Hi, I shall be mediating your case. In the next few days I shall put some questions on here which it would be great to get all your views on. We can then use this as the starting point for the mediation. If you need to contact me at any stage please either e-mail me or drop a message on my talk-page. --
Wisd
e
n17 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Right, now I've managed to read through the quite rigorous debate that all of you have had over this issue. Now I can see that this clearly is quite an emotive issue, perhaps surprisingly. What is also very clear from your debate is that all of you have the best interests of this article at heart, and all of you have been able to provide evidence and compelling arguments to support your side. What I see my job as is to try and resolve your differences, as much as possible, or to help you find a compromise solution.
I have not been involved in any way with the page, as you will all be aware, and had not come across the page until I took on this case.
Initially I have some questions which I would like all parties opinion on, if possible, or if you feel that your view has been expressed already you need not answer, or you may simply want to indicate your support for it.
Now if we take thess two questions to start with. We can then address the issue of whether there is a real faction of editors trying to impose their POV, and use RFAs to do this.
I think from looking at your debate so far it has been generally civil, but there have been occasional lapses. I would urge all parties to be Civil whilst the mediation is taking place.
The discussion on this pages needs to be as clear and concise as possible, as most of the issues and evidence and reasoning will have been raised before. -- Wisd e n17 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd like to add that the link between CA-MRSA and circumcision is not something we came up here on Wikipedia as original research. As it turns out, a group known Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) put out a widely-distributed press release on this topic.
One instance can be found here, although Googling turns up more. On their own site, they've put up a Special Statement on the issue. Before clicking on this link, please note that it contains some disturbing medical photographs. I mention this fact to avoid surprises, not because I suggest the inclusion of shock pictures in the article.
Based on prior experience, I'm going to anticipate that Jakew, Nandesuka and Jayjg will all deny that DOC qualifies as a reliable source, on the basis that it is a partisan group. Nonetheless, as Superdix shows, the medical community has ascertained that CA-MRSA is a risk for any procedure that cuts the skin, including circumcision. To the best of my knowledge, there is no verifiable basis upon which circumcision could be excluded from this.
As for a "Criticism of Circumcision" article, I think this would constitute a POV fork, which is not generally considered good Wikipedia practice. Al 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I think the above two comments are clearly the one side in the debate, those who think that the article should make mention of a link. I would be very interested in Jakew, Nandesuka and Jayjg's view of DOC. I would also ask them to critique the above evidence provided and introduce any evidence they may have to support their 'side'. -- Wisd e n17 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Jake wrote:
As Kasreyn correctly pointed out the Washington Post article does not say DOC is extremist. To compare an organization that opposes medically unnecessary genital surgery on children with Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party is over the top rhetoric. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy statement on circumcision says, "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." Currently there is a debate over whether or not non-therapeutic circumcision of children is ethical. To characterize one POV in the ethical debate as extremist but not the other POV is not a fair or objective analysis of the ethical debate. -- DanBlackham 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jake wrote, "Secondly, he claims that UNAIDS have cautioned against circumcision. If you read the UNAIDS/WHO joint statement, [10] you'll see that they do nothing of the kind." The DOC press release says:
The quote is from the UNAIDS document Prevention: daunting challenges ahead [11]. The DOC statement "UNAIDS has cautioned against circumcision" is accurate. -- DanBlackham 06:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Following the mention of DOC as a possible source of information I contacted their President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. George Denniston. Dr. Denniston replied very quickly to me, and here is his initial reply related to the question of infection:
Now this I would say perhaps makes DOC's view even clearer, in that they seem to admit that this is a view based merely on possibility (prospective, rather than retrospective). Again reference is made to the Bratu paper, which has been previously discussed at length.
The question I suppose then is would we wish there to be mention of a possiblelink on the article. My initial reaction is a resounding yes. Looking at the evidence presented if a group of professional doctors have raised the issue of a link, then putting it on Wikipedia would not be a breach of WP:NOR. The idea of verifibilty is extremely important, and of course when discussing medicine, esepcially, you could arguably never have truth.
The issue seems to be about what form any mention of any link should be. I would personally say that a mention of a possible link could be justified under Wikipedia's policies, and a link to DOC's website should be provided on the main article (in order for people to make their own minds up about the issue).
Now you may ask on what am I basing my reasoning. If we look at the evidence regarding circumcision there is clearly a debate about its risks. The key piece of research evidence appears to Bratu's paper. My own feeling is that for a proper page on a Medical Analysis of Circumcision you need to reflect the area of current debate. Clearly there is a number of people who have opinions that there is a link. By mentioning this link in the article it would not breach WP:NOR, as it clearly is not original to these contributors.
The point is that we want the article to be as complete as possible, and if there is a section on the page regarding Bratu's paper and the possible link then this can only benefit the site and article.
Science and medicine are constantly evolving and obviously people are also postualting ideas. This is clearly an idea, not a fact, about circumcision: DOC make this clear in their answer to me.
The point is though, that whilst it is only an opinion, it is one of some note. DOC are clearly an organisation, they have a website, they have a reasonably large membership. In order to have a proper analysis of the subject then reference needs to be made to the current debate.
I think the article should make it clear though, that, in the words of Dr. Denniston: The warning is prospective, rather than retrospective
Now, I welcome all your views on my suggestion. I have tried to address the points made, by both sides, and I would hope to see this as a compromise. The article, in my opinion, should make reference to a possible link. This should be made under reference to an analysis of Bratu's paper. The article should also have a link to DOC's page. The article cannot otherwise claim to be an accurate analysis if it fails to take account of a view which may have some basis in fact.
The article should allow people the opportunity to know that there is a debate about the procedure, in the medical sense, and what this debate hinges on. You cannot say that there is no original research but you may well say that this research is of a questionable or poor nature. But the article should still have this evidence included but with the caveat regarding its interpretation.
Now I would welcome all your views on this proposal. -- Wisd e n17 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Wisden17, thanks for taking the step of contacting DOC. My take on this is that there should be some mention of CA-MRSA, since it's clear that actual doctors have considered this risk, so it doesn't run afoul of WP:RS, WP:NOR or WP:V. However, Jake is right in that there has not been an epidemic of CA-MRSA infections in circumcized boys, so we shoud be careful to say that this is a potential risk, not a plague. In short, I think it all comes down to how we explain this, not whether we do. Given what we know, to omit it would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Al 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The original research policy is one that gives people a lot of heartburn. A typical complaint is that when editors invoke WP:NOR, they are being silly, because the original research is "just common sense!" One question I've been asked repeatedly on this issue is "Are you saying that we can't include logical syllogisms? Are you saying that if I cite a source saying 'All men are mortal' and another source saying 'Socrates is a man' that I can't say 'Socrates is mortal'?"
