not refer to the type of non-profit organization that NOCIRC is. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

Hello, Marilyn, and welcome to Wikipedia's talk pages! As for how your organisation is structured, you are of course free to arrange that in whatever way you please, and do understand that nobody is criticising you for your choice. Please understand, though, that if your published material creates such an impression, nobody can be held responsible for this. Jakew 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake. I appreciate your welcoming me. Marilyn Milos, 27 February 2006.

My suspicion is that Morris means 'center' when he says 'member'. Regardless, WP:V is very clear: the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is inappropriate to remove something because you happen to believe it to be wrong. It is perfectly ok to cite a published book on the subject, especially as the statement is not exceptional, and is verifiable (Morris does indeed quote this text, right on page 70 of his book).

Brian Morris received information from an attorney with whom I spoke on several occasions. The attorney is the father of twin boys and I congratulated him on protecting his sons and allowing them to make the circumcision decision for themselves. The attorney said I made him and others feel bad about being circumcised. I don't think I have ever said anything to try to make a circumcised male feel bad about his condition. After all, I have three circumcised sons because I didn't know enough to protect them and I was lied to by the doctor. I realized none of this until, as a nursing student, I witnessed a circumcision. When I started to cry, the doctor looked at me and said, "There is no medical reason for doing this!" That's when I began to research the subject. At any rate, Brian Morris, supposedly a scientist, never wrote to me to ask about what he'd been told. He believed it as truth without researching the "hearsay." What kind of scientist does that? Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

I cannot comment on conversations you may or may not have had with others. Your account of your founding of NOCIRC certainly matches David Gollaher's account in his book, and I have no reason to doubt it. Jakew 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, what evidence do you have for the existence of other physician members of DOC? I am only aware of Denniston. The only other members that I am aware of are George Hill and John Geisheker (neither of whom are doctors). Jakew 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I know George Denniston and other members of DOC. The reason George founded DOC is because, even though NOCIRC was started by two nurses and a urologist, along with a host of other doctors on our Professional Advisory Board, NOCIRC was being called a "lay organization." George said, "Enough is enough, Marilyn. I'm founding Doctors Opposing Circumcision. They can't call that a 'lay organization.'" There are doctors from every circumcising nation, including Israel, who belong to DOC. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

The Contact Information page on the Doctors Opposing Circumcision web site list George C. Denniston, M.D. as President and Chief Executive Officer and Mark D. Reiss, M.D. as Executive Vice-President. The article by Brian Morris stating there is only ONE doctor in Doctors Opposing Circumcision is wrong. -- DanBlackham 07:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Doctors Opposing Circumcision includes many physicians worldwide. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

Interesting. Thanks, I'll let Morris know. Jakew 09:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Members?

The article currently states: "Currently, the organization publishes brochures for parents, answering questions about infant circumcisions and several related topics. NOCIRC also distributes an annual newsletter to its members." (emph added)

I was about to edit this in light of DanBlackham's remark that NOCIRC members do not exist. Then I found the following NOCIRC newsletter, which states:

"This issue of the NOCIRC Newsletter, besides being mailed to over 20,000 members," [1]

Dan, how do you explain this? Jakew 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dan doesn't have to explain it, I do. I wrote the newsletter, and referred to those people on the NOCIRC mailing as "members." This was my "mistake." Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

Thank you for your clarification, Marilyn. Jakew 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting

69.181.159.80, please discuss whatever changes you are seeking here. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have had some contact with this anonymous editor, and can at least tell you what they have said. They left this message on my talk page:

I want to remove my organization because I am inept at knowing how to function within your system and don't have time to learn. Someone keeps editing our entry to say that the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers in a non-profit anti-circumcision organization. That is NOT true! If a circumcision is medically necessary, after all alternative, less invasive therapy has been tried and failed, OR, if an adult male, who has been truly informed, wants to be circumcised, our organization supports the need or the right for these. We do, however, want to inform parents that routine infant circumcision is not recommended by any national or international medical association in the world and that there are risk and life-long consequences because of circumcision. This is not anti-circumcision, and our organization should not be labelled as such.

So, because, when I edit our blurb to correct this, it continues to be changed back, I want to be removed from your encyclopedia. Please help me do that.