The policy clearly provides the answer: that's right. You can't say that. Please allow me to include an extended quote (from WP:NOR, emphasis in original):
(begin quote)
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.
So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.
But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.
For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.
(end quote)
It's my position that this is perfectly apposite to what has been done with MRSA on this article. There is no scholarly evidence — none whatsoever — that MRSA is associated with circumcision. So, a bunch of quotes about MRSA and MSSA are being strung together to create the impression that there is a link (eg, [12]) This is in support of a personal belief of the authors, and is the very definition of original research. Superdix himself acknowledges, implicitly, that Bratu is not discussing circumcision. In other words, Bratu is not talking about MRSA in the context of the topic the article is about. Applying his work to this topic is, therefore, original research, just as surely as the "Chicago Manual of Style" example given on the WP:NOR page is.
Also relevant here is the the concept of "undue weight" from WP:NPOV. Jimbo gave us a specific formulation that I find to be both concise and useful:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth. The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.
While i believe that there may be some appropriate way to incorporate DOC's fringe belief that circumcision causes facilitates the transmission of MRSA, that really isn't the central issue, and never has been. The issue is the attempt on the parts of some editors to use confusing writing and selective quotations from other publications to represent that fringe belief as the truth.
So. I'd like to propose that we try to answer the following questions about the DOC link. Does the DOC opinion that circumcision causes facilitates the transmission of MRSA constitute a significant minority, or an extremely small minority? (I am dismissing "majority" out of hand for the obvious reasons) If the former, a properly worded addition indicating that some believe yadda yadda may be appropriate. Evidence for this being a "significant minority view" might be other scholarly sources that make the link or claim to believe in a link (and in fact, maybe we can find a reliable source, which would let us avoid using the propaganda link at all.) If DOC consititutes "a vast minority", then the link is inappropriate, as it constitutes a violation of both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which are not really issues to be negotiated. I will propose that if the DOC link is the only direct statement we have, than it is by definition a "extremely small minority."
Hope that helps, Nandesuka 12:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
So what you're saying is that at least two doctors endorse this press release about CA-MRSA risk but you know better than they do? Please help me understand. Al 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This mediation has clearly got started. We have now got input from a number of parties.
Let me take the issues raised so far, and offer ways forward in discussing them.
Looking at the three options it would appear none is ideal. There may well be a link but there does not at the present time appear to be a reliable source which shows that link.
Saying that, if DOC get back to me with membership figures that represent a large number of doctors then this view may need to be revised slightly.
I suggest that we await DOC's response, and also that we continue further discussion on the issue here. I would be interested to know on what basis you would argue that you can add the views of DOC to this article, when even they admit that warning is prospective, rather than retrospective, meaning that any evidence will be purely 'guesswork' (for want of a better word).
Also I would welcome people's views on the suggestion of adding a link to the DOC's page under external links section, in order that people can look at all sides of the debate for themselves (without having to bear in mind Wikipedia's policies).
My next suggestion is that some of you may like to look at debating the content of Wikipedia's policies, in the relevant places, as some of you clearly seem a bit disillusioned by them. All of Wikipedia's policies are open to change and debate, indeed they may well need it. Wikipedia is run by the community and so the community have a say in its policies. If you feel that they need chaning then propose revisions to them and let the community comment on them.
Another point is that you may wish to look at this pageand try to get evidence to support a claim via that route.
Essentially we need to discuss what the best way to include a reference to a view that there is a link would be. So should it be a mention in the artilce, or link?
Two other points need to be considered, as the mediation was not only about a possible link being mentioned in the article.
Additionally the RfM mentioned:
I don't really wish to discuss RfA's as I feel that the specific arbitration hearing is the place to do such a thing.
The second point, though, may be worth discussing. I think the problem boils down to how to implement Wikipedia's policies, but also do so in a manner which does not insult or offend other people. From looking at the evidence I cannot see that there is a group that seem to 'own' the article, but that there is a group that seem keen to ensure that the article is as accurate as pssible and conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
A common problem with Wikipedia is to do with its policies and not with its editors. The issue in this case may well be to do with WP:NOR. If this is indeed the case, I have said above that you may wish to look at proposing changes to that policy and awaiting the community's view.
I look forward to reading you views to the questions presented above. -- Wisd e n17 16:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
That's fascinating, but fails to address any of the issues I brought up, so it's hardly productive. Speaking of issues, I was amused by some text recently added to Talk:Medical_analysis_of_circumcision (search for "Did we read the same article? ") by a guy calling himself User:Tzaddik. A quick google confirmed the meaning of his nick, which pretty much told me in advance what his view was.
Anyhow, the text was trying to praise the neutrality of the article, but managed to do quite the opposite, with such unintentional humor as: "It left me a slanted conclusion... pro circumcision; which seems to be the correct one, given my understanding of the different studies and data quoted. In fact, although my mind was made up from the start, the article kept me guessing throughout the read, as to where the data would lead." I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Al 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
First of all, your consistent assumption of bad faith does not constitute an insult on my part. Second, your beliefs about Wikipedia policies do not have much bearing on the truth. Third, if you have nothing to say about the matters brought up in this RfM, please do not fill up this page with irrelevancies. I urge you to put aside your squabbling and personal attacks so that you can be productive. Al 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, Wisden, it seems that DOC's policy prevents them from giving any verifiable information about their membership:
I would not be opposed to including an 'external link' to DOC's hypothesis, as long as the wording is suitable (something like "statement proposing a possible link between circumcision and MRSA, from Doctors Opposing Circumcision"). However, until such time as mention is made in a reliable source, I can't see any way of including it in the article itself in a way that conforms to policy.
While I personally feel that policy is working well on the whole, I would certainly endorse your suggestion of raising objections to policy at the relevant pages. Jakew 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The issue that seems to be causing contention is the intent behind the three relevant Wikipedia policies. Alienus, you seem to suggest that because DOC have suggested a possible link that this provides a reliable source, and that it provides evidence of synthesis. However, I feel I must ask you to look again at WP:RS, and WP:NOR. The following phrase is key:
Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
Does a report by DOC, meet that requirement: no. Does the Bratu report meet that requirement: yes. But the problem with Bratu's report relates to the question of synthesis, and whilst there has been synthesis performed by DOC in their report this report does not meet with the above requirement.
I would ask again that we try to keep this mediation as civil as possible. Obviously when edit conflicts arise it can lead to quite strong emotions, especially when people delete your edits. However we will get nowhere in this mediation if we cannot remain civil.
With regard to the question of RfAs and the related matters this is not the place to discuss them. The RfA is that place, and you should present any evidence you have regarding these issues there, and if necessary you could contact Jimboif you feel that the RfA has been unjust in any way.
Now looking forwards towards a possible solution. What are your views on there being a link to the DOC page in the external links, with a description along the lines of:
A site with information from an anti-circumcision group, who postulate a possible link between circumcision and CA-MRSA.
Obviously that description is not perfect, but how about something along those lines; what are your thoughts? -- Wisd e n17
The problem is that it makes DOC look like a one-trick pony. In fact, CA-MRSA is only one of the issues they're concerned about. There should definitely be a link to DOC, but it should be described more generally, as an anti-circumcision medical advocacy group.
Now, if we wanted to link directly to the page on the DOC site that has their statement on CA-MRSA, that would be a different matter.
In any case, I do not see an synthesis problem with the Bratu source. There is no synthesis in noting that circumcision involves cutting; it's part of the definition. If anything, it would be OR on our part to reinterpret it so as to somehow exclude circumcision. In other words, Bratu suffices even if DOC is problematic. Al 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A site with information from an anti-circumcision group, who, amongst other things, postulate a possible link between circumcision and CA-MRSA.
Actually, I didn't even bother responding to his example because it's so obviously flawed. It would require a combination of medical ignorance and outright malice to arrive at his conclusions. In short, he proves my point for me.
Once again, there are two places for DOC in this article. The first is as a generic external link, the second is in specific mention of CA-MRSA. I don't see how these can be combined. Al 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It looks like you're suggesting that DOC get two links at the bottom, one to the home page and the other to the CA-MRSA page. I'm not sure that this is a particularly good idea, though. Al 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Compatible with your view of policy, anyhow. I'm sure you'd love to Omit mention of CA-MRSA, as that has been your stated goal all along. However, that is not a reasonable choice. Likewise, neither Add, Modify nor Replace are acceptable. As I pointed out earlier, there are really two separate things to link to: the site in general and the CA-MRSA page in specific. However, it seems awkward to place them both at the bottom as external links. Al 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe I've already explained, though it turns out that we disagree. Al 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The main issue here has been outlined fairly succinctly. The problem with trying to make a specific connection between CA-MRSA and circumcision is that there are no reliable sources which make this connection, and so the attempt to link the two in any specific way is original research. As Jakew has clearly shown, the one source trying to make this connection is almost the epitome of what Wikipedia considers a non-reliable source.
This issue is compounded by the fact that some of the editors trying to make this link are inexperienced an unfamiliar with policy. Even worse, the one editor who is somewhat more experienced has developed an intractable bad faith attitude towards Jakew, Nandesuka, and me. This is evidenced by, for example, his continual use of the term "pro-circumcision advocates" to describe Nandesuka and me, even though we've patiently explained we are not. As well, in a "pre-emptive" move he has put a notice on his Talk page stating that anything we post there will be reverted. It's even gotten to the point where he's accused me of "vote stacking" (which, to his credit, he retracted), but then, rather hypocritically, attempted to vote stack himself, on an topic in which I am quite interested but in which he has heretofore evinced no interest. So, in the end, what should have been a very simple decision to exclude the original research, based on policy, has become a protracted battle based on personal animosity. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
See above for further examples of the problem. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that whilst both of you make interesting points it does little to help us achieve a consensus. It seems obvious to me that this article has produced a good level of debate, which should be encouraged as it shows dedication to making Wikipedia as comprehensive as possible. However, we must make sure that debate does not turn into insult and that we keep the arguments to facts as opposed to opinions, and that we should AGF.
I would ask both of you to look at a way forward to reach a consensus. Alienus you do not seem overly keen on my proposal so what do you suggest exactly? Do you think that a link should be provided in addition to information in the main-page, if so what would be the wording you would like to see of any text? Jayjg, do you feel a link to DOC is an acceptable compromise? --
Wisd
e
n17 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Dr. Dennison has sent me the link to an interesting article (I note he made no answer to my request for membership numbers!). I would suggest you all take a look at it, whilst it clearly does not meet any of the Wikipedia guidelines for a RS etc. it may well be worth considering linking to the page as a further example of empirical evidence. -- Wisd e n17 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, I don't think that Wikipedia policy is the problem. My conclusion is that there is a misunderstanding of policy that is being used to prevent the inclusion of what is obviously neither original nor unverifiable. Reasonable people can disagree. Al 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The issue here is again, I feel a misunderstanding of the nature and use of Wikipedia's policy. POVs can easily be imagined out of following correct Wikipedia policy. There is no RS of a link and so to include it would be wrong. Wikipedia is not meant to be a reference site without any guidelines or policies on its information. I can understand the frustration that some of you have with the feeling that the article should take all possible steps to ensure that people are aware of the full picture. However, as it stands with Wikipedia's policy you cannot include reference to a link, as it would constitute OR. The policy seems to be where the disagreement lies. And I should reiterate that whilst the RS is only a guideline it is one that needs to be followed in relation to this article, as otherwise no agreeable solution will be found.
We need to look at what that solution should be. A number of possibilities have been presented below. I've decided to make it clear what solution we are working towards. A number of alternatives have been presented and meet with justifiable resistance, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So I ask you all take a look at the options I've presented below and give your thoughts without entering into too long a discussion. We've had a long enough discussion and we are starting to go around in circles. We need to resolve this issue and decide on a course of action. -- Wisd e n17 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has a large section on prostate cancer and circumcision, however a relationship between prostate cancer and circumcision status is not a "reliable, established, widely accepted fact". None of the professional medical organizations that have policies on circumcision even mention prostate cancer. Only pro-circumcision web sites suggest a connection between prostate cancer and circumcision status. If the goal is an article with "widely accepted facts", the paragraph on prostate cancer should be removed. -- DanBlackham 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, there are a few articles that mention a relationship between prostate cancer and circumcision status, but the medical community does not give them much weight. The American Cancer Society does not even mention circumcision in relation to prostate cancer. The policy statements on circumcision by professional medical organizations do not mention prostate cancer. If you look at general articles about prostate cancer or general articles about circumcision by reliable sources, they do not mention an association between prostate cancer and circumcision. -- DanBlackham 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't like having to repeat things that have already been said on this page, especially as it is rather long already. However, I feel that to focus this issue I need to repeat what Jakew has said:
Alienus, you have already replied to this suggestion, but not in the most helpful of ways. I have a further suggestion which may please both sides:
This would allow both links to be combined into one entry in the externals link section. I do not think that there is any justification to add information regarding the CA-MRSA link in the main artilce text as there is no evidence of an acceptable standard to justify this, as we have discussed at length above.