Thank you,

Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN, Executive Director National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers

Based on this information, I made an attempt to add this information in a neutral and factual manner. (see this edit) You can also see other comments at User_talk:69.181.159.80, including my explanation that it was not likely that the article would be deleted. I'd welcome comments from other editors and from the anonymous editor, a.k.a. Marilyn Milos. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mrs Milos has written several emails to the Wikimedia Foundation complaining that we're representing her organization's position. Since they are the primary and authoritative source about their organization's official position, please do not misrepresent what they say! David.Monniaux 10:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I'm just using this space to hold intended changes while the page is protected...

Add some background info. Change "NOCIRC is affiliated with the International Coalition for Genital Integrity[2]." to "NOCIRC is affiliated with the International Coalition for Genital Integrity[3], and the Executive Director of ICGI, Dan Bollinger,[4] is NOCIRC's Indiana center.[5])"

And to add some balance, change "NOCIRC states that their position is based on the fact that there is not a national or international medical association in the world that recommends routine infant circumcision." to "NOCIRC states that their position is based on the fact that there is not a national or international medical association in the world that recommends routine infant circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics state: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[6]"

We also need to find a source for: "argues that the practice should only occur when it is absolutely medically necessary or if the individual gives full, informed consent to the procedure."

Jakew 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation received the following (#2006021510001063) from Mrs Milos:

[...] We support medically necessary circumcision and the circumcision of a well-informed adult male who chooses genital modification for himself. However, since not one national or international medical association in the world recommends circumcision and, recognizing the harm and life-long consequences, some are recommendingagainst it, we believe parents have a right and an obligation to be fullyinformed." [...]

I consider this a valid source about the official position of their organization. David.Monniaux 11:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't use that without violating WP:NOR and WP:V. Jakew 11:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no original research: this is a statement by the leader of an organization about that organization's public, official goals. It is verifiable by anyone having access to OTRS. (Which is probably better than, say, citing obscure journals only available in libraries most readers don't have access to.) David.Monniaux 11:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR clearly states: "In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly."

OTRS, which as far as I can make out is a (strangely) closed system that is used by Wikipedia, fails miserably to meet this standard. Jakew 11:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is closed for very good reasons: because it receives legal complaints and other confidential information, including personal details. I've suggested to Mrs Milos to publish an official statement on her site, which should clear the matter for all. David.Monniaux 11:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia to me, and it certainly makes it unverifiable. Anyway, your suggestion to Milos is a good one. Jakew 11:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "the spirit of Wikipedia" does not protect you in court, and also does not imply we should publish highly personal details that people do not intend to see published (medical details, personal address, etc.). There's a real world out there, with libel laws, stalkers, etc. :-( David.Monniaux 12:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadly you're correct. The thought occurs to me, however, that if legally sensitive material is not involved, then there is no reason for the data to remain private. Perhaps we should consider adding a flag to the OTRS database to allow records to be marked as public. Jakew 12:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

1996 Canadian Pediatric Society:

"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed."

Note - In 1982 the CPS took a stand against routine infant circumcision because "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." In March 2002 the CPS reaffirmed its 1996 position statement.

Canadian Pediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. 1996

1997 British Association of Paediatric Surgeons:

"The practice should be discouraged by education." [This, of course, is NOCIRC's goal.]

1999 American Academy of Pediatrics:

"...data are not sufficient to recommend circumcision."

2000 American Medical Association:

"This report is confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes. In this case, the term 'non-therapeutic' is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States."

"Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."

"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics"

Note - The summary of the AMA report is very similar to the summary of the AAP policy statement with one important exception. The AMA report does not include the following sentence: "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."

American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. 2000

2004 The Royal Australasian College of Physicians:

"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (emphasis in original document)

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit."

"Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2004.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan:

"Caution Against Routine Circumcision of Newborn Male Infants...physicians would be prudent to consult with and seek advice from the Canadian Medical Protective Association before proceeding."

2003 British Medical Association:

"Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence. Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

"Male circumcision in cases where there is a clear clinical need is not normally controversial. Nevertheless, normal anatomical and physiological characteristics of the infant foreskin have in the past been misinterpreted as being abnormal. The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision. Doctors should be aware of this and reassure parents accordingly."

"Male circumcision that is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes 'ritual') circumcision."

"The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it."

British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003.

2004 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia:

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision. Jun 2004.

2005 American Academy of Pediatrics:

Reaffirms its 1999 Policy Statement: Task Force on Circumcision Policy Statement

---

Dan, it's unclear what you're providing citations for here. Incidentally, your quote from the 1999 AAP is incorrect. It should read: "recommend routine neonatal circumcision." Jakew 10:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

David Monniaux started the section of citations; I just added to them. The quotes from professional medical organizations support the sentence, "NOCIRC states that their position is based on the fact that there is not a national or international medical association in the world that recommends routine infant circumcision". They also highlight the absurdity of the quote by Otto Verdoner that you added to the article, "The "nocirc" movement has no valid science behind it. It is built on nothing more than anecdotes and lies." -- DanBlackham 04:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't support the sentence, since they say nothing about NOCIRC's stated position. I also find it rather amusing that NOCIRC actually have little else in common with the same organisations, other than your carefully selected extracts - they claim harms that no medical organisation has stated, deny the benefits, and recommend against circumcision. They also lobby for change in the same policies. All these things make the claim that their position is based upon the policies hard to believe. Jakew 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The NOCIRC position is based on the fact that professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States all say that infant circumcision is not medically necessary. For many people, knowing that infant circumcision is unnecessary is enough of a reason for them to oppose cutting off a normal, healthy part of a child's genitals.

The quotes accurately reflect the position of the medical organizations that there is no medical indication for elective, non-therapeutic circumcision of children.

The bottom line is the small potential medical benefits of infant circumcision do not outweigh the risks and harms of the surgery. In other words there is no NET medical benefit for infant circumcision. That is not just the NOCIRC position, it is the position of the professional medical organizations. -- DanBlackham 04:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That may well be your interpretation, Dan, but only one or two have said so. Regardless, the selective choice of what it is 'based' upon amuses me. Jakew 10:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No Jake, more than one or two professional medical organizations have said so. Some medical organizations say the medical benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risk, some say there is no medical indication for circumcision, and some say infant circumcision is not essential to a child's health. For example:

• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians -- "After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (emphasis in original document) "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."
• British Medical Association -- "The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision."
• Canadian Paediatric Society -- "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
• American Academy of Pediatrics -- In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." (emphasis added)
• College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia -- "Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

For the record, that pro-circumcision misinformation has been corrected before. [7] -- DanBlackham 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And you're still imposing your interpretation, Dan. Of those, only the RACP explicitly say so, and the CPS imply it. The others do not. It's puzzling that you chose to quote the AAP, incidentally, since essential and beneficial have very different meanings. Jakew 09:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jake, what other surgery will doctors perform on babies that is "not essential to the child's current well-being"? -- DanBlackham 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Verdoner's opinion

Moved from article.

In a letter to Boulder Weekly, Otto Verdoner stated "The "nocirc" movement has no valid science behind it. It is built on nothing more than anecdotes and lies."[8]

Mr. Verdoner's ad hominem attack has no place in an encyclopedia. -- DanBlackham 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The full text of Mr. Verdoner's letter to the editor is included below.

Right-wing penis patrol

The movement opposed to male circumcision, "nocirc," promoted locally by Chester McQueary, is a well-financed national campaign of the fundamentalist Christian right. ("Foreskin 'phallusy,'" Speaking Out, May 2). They spread lies and pseudo-scientific half-truths in order to scare Christians into abandoning male circumcision. They use the current fads of "wholeness" and "naturalness" to cast doubt on the validity of a procedure that reduces infections in males, reduces female cervical cancer, and has zero ill effects on men or women. They tell anecdotes of circumcised men who have trouble achieving orgasm, and uncircumcised men who don't have those problems. There are just as many anecdotes that go the opposite way.

The "nocirc" movement has no valid science behind it. It is built on nothing more than anecdotes and lies. The same kinds of pseudo scientific lies that "proved" that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz.

The real motivation behind the money for the national nocirc campaign is the wish to make Jews and Muslims physically identifiable, the way they were under the Nazis during WWII. Nocirc is a campaign to restore "Christian Purity." It cleverly disguises itself as a holistic healthy happiness movement. That's not what all that money is being spent for. Look them up on the web. Huge organizations, well designed expensive web sites, fancy professional-grade publications. Lots of money is being spent. This isn't some lefty back-to-nature with fringes and tie-dyes group.