What I would like is for all parties to say as succinctly as possible their views on this as a compromise solution. -- Wisd e n17 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
My interpretation is that stating that CA-MRSA is a risk would be OR, due to a lack of such conclusive support. However, reporting that DOC and others have expressed concern about this risk is entirely within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia rules. Therefore, I do not believe that these four options are what we should limit ourselves to. Al 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
How Wikipedia policy is interpreted seems to be influenced at least in part by the desired result.
In the Breastfeeding article Jake argued that two letters written by International Board Certified Lactation Consultants published in the Journal of Human Lactation are not a reliable source. Jake also said The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding and The Breastfeeding Answer Book published by La Leche League International are just "opinion pieces". Two editors familiar with breastfeeding verified that The Breastfeeding Answer Book is an "authoritative reference" in the field of breastfeeding. [25]
Later Jake argued that Otto Verdoner's rather strange letter to the editor published in a weekly newspaper in Boulder, Colorado is a reliable source for the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers article. [26] [27] -- DanBlackham 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This information is not relevant to the mediation. We have discussed at length the quesion of policy, and it has been discussed before on the article's talk page. We are now at the stage where we need to decide on actual solutions, so I would ask both of you to comment on my proposal above, or produce your own proposal. -- Wisd e n17 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The only thing that can be agreed upon is that there should be an external link to DOC. Does everyone still agree that we should have this (at least) on the article, and if so does the following format appear acceptable:
Alienus and Superdix have suggested an inclusion in the main article text, which has been met with opposition. Do you feel that a link on its own is acceptable, or is it simply more confusing; should there be any reference made to the link below, something along the lines of:
DOC have many concerns, of a medical nature, regarding circumcision (none of which have been proven).
The wording is not brilliant, but it cannot be too different, the article cannot claim that there is proof to support their claims as according to Wikipedia's policies there is not. Again some of you may have a problem with policy more than with the article.
So the questions which I want brief answers to is this:
Lets not descend into more protracted discussions which are covering the same ground. I want to get a solution to this issue, and to that end, I want you thoughts as briefly as possible to the two above questions. -- Wisd e n17 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Right, from this I see what I guessed would be the answers. Let me responded to Jayjg's comments regarding the 'mediation trump[ing] policy'. The idea of getting you to answer briefly to the above questions is to help bring this mediation to a close. What is noticeable is that you have all answered yes to the first questions, thus we have an obvious compromise there. Whilst some of you are keen to include information in the article, many of you are not, and clear policy related arguments have been used. I would therefore suggest that we conclude this mediation. I shall insert the above link into the article, and I suggest that Alienus and Superdix that you look to propose changes to Wikipedia's relevant policies as you are clearly not happy with them. You may well like to use this case as an example as what you see as the problems with the current policies (you feel that the article cannot be as comprehensive as possible due to the fact that the policy is 'tying your hands'). If you would like any help about what steps are necessary to go about proposing changes to the relevant policies I would be happy to help in that regard.
I appreciate some of you will not be entirely happy with the outcome of this mediation, however, both sides have compromised and we have reached a good solution, which is acceptable to both sides (neither side objects to it). One side clearly wants to have information in the article, but has been explained above this is not the consensus view, and more importantly is not allowed by policy.
I have addressed above the other points raised in the initial RfM, and do not wish to discuss those matters further. As I have said above the relevant place to do so if individual RfA's and I do not wish to take the place of an RfA.
If any of the parties would like further help regarding this article or related articles in the future then I would be happy to help.
I hope that all of you can use this compromise solution as a new-leaf and look at developing all the related articles in as civil and healthy a manner as possible. -- Wisd e n17 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Upon due consideration, I have changed my vote -- see above. My support for first option must be understood as dependent upon the second one being removed due to rule violation. Despite much hand-waving, it has very clearly not been. It is consistent with WP:V and avoids WP:NOR by accurately reporting the beliefs of a notable group as beliefs rather than fact. It's not entirely clear whether WP:RS would interfere, but as it is only a guideline, we are free to ignore it if it doesn't make sense in this context.
In short, I am not satisfied with a mention in External Links if we can place a careful compromise sentence into the article body without violating any rules. I flatly disagree with and will not accept the misinterpretation of the rules by the pro-circumcision trio. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot mention the simple fact that some people claim there's a connection, despite the lack of evidence. This is notable, relevant and verifiable.
There are also many precedents. Consider that, on emergency contraception, we bend over backwards to mention the completely unsupported claims of various activist groups, including misdefinitions of pregnancy, false allegations of interference with implantation and so on, just to be fair. The claims may be nonsense, but they're someone else's nonsense, so we're allowed to repeat them, despite WP:NOR. Of course, we also state that there is no medical support for them. In contrast, the proposed solution for this article is to relegate everything to a footnote, which is highly partisan.
With all due respect, this mediation must either be considered still in progress, or a failure. I am willing to continue to discuss these issues and work towards an acceptable compromise. If they're not, then it's time for the next step. Al 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It's so simple... CA-MRSA exists, and raises the risks of all surgical procedures. It has reduced the frequency of elective procedures.
Informed consent now requires inclusion of infections risks, specifically MRSA, and Wiki should reflect practice.