A male foreskin was a useful item when proto-humans lived in mud and lots of water. Male circumcision has been a sensible precaution ever since Abraham. Real science backs that up. Pseudo science can be used for hidden agendas. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes. There is real safety in circumcision.

Otto Verdoner/Boulder

This is criticism of NOCIRC, published in a suitable form. It is inappropriate to censor it. Jakew 09:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Verdoner's letter is so full of nonsense is it hard to know where to start. He claims that NOCIRC is a "well-financed national campaign of the fundamentalist Christian right". NOCIRC supporters come from a wide range of religions and political points of view. To say NOCIRC is a "campaign of the fundamentalist Christian right" is nonsense. If Mr. Verdoner is Christian, he should know that circumcision has not been a religious requirement for Christian males since the First Council of Jerusalem (see Book of Acts chapter 15). His claim that NOCIRC "has no valid science behind it" is also nonsense. All of the major professional medical organizations in English speaking countries say there is no medical indication for infant circumcision. Mr. Verdoner is certainly entitled to his opinion, but his letter to the editor is full of nonsense and should not be included in Wikipedia. -- DanBlackham 04:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's that bad, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding criticism. Jakew 09:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date NOCIRC was founded

The source of confusion about the date appears to be the difference between the date NOCIRC was founded and the date it received tax-exempt status. Marilyn Milos wrote "NOCIRC was founded in 1985 and received IRS non-profit status in 1986." [9] The NOCIRC web site now shows the founding date 1985, not the tax status date 1986. -- DanBlackham 18:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, NOCIRC's web site does now show the founding data 1985.

nocirc.org says:

"On March 15, 1985, a group of healthcare professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area, lead by Marilyn Milos RN, announced the founding of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC); the first national clearinghouse in the United States for information about circumcision."[10]

Google's cache of nocirc.org says:

"On March 15, 1986, a group of healthcare professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area, lead by Marilyn Milos RN, announced the founding of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC); the first national clearinghouse in the United States for information about circumcision."[11]

An announcement is an event, with a fixed point in history. This behaviour is typical of NOCIRC's revisionist approach to history.

NOCIRC's press release[12] announcing their founding is still dated March, 1986. I wonder if NOCIRC's Orwellian MiniTruth will alter that...

For the record, I am happy for the article to cite whatever date nocirc.org happens to show this week. I am equally pleased to be a witness to such dishonest rewriting of history. Jakew 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Our press release about the founding of NOCIRC was dated in 1986 at the time we received our 501(c)3) status. However, Sheila Curran, RN, and I founded NOCIRC in 1985. It took us 6 months to receive our IRS status. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

For the record, Mrs Milos wrote to OTRS saying that their web site mixed up two dates (announcement of foundation and announcement of nonprofit status). Note that the Wikimedia Foundation, similarly, was founded months before it got nonprofit status.

I then suggested she updated their site with correct information, because people copy information from there. David.Monniaux 19:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might suggest to her that rather than hiding behind OTRS, she might respond here on the article's talk page and to the numerous messages left on her talk page.

For the record, I was not "hiding behind "OTRS," whatever that means, I was writing to the person who was responding to me because I didn't know yet how to get to this page. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

I propose that any further contact made through such an inappropriate channel should be deleted automatically. Unless a legal or other issue warranting such private communication is demonstrated, attempts to manipulate the editorial content of Wikipedia through it should be ignored. Frankly the situation is already a disgusting violation of WP:NOR, through advice to change her site followed by citing those same updates effectively allowing one 'expert' editor to dictate the content. Jakew 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of trying to dictate the content? Man, I don't give a damn about this NOCIRC organization. As you may have noticed, I have hardly edited the page.

However, if I see somebody telling me her own web site is wrong, then I state the obvious: fix it before complaining about other sites. Plain old common sense, which seems to be lacking on Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm accusing you of nothing, David. I'm just getting a little tired of our 'expert' editor (aka Milos) hiding behind OTRS rather than behaving like a normal person and communicating with others on the appropriate pages. Numerous editors have tried to communicate with her, and there's just silence except for an occasional second-hand message. I'm not criticising you at all. Jakew 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone is trying to contact me via email, I read and respond. What editors have tried to communicate with me? Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

Please see User talk:69.181.159.80. Jakew 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How do I see it? Marilyn Milos, 27 February 2006.

Text underlined in blue is a link. If you click on it, it will take you to the page. Alternatively, you can type the following into the URL bar at the top of your browser's window: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.181.159.80

It's not so important now that you're discussing things here, though. Jakew 12:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diving in

Hello all. I think this article might benefit from some more editors looking at it. As someone that doesn't have a position on the merits of circumcision, I hope I'll be able to help mediate between the different views and help create a good, factual, article. Henrik 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Henrik, your help is appreciated. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

The introduction was getting very long, so I started with moving some of that content into sections. Henrik 19:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And I now moved the rest of the second paragraph, and added "NOCIRC holds a position that is generally sceptical of circumcisions.", which I hope is not disputed. I also removed "and the care of boys who are circumcised and boys who are not circumcised", which was kind of redundant. All boys are either circumcised or not, and i don't belive NOCIRC is in the business of general healthcare of all male children. Henrik 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've once again had to amend the text to clarify that they offer materials on their views, not necessarily facts. Can editors please not remove this? Otherwise, the implication is that their propaganda is factual. Jakew 11:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Jake, but urologist Dr. James L. Snyder is on our board of directors, and there are many physicians on our Professional Advisory Board. We work to keep our information factual, and I do NOT appreciate your calling our material "propaganda."

Marilyn, propaganda is defined as material(s) intended to persuade or otherwise advance a point of view. There can be little doubt that your organisation is intended to do that, and your publications are intended to help achieve that. Do you disagree? If not, how can you argue with my use of the term?

The material we provide is meant to be educational. We are not trying to coerce or persuade, we're simply trying to provide well- documented information. Granted, there are those who want to promote foreskin amputation, but, considering the majority of males in the world are intact and do not experience the dire consequences circumcision advocates suggest will happen with an intact penis, education about normal human anatomy -- its structures, functions, development, and care -- seems like a sensible approach, wouldn't you agree. I wish I'd had the information before my sons were born. Then, I would have realized that my doctor was lying to me. Our point, as I have said on many occasions, is that we want to protect the child until he is old enough to choose for himself, just like you did. During the past 27 years, I have heard from too many unhappily circumcised men to not recognize this as an issue of protecting bodily integrity and self-determination. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

Marilyn, can you honestly say that you expect the material to have no effect on parents decisions? Or do you hope that it will help to 'protect' children? Jakew 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As for implied meaning, yes, I certainly intend the meaning that the information is not factual. It blatantly isn't, and in many cases the available evidence directly contradicts your assertions. I'm sure that Dr Snyder is a good man, but that does not mean that he is incapable of being wrong, nor that he has read all available evidence. For example, your organisation claims in several places (eg pamphlet #3, from memory) that the glans penis loses sensation after circumcision. Not one research study to investigate this has reported such a result - in fact all four have found the exact opposite. I understand that this myth is widely believed, but how can you justify the utter fabrication of such a 'fact'? Jakew 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The glans becomes keratinized (calloused) after circumcision because of its exposure to environmental abrasion and need to protect itself. As Dr. Dean Edell says, "Instead of having one or two cell layers covering it, the glans acquires additional cells with cornification (callousing)." The glans itself, according to pathologists Taylor and Cold, does not have the specialized nerve endings found in the foreskin. When men restore their foreskin, the are often amazed by the fact that the callousing sloughs and the glans once again becomes soft and moist -- returning to the mucous membrane it is meant to be. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

No, it doesn't become any more keratinised than before circumcision. If you search through the literature, following references and so on, you'll find that this myth has no scientific basis. Nobody ever studied the level of keratinisation in circumcised and uncircumcised men prior to Szabo and Short's investigation, which found that there was no difference. I am aware of Taylor and Cold's ideas. Jakew 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jake. Just saying that they offer materials isn't really advocating the validity of the material, so I don't agree with your assertion that it implies factuality. I think most reasonable readers would understand that any material offered by an organization such as NOCIRC reflects their views, so saying that is a bit redundant (and makes for worse prose). It might be better to expand the criticism section instead (it's a bit crummy at the moment), which I think you are uniquely qualified to do. Henrik 11:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Henrik. Marilyn Milos, RN, 27 February 2006.