It's easy to find research quotes (non DOC) citing general surgical MRSA risks. The risks/complications section should also review this relatively new risk. TipPt 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The mediation appears to have resulted in very little. I still fundamentally thing the problem lies with a misunderstanding with Wikipedia's policies, and a misinterpretation of applying the policies correctly and POV editing. I'm sorry that we could not achieve more out of this mediation, but I have offered my advice and guidance above. I thank all of you for remaining relatively civil througout this mediation. -- Wisd e n17 15:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi, I shall be mediating your case. In the next few days I shall put some questions on here which it would be great to get all your views on. We can then use this as the starting point for the mediation. If you need to contact me at any stage please either e-mail me or drop a message on my talk-page. --
Wisd
e
n17 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Right, now I've managed to read through the quite rigorous debate that all of you have had over this issue. Now I can see that this clearly is quite an emotive issue, perhaps surprisingly. What is also very clear from your debate is that all of you have the best interests of this article at heart, and all of you have been able to provide evidence and compelling arguments to support your side. What I see my job as is to try and resolve your differences, as much as possible, or to help you find a compromise solution.
I have not been involved in any way with the page, as you will all be aware, and had not come across the page until I took on this case.
Initially I have some questions which I would like all parties opinion on, if possible, or if you feel that your view has been expressed already you need not answer, or you may simply want to indicate your support for it.
Now if we take thess two questions to start with. We can then address the issue of whether there is a real faction of editors trying to impose their POV, and use RFAs to do this.
I think from looking at your debate so far it has been generally civil, but there have been occasional lapses. I would urge all parties to be Civil whilst the mediation is taking place.
The discussion on this pages needs to be as clear and concise as possible, as most of the issues and evidence and reasoning will have been raised before. -- Wisd e n17 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd like to add that the link between CA-MRSA and circumcision is not something we came up here on Wikipedia as original research. As it turns out, a group known Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) put out a widely-distributed press release on this topic.
One instance can be found here, although Googling turns up more. On their own site, they've put up a Special Statement on the issue. Before clicking on this link, please note that it contains some disturbing medical photographs. I mention this fact to avoid surprises, not because I suggest the inclusion of shock pictures in the article.
Based on prior experience, I'm going to anticipate that Jakew, Nandesuka and Jayjg will all deny that DOC qualifies as a reliable source, on the basis that it is a partisan group. Nonetheless, as Superdix shows, the medical community has ascertained that CA-MRSA is a risk for any procedure that cuts the skin, including circumcision. To the best of my knowledge, there is no verifiable basis upon which circumcision could be excluded from this.
As for a "Criticism of Circumcision" article, I think this would constitute a POV fork, which is not generally considered good Wikipedia practice. Al 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I think the above two comments are clearly the one side in the debate, those who think that the article should make mention of a link. I would be very interested in Jakew, Nandesuka and Jayjg's view of DOC. I would also ask them to critique the above evidence provided and introduce any evidence they may have to support their 'side'. -- Wisd e n17 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Jake wrote:
As Kasreyn correctly pointed out the Washington Post article does not say DOC is extremist. To compare an organization that opposes medically unnecessary genital surgery on children with Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party is over the top rhetoric. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy statement on circumcision says, "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." Currently there is a debate over whether or not non-therapeutic circumcision of children is ethical. To characterize one POV in the ethical debate as extremist but not the other POV is not a fair or objective analysis of the ethical debate. -- DanBlackham 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jake wrote, "Secondly, he claims that UNAIDS have cautioned against circumcision. If you read the UNAIDS/WHO joint statement, [10] you'll see that they do nothing of the kind." The DOC press release says:
The quote is from the UNAIDS document Prevention: daunting challenges ahead [11]. The DOC statement "UNAIDS has cautioned against circumcision" is accurate. -- DanBlackham 06:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Following the mention of DOC as a possible source of information I contacted their President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. George Denniston. Dr. Denniston replied very quickly to me, and here is his initial reply related to the question of infection:
Now this I would say perhaps makes DOC's view even clearer, in that they seem to admit that this is a view based merely on possibility (prospective, rather than retrospective). Again reference is made to the Bratu paper, which has been previously discussed at length.
The question I suppose then is would we wish there to be mention of a possiblelink on the article. My initial reaction is a resounding yes. Looking at the evidence presented if a group of professional doctors have raised the issue of a link, then putting it on Wikipedia would not be a breach of WP:NOR. The idea of verifibilty is extremely important, and of course when discussing medicine, esepcially, you could arguably never have truth.
The issue seems to be about what form any mention of any link should be. I would personally say that a mention of a possible link could be justified under Wikipedia's policies, and a link to DOC's website should be provided on the main article (in order for people to make their own minds up about the issue).
Now you may ask on what am I basing my reasoning. If we look at the evidence regarding circumcision there is clearly a debate about its risks. The key piece of research evidence appears to Bratu's paper. My own feeling is that for a proper page on a Medical Analysis of Circumcision you need to reflect the area of current debate. Clearly there is a number of people who have opinions that there is a link. By mentioning this link in the article it would not breach WP:NOR, as it clearly is not original to these contributors.
The point is that we want the article to be as complete as possible, and if there is a section on the page regarding Bratu's paper and the possible link then this can only benefit the site and article.
Science and medicine are constantly evolving and obviously people are also postualting ideas. This is clearly an idea, not a fact, about circumcision: DOC make this clear in their answer to me.
The point is though, that whilst it is only an opinion, it is one of some note. DOC are clearly an organisation, they have a website, they have a reasonably large membership. In order to have a proper analysis of the subject then reference needs to be made to the current debate.
I think the article should make it clear though, that, in the words of Dr. Denniston: The warning is prospective, rather than retrospective
Now, I welcome all your views on my suggestion. I have tried to address the points made, by both sides, and I would hope to see this as a compromise. The article, in my opinion, should make reference to a possible link. This should be made under reference to an analysis of Bratu's paper. The article should also have a link to DOC's page. The article cannot otherwise claim to be an accurate analysis if it fails to take account of a view which may have some basis in fact.
The article should allow people the opportunity to know that there is a debate about the procedure, in the medical sense, and what this debate hinges on. You cannot say that there is no original research but you may well say that this research is of a questionable or poor nature. But the article should still have this evidence included but with the caveat regarding its interpretation.
Now I would welcome all your views on this proposal. -- Wisd e n17 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Wisden17, thanks for taking the step of contacting DOC. My take on this is that there should be some mention of CA-MRSA, since it's clear that actual doctors have considered this risk, so it doesn't run afoul of WP:RS, WP:NOR or WP:V. However, Jake is right in that there has not been an epidemic of CA-MRSA infections in circumcized boys, so we shoud be careful to say that this is a potential risk, not a plague. In short, I think it all comes down to how we explain this, not whether we do. Given what we know, to omit it would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Al 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The original research policy is one that gives people a lot of heartburn. A typical complaint is that when editors invoke WP:NOR, they are being silly, because the original research is "just common sense!" One question I've been asked repeatedly on this issue is "Are you saying that we can't include logical syllogisms? Are you saying that if I cite a source saying 'All men are mortal' and another source saying 'Socrates is a man' that I can't say 'Socrates is mortal'?"