[edit] Note about the scope

Just one note (after seeing the discussion above) - This article isn't about the merits, results or advantages/disadvantages of circumcision, that might be better discussed elsewhere. This article is primarily about the NOCIRC organization and its views (along with any criticism that exists). Henrik 07:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Henrik. I think it's reasonable to discuss these in the context of NOCIRC and their activities, but we need to be careful not to get off-topic. Jakew 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otto.

Please explain how Otto is notable and why we should link to his paranoid conspiracy theory. If you fail to do so, I will be forced to remove this text because it is not supported by a reliable source. I will revert in about 12 hours. Alienus 12:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already left a note on your talk page. I remind you that a newspaper is considered a reliable source. Jakew 12:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a newpaper article is considered a reliable source. After all, reporters must adhere to certain standards of neutrality and must check their facts. No such constraints apply to the letters they print, which are typically of much lower quality.

As I explained, Otto is not a reliable source because he has no academic or professional standing upon which to judge the scientific validity of NOCIRC's claims. Not only is he a layman, but he espouses an extremist conspiracy theory in his letter, which undercuts his reliability. We are cautioned not to use extremists as if they were reliable sources, remember?

If you want to say that NOCIRC has bad science, go for it. But find a better source than this kook.

Also, in the future, please reply here. There's no reason to make other editors jump to user pages just to follow the thread. Alienus 13:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Alienus on this particular one, with respect to the text as it currently exists. If a newspaper article about Otto exists, that is a reliable source. A letter to the editor, however, seems fairly marginal to me. Nandesuka 13:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If we were talking about some earth-shattering statement, for example that NOCIRC had been found guilty of some terrible crime, I'd agree. Remember that extreme claims require extreme evidence. The opposite is true, too, though. In a section on criticism, we're effectively citing 'opinions that have been expressed about this organisation'. How difficult is it to verify? I say it's easy. This opinion has clearly, verifiably, been expressed.

I would not object to the quote being extended to include what Alienus describes as his 'conspiracy theory', however, so that readers may form their own opinion of his credibility. Jakew 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no context to explain who Otto is. So the overall feel of that section is "And some guy on the street says they are kooks", which doesn't explain why we thought Otto was notable enough to include. (Note: I have no idea who Otto is, and I still don't. So that's a problem with the text as written.) Let's given an example:

President George Bush said, in a letter to the New York Times, that Richard Stallman is hard to work with

Obviously ok. Implicitly identifies the speaker, and anyway everyone knows who he is besides.

Jamie Zawinski said, in a letter to the New York Times, that Richard Stallman is hard to work with

Who is Jamie Zawinski? Why are we quoting him?

Jamie Zawinski, author of Netscape and frequent collaborator of Stallman's, 
said in a letter to the New York Times that Richard Stallman is hard to work with.

Right now the Otto sentence reads like #2. It should read more like #3. That's my opinion, anyway. Nandesuka 13:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a fair point. Let me investigate. Jakew 13:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if Otto weren't a conspiracy freak, I don't see why his opinion on the scientific validity of NOCIRC's statements would be relevant. But he is a conspiracy freak, and it would be POV to hide this fact. I would agree to keep Otto's words under the condition that we add a suitable disclaimer that mentions that he accuses them, entirely without evidence, of being an antisemitic conspiracy. Then readers would have sufficient information available to them so as to allow judgement. Otherwise, I cannot support his continued inclusion. Alienus 13:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind restating that in neutral terms, without condeming people as 'freaks' and their ideas as 'conspiracy theories'? It would make it much easier to work with you on NPOV issues. Jakew 13:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is for articles, not Talk. For the article, I'd use something along the lines of "Otto has also accused NOCIRC of being a right-wing Christian organization whose goal is to make sure that only Jews and Muslims were circumcized and therefore identifiable". Something like that, anyhow. You want to try a draft? I'm off for a few hours, so you can hammer it out while I'm doing other things. Alienus 14:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what Jakew can do with this, but unless it can be improved substantially I'll have to agree with Alienus and Nandesuka. A letter to the editor of some paper is not a very good source to begin with, so we must establish Otto's credentials in some other way for it to be valid for this article. Henrik 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)