The policy clearly provides the answer: that's right. You can't say that. Please allow me to include an extended quote (from WP:NOR, emphasis in original):
(begin quote)
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.
So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.
But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.
For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.
(end quote)
It's my position that this is perfectly apposite to what has been done with MRSA on this article. There is no scholarly evidence — none whatsoever — that MRSA is associated with circumcision. So, a bunch of quotes about MRSA and MSSA are being strung together to create the impression that there is a link (eg, [12]) This is in support of a personal belief of the authors, and is the very definition of original research. Superdix himself acknowledges, implicitly, that Bratu is not discussing circumcision. In other words, Bratu is not talking about MRSA in the context of the topic the article is about. Applying his work to this topic is, therefore, original research, just as surely as the "Chicago Manual of Style" example given on the WP:NOR page is.
Also relevant here is the the concept of "undue weight" from WP:NPOV. Jimbo gave us a specific formulation that I find to be both concise and useful:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth. The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.
While i believe that there may be some appropriate way to incorporate DOC's fringe belief that circumcision causes facilitates the transmission of MRSA, that really isn't the central issue, and never has been. The issue is the attempt on the parts of some editors to use confusing writing and selective quotations from other publications to represent that fringe belief as the truth.
So. I'd like to propose that we try to answer the following questions about the DOC link. Does the DOC opinion that circumcision causes facilitates the transmission of MRSA constitute a significant minority, or an extremely small minority? (I am dismissing "majority" out of hand for the obvious reasons) If the former, a properly worded addition indicating that some believe yadda yadda may be appropriate. Evidence for this being a "significant minority view" might be other scholarly sources that make the link or claim to believe in a link (and in fact, maybe we can find a reliable source, which would let us avoid using the propaganda link at all.) If DOC consititutes "a vast minority", then the link is inappropriate, as it constitutes a violation of both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which are not really issues to be negotiated. I will propose that if the DOC link is the only direct statement we have, than it is by definition a "extremely small minority."
Hope that helps, Nandesuka 12:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
So what you're saying is that at least two doctors endorse this press release about CA-MRSA risk but you know better than they do? Please help me understand. Al 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This mediation has clearly got started. We have now got input from a number of parties.
Let me take the issues raised so far, and offer ways forward in discussing them.
Looking at the three options it would appear none is ideal. There may well be a link but there does not at the present time appear to be a reliable source which shows that link.
Saying that, if DOC get back to me with membership figures that represent a large number of doctors then this view may need to be revised slightly.
I suggest that we await DOC's response, and also that we continue further discussion on the issue here. I would be interested to know on what basis you would argue that you can add the views of DOC to this article, when even they admit that warning is prospective, rather than retrospective, meaning that any evidence will be purely 'guesswork' (for want of a better word).
Also I would welcome people's views on the suggestion of adding a link to the DOC's page under external links section, in order that people can look at all sides of the debate for themselves (without having to bear in mind Wikipedia's policies).
My next suggestion is that some of you may like to look at debating the content of Wikipedia's policies, in the relevant places, as some of you clearly seem a bit disillusioned by them. All of Wikipedia's policies are open to change and debate, indeed they may well need it. Wikipedia is run by the community and so the community have a say in its policies. If you feel that they need chaning then propose revisions to them and let the community comment on them.
Another point is that you may wish to look at this pageand try to get evidence to support a claim via that route.
Essentially we need to discuss what the best way to include a reference to a view that there is a link would be. So should it be a mention in the artilce, or link?
Two other points need to be considered, as the mediation was not only about a possible link being mentioned in the article.
Additionally the RfM mentioned:
I don't really wish to discuss RfA's as I feel that the specific arbitration hearing is the place to do such a thing.
The second point, though, may be worth discussing. I think the problem boils down to how to implement Wikipedia's policies, but also do so in a manner which does not insult or offend other people. From looking at the evidence I cannot see that there is a group that seem to 'own' the article, but that there is a group that seem keen to ensure that the article is as accurate as pssible and conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
A common problem with Wikipedia is to do with its policies and not with its editors. The issue in this case may well be to do with WP:NOR. If this is indeed the case, I have said above that you may wish to look at proposing changes to that policy and awaiting the community's view.
I look forward to reading you views to the questions presented above. -- Wisd e n17 16:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
That's fascinating, but fails to address any of the issues I brought up, so it's hardly productive. Speaking of issues, I was amused by some text recently added to Talk:Medical_analysis_of_circumcision (search for "Did we read the same article? ") by a guy calling himself User:Tzaddik. A quick google confirmed the meaning of his nick, which pretty much told me in advance what his view was.
Anyhow, the text was trying to praise the neutrality of the article, but managed to do quite the opposite, with such unintentional humor as: "It left me a slanted conclusion... pro circumcision; which seems to be the correct one, given my understanding of the different studies and data quoted. In fact, although my mind was made up from the start, the article kept me guessing throughout the read, as to where the data would lead." I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Al 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
First of all, your consistent assumption of bad faith does not constitute an insult on my part. Second, your beliefs about Wikipedia policies do not have much bearing on the truth. Third, if you have nothing to say about the matters brought up in this RfM, please do not fill up this page with irrelevancies. I urge you to put aside your squabbling and personal attacks so that you can be productive. Al 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, Wisden, it seems that DOC's policy prevents them from giving any verifiable information about their membership:
I would not be opposed to including an 'external link' to DOC's hypothesis, as long as the wording is suitable (something like "statement proposing a possible link between circumcision and MRSA, from Doctors Opposing Circumcision"). However, until such time as mention is made in a reliable source, I can't see any way of including it in the article itself in a way that conforms to policy.
While I personally feel that policy is working well on the whole, I would certainly endorse your suggestion of raising objections to policy at the relevant pages. Jakew 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The issue that seems to be causing contention is the intent behind the three relevant Wikipedia policies. Alienus, you seem to suggest that because DOC have suggested a possible link that this provides a reliable source, and that it provides evidence of synthesis. However, I feel I must ask you to look again at WP:RS, and WP:NOR. The following phrase is key:
Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
Does a report by DOC, meet that requirement: no. Does the Bratu report meet that requirement: yes. But the problem with Bratu's report relates to the question of synthesis, and whilst there has been synthesis performed by DOC in their report this report does not meet with the above requirement.
I would ask again that we try to keep this mediation as civil as possible. Obviously when edit conflicts arise it can lead to quite strong emotions, especially when people delete your edits. However we will get nowhere in this mediation if we cannot remain civil.
With regard to the question of RfAs and the related matters this is not the place to discuss them. The RfA is that place, and you should present any evidence you have regarding these issues there, and if necessary you could contact Jimboif you feel that the RfA has been unjust in any way.
Now looking forwards towards a possible solution. What are your views on there being a link to the DOC page in the external links, with a description along the lines of:
A site with information from an anti-circumcision group, who postulate a possible link between circumcision and CA-MRSA.
Obviously that description is not perfect, but how about something along those lines; what are your thoughts? -- Wisd e n17
The problem is that it makes DOC look like a one-trick pony. In fact, CA-MRSA is only one of the issues they're concerned about. There should definitely be a link to DOC, but it should be described more generally, as an anti-circumcision medical advocacy group.
Now, if we wanted to link directly to the page on the DOC site that has their statement on CA-MRSA, that would be a different matter.
In any case, I do not see an synthesis problem with the Bratu source. There is no synthesis in noting that circumcision involves cutting; it's part of the definition. If anything, it would be OR on our part to reinterpret it so as to somehow exclude circumcision. In other words, Bratu suffices even if DOC is problematic. Al 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A site with information from an anti-circumcision group, who, amongst other things, postulate a possible link between circumcision and CA-MRSA.
Actually, I didn't even bother responding to his example because it's so obviously flawed. It would require a combination of medical ignorance and outright malice to arrive at his conclusions. In short, he proves my point for me.
Once again, there are two places for DOC in this article. The first is as a generic external link, the second is in specific mention of CA-MRSA. I don't see how these can be combined. Al 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It looks like you're suggesting that DOC get two links at the bottom, one to the home page and the other to the CA-MRSA page. I'm not sure that this is a particularly good idea, though. Al 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Compatible with your view of policy, anyhow. I'm sure you'd love to Omit mention of CA-MRSA, as that has been your stated goal all along. However, that is not a reasonable choice. Likewise, neither Add, Modify nor Replace are acceptable. As I pointed out earlier, there are really two separate things to link to: the site in general and the CA-MRSA page in specific. However, it seems awkward to place them both at the bottom as external links. Al 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe I've already explained, though it turns out that we disagree. Al 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The main issue here has been outlined fairly succinctly. The problem with trying to make a specific connection between CA-MRSA and circumcision is that there are no reliable sources which make this connection, and so the attempt to link the two in any specific way is original research. As Jakew has clearly shown, the one source trying to make this connection is almost the epitome of what Wikipedia considers a non-reliable source.
This issue is compounded by the fact that some of the editors trying to make this link are inexperienced an unfamiliar with policy. Even worse, the one editor who is somewhat more experienced has developed an intractable bad faith attitude towards Jakew, Nandesuka, and me. This is evidenced by, for example, his continual use of the term "pro-circumcision advocates" to describe Nandesuka and me, even though we've patiently explained we are not. As well, in a "pre-emptive" move he has put a notice on his Talk page stating that anything we post there will be reverted. It's even gotten to the point where he's accused me of "vote stacking" (which, to his credit, he retracted), but then, rather hypocritically, attempted to vote stack himself, on an topic in which I am quite interested but in which he has heretofore evinced no interest. So, in the end, what should have been a very simple decision to exclude the original research, based on policy, has become a protracted battle based on personal animosity. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
See above for further examples of the problem. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that whilst both of you make interesting points it does little to help us achieve a consensus. It seems obvious to me that this article has produced a good level of debate, which should be encouraged as it shows dedication to making Wikipedia as comprehensive as possible. However, we must make sure that debate does not turn into insult and that we keep the arguments to facts as opposed to opinions, and that we should AGF.
I would ask both of you to look at a way forward to reach a consensus. Alienus you do not seem overly keen on my proposal so what do you suggest exactly? Do you think that a link should be provided in addition to information in the main-page, if so what would be the wording you would like to see of any text? Jayjg, do you feel a link to DOC is an acceptable compromise? --
Wisd
e
n17 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Dr. Dennison has sent me the link to an interesting article (I note he made no answer to my request for membership numbers!). I would suggest you all take a look at it, whilst it clearly does not meet any of the Wikipedia guidelines for a RS etc. it may well be worth considering linking to the page as a further example of empirical evidence. -- Wisd e n17 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, I don't think that Wikipedia policy is the problem. My conclusion is that there is a misunderstanding of policy that is being used to prevent the inclusion of what is obviously neither original nor unverifiable. Reasonable people can disagree. Al 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The issue here is again, I feel a misunderstanding of the nature and use of Wikipedia's policy. POVs can easily be imagined out of following correct Wikipedia policy. There is no RS of a link and so to include it would be wrong. Wikipedia is not meant to be a reference site without any guidelines or policies on its information. I can understand the frustration that some of you have with the feeling that the article should take all possible steps to ensure that people are aware of the full picture. However, as it stands with Wikipedia's policy you cannot include reference to a link, as it would constitute OR. The policy seems to be where the disagreement lies. And I should reiterate that whilst the RS is only a guideline it is one that needs to be followed in relation to this article, as otherwise no agreeable solution will be found.
We need to look at what that solution should be. A number of possibilities have been presented below. I've decided to make it clear what solution we are working towards. A number of alternatives have been presented and meet with justifiable resistance, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So I ask you all take a look at the options I've presented below and give your thoughts without entering into too long a discussion. We've had a long enough discussion and we are starting to go around in circles. We need to resolve this issue and decide on a course of action. -- Wisd e n17 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has a large section on prostate cancer and circumcision, however a relationship between prostate cancer and circumcision status is not a "reliable, established, widely accepted fact". None of the professional medical organizations that have policies on circumcision even mention prostate cancer. Only pro-circumcision web sites suggest a connection between prostate cancer and circumcision status. If the goal is an article with "widely accepted facts", the paragraph on prostate cancer should be removed. -- DanBlackham 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, there are a few articles that mention a relationship between prostate cancer and circumcision status, but the medical community does not give them much weight. The American Cancer Society does not even mention circumcision in relation to prostate cancer. The policy statements on circumcision by professional medical organizations do not mention prostate cancer. If you look at general articles about prostate cancer or general articles about circumcision by reliable sources, they do not mention an association between prostate cancer and circumcision. -- DanBlackham 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't like having to repeat things that have already been said on this page, especially as it is rather long already. However, I feel that to focus this issue I need to repeat what Jakew has said:
Alienus, you have already replied to this suggestion, but not in the most helpful of ways. I have a further suggestion which may please both sides:
This would allow both links to be combined into one entry in the externals link section. I do not think that there is any justification to add information regarding the CA-MRSA link in the main artilce text as there is no evidence of an acceptable standard to justify this, as we have discussed at length above.
What I would like is for all parties to say as succinctly as possible their views on this as a compromise solution. -- Wisd e n17 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
My interpretation is that stating that CA-MRSA is a risk would be OR, due to a lack of such conclusive support. However, reporting that DOC and others have expressed concern about this risk is entirely within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia rules. Therefore, I do not believe that these four options are what we should limit ourselves to. Al 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
How Wikipedia policy is interpreted seems to be influenced at least in part by the desired result.
In the Breastfeeding article Jake argued that two letters written by International Board Certified Lactation Consultants published in the Journal of Human Lactation are not a reliable source. Jake also said The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding and The Breastfeeding Answer Book published by La Leche League International are just "opinion pieces". Two editors familiar with breastfeeding verified that The Breastfeeding Answer Book is an "authoritative reference" in the field of breastfeeding. [25]
Later Jake argued that Otto Verdoner's rather strange letter to the editor published in a weekly newspaper in Boulder, Colorado is a reliable source for the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers article. [26] [27] -- DanBlackham 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This information is not relevant to the mediation. We have discussed at length the quesion of policy, and it has been discussed before on the article's talk page. We are now at the stage where we need to decide on actual solutions, so I would ask both of you to comment on my proposal above, or produce your own proposal. -- Wisd e n17 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The only thing that can be agreed upon is that there should be an external link to DOC. Does everyone still agree that we should have this (at least) on the article, and if so does the following format appear acceptable:
Alienus and Superdix have suggested an inclusion in the main article text, which has been met with opposition. Do you feel that a link on its own is acceptable, or is it simply more confusing; should there be any reference made to the link below, something along the lines of:
DOC have many concerns, of a medical nature, regarding circumcision (none of which have been proven).
The wording is not brilliant, but it cannot be too different, the article cannot claim that there is proof to support their claims as according to Wikipedia's policies there is not. Again some of you may have a problem with policy more than with the article.
So the questions which I want brief answers to is this:
Lets not descend into more protracted discussions which are covering the same ground. I want to get a solution to this issue, and to that end, I want you thoughts as briefly as possible to the two above questions. -- Wisd e n17 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Right, from this I see what I guessed would be the answers. Let me responded to Jayjg's comments regarding the 'mediation trump[ing] policy'. The idea of getting you to answer briefly to the above questions is to help bring this mediation to a close. What is noticeable is that you have all answered yes to the first questions, thus we have an obvious compromise there. Whilst some of you are keen to include information in the article, many of you are not, and clear policy related arguments have been used. I would therefore suggest that we conclude this mediation. I shall insert the above link into the article, and I suggest that Alienus and Superdix that you look to propose changes to Wikipedia's relevant policies as you are clearly not happy with them. You may well like to use this case as an example as what you see as the problems with the current policies (you feel that the article cannot be as comprehensive as possible due to the fact that the policy is 'tying your hands'). If you would like any help about what steps are necessary to go about proposing changes to the relevant policies I would be happy to help in that regard.
I appreciate some of you will not be entirely happy with the outcome of this mediation, however, both sides have compromised and we have reached a good solution, which is acceptable to both sides (neither side objects to it). One side clearly wants to have information in the article, but has been explained above this is not the consensus view, and more importantly is not allowed by policy.
I have addressed above the other points raised in the initial RfM, and do not wish to discuss those matters further. As I have said above the relevant place to do so if individual RfA's and I do not wish to take the place of an RfA.
If any of the parties would like further help regarding this article or related articles in the future then I would be happy to help.
I hope that all of you can use this compromise solution as a new-leaf and look at developing all the related articles in as civil and healthy a manner as possible. -- Wisd e n17 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Upon due consideration, I have changed my vote -- see above. My support for first option must be understood as dependent upon the second one being removed due to rule violation. Despite much hand-waving, it has very clearly not been. It is consistent with WP:V and avoids WP:NOR by accurately reporting the beliefs of a notable group as beliefs rather than fact. It's not entirely clear whether WP:RS would interfere, but as it is only a guideline, we are free to ignore it if it doesn't make sense in this context.
In short, I am not satisfied with a mention in External Links if we can place a careful compromise sentence into the article body without violating any rules. I flatly disagree with and will not accept the misinterpretation of the rules by the pro-circumcision trio. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot mention the simple fact that some people claim there's a connection, despite the lack of evidence. This is notable, relevant and verifiable.
There are also many precedents. Consider that, on emergency contraception, we bend over backwards to mention the completely unsupported claims of various activist groups, including misdefinitions of pregnancy, false allegations of interference with implantation and so on, just to be fair. The claims may be nonsense, but they're someone else's nonsense, so we're allowed to repeat them, despite WP:NOR. Of course, we also state that there is no medical support for them. In contrast, the proposed solution for this article is to relegate everything to a footnote, which is highly partisan.
With all due respect, this mediation must either be considered still in progress, or a failure. I am willing to continue to discuss these issues and work towards an acceptable compromise. If they're not, then it's time for the next step. Al 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It's so simple... CA-MRSA exists, and raises the risks of all surgical procedures. It has reduced the frequency of elective procedures.
Informed consent now requires inclusion of infections risks, specifically MRSA, and Wiki should reflect practice.
It's easy to find research quotes (non DOC) citing general surgical MRSA risks. The risks/complications section should also review this relatively new risk. TipPt 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The mediation appears to have resulted in very little. I still fundamentally thing the problem lies with a misunderstanding with Wikipedia's policies, and a misinterpretation of applying the policies correctly and POV editing. I'm sorry that we could not achieve more out of this mediation, but I have offered my advice and guidance above. I thank all of you for remaining relatively civil througout this mediation. -- Wisd e n17 15:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply