Talk:Circumcision/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Autism 2

This text is supported by two primary sources

"Two recent studies have found infant circumcision to be correlated with higher rates of autism spectrum disorder, one completed in 2013 and published in the US National Library of medicine , and another published in Denmark in 2015 in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine ."

We should stick with review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Like these? Strongbad1982 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

References

No. We need academic articles categorized as a "Review" (or "Systematic Review" or "Meta-analysis") which should appear in PUBMED and be MEDLINE-indexed and/or have other recognized signs of quality. Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009173021/http://www4.jrf.org/showdt&rid=322&pid=15 to http://www4.jrf.org/showdt&rid=322&pid=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Harvesting Foreskins For Profit

Foreskins are used to make face anti wrinkle face cream. This article should have a section that covers that. The ethical issues around harvesting human flesh for profit ect... http://www.ecouterre.com/oprah-draws-criticism-for-endorsing-face-cream-made-from-foreskins/ MarkRww (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Other profit motives for harvesting human foreskins Cosmetics, skin grafts & cosmetic testing. http://www.babble.com/mom/3-strange-uses-for-infant-foreskins/ Usually their is a profit motive behind why people do things and this is no different. Follow the money and you find foreskins removed for profit then sold for more profit and then used to make products for more profit. These issues should be in this article. The profit motive could go a long way to explain why continues today and is so defended. MarkRww (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha, thanks for the laugh. CFCF 💌 📧 11:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• @CFCF: Instead of laughing, how about remaining civil and addressing MarkRww's concerns? Prcc27💋 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The $140 Million foreskin How San Diego biotech benefits from circumcision http://sdcitybeat.com/article-7356-the-$140-million-foreskin.html Oprah’s ‘Magic Fountain Of Youth’ Skin Cream Is Derived From Baby Foreskin – And Pissing Off Men Who Miss Theirs http://www.mommyish.com/2013/01/26/foreskin-skin-cream/#ixzz41KZTCSTp

Human foreskin fibroblast conditioned media for culturing ES cells http://www.google.com/patents/US7790455 neonatal fibroblast is a term used for cells from a infant foreskin

Companies and products involved wth or that have products made with foreskins/ infant foreskins.

Skinmedica  https://www.skinmedica.com  -  

Human Fibroblast Conditioned Media (TNS®) TNS Recovery Complex® https://www.skinmedica.com/tns-essential-serum.html

Organogenesis  Dermagraft  http://www.dermagraft.com/home/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/Dermagraft_Directions_for_Use.pdf   http://www.organogenesis.com/products/dermagraft.html

This list is not done but all I have time for now. MarkRww (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

add section linking to the Wikipedia Foreskin article to this article

The Wikipedia article Foreskin has a section Foreskin-based medical and consumer products. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Foreskin#Foreskin-based_medical_and_consumer_products A section should be developed and added to this article with this content. MarkRww (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Circumcision article is long winded. should be cleaned up and summarize the sections that have links to other Wikipedia articles.

The Circumcision article has a link to a History of Male Circumcision Wikipedia article so the need to have that section so long in the Circumcision article is too much. The Circumcision article has a link to a Religious male circumcision Wikipedia article so the need to have that section so long in the Circumcision article is too much. This article has many sections that link to other sub articles about Circumcision so summarizing should be extensive as the sub sections can go on and on about those specific topics without causing this article to be so long winded. The article appears to be making excuses to try and defend Circumcision too much. Some of the article is about circumcision now but it is very hard to read through all the excessive information cluttering the article now. MarkRww (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Change article picture to one that is not from the 1865-1872

The article picture is the same image used on the Wikipedia History of circumcision article. - Infant circumcision s most common so a image of a infant getting chopped may be more better. MarkRww (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081227065531/http://www.jewishcalgary.org:80/page.html?ArticleID=63645 to http://www.jewishcalgary.org/page.html?ArticleID=63645

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Easier to understand language

Our guidelines emphasis the importance of writing the lead in easier to understand English. A baby is more or less the same as a neonate. We could use newborn as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Germany

"Germany allows non-therapeutic circumcision under certain conditions." What conditions exactly? The source provided for Germany didn't really say there were any restrictions (then again I just skimmed the source). Prcc27🎂 (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

loss of sensation in the penis

wikipedia says that there is no loss in sensitivity in the penis when it is circumcised? how can there be no loss in sensitivity when nerves are removed from the body? it appears to me that there exists a lack of understanding here in this article. perhaps the article was trying to say that there would be no loss if sensitivity in the head of the penis after circumcision. however, nerve endings in the foreskin and frenulum actually do contribute to sexual stimulation, therefore there would be a loss of sensitivity, not in the head of the penis but in the foreskin which is now gone together with the many nerve endings inside it.

yeah, yeah, i know i don't have any sources here. im just urging people who are active here on wikipedia to improve the quality of the article regarding circumcision. i felt the need to write this so i did, i hope i did something good, but i doubt people would care...

Categories

Cirflow Please see WP:SUBCAT. We use the lowest level category possible. Any parent categories are redundant. Since Category:Circumcision is already a subcategory of Category:Male genital modification, Category:Male genital procedures, Category:Men's health, and Category:Penis, there's no reason to include them. Please revert your re-addition of them if you'd be so kind. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, i have no objections if you revert.Cirflow (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

Please undo the redirect from Male Genital Mutilation (MGM). Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) is NOT the same as circumcision. I used 10 sources on the other project, every single source had the "male genital mutilation" in it AND every source was academic. Undo it, and honestly, next time you want to redirect anything: start a conversation about the topic, especially when you don't even take a look on what is written and what the 10 sources said. Especially when you obviously don't know about the topic. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Effects

This section is led by the following statement: "A 2014 review found that the benefits of circumcising an infant outweigh the risks of doing so by at least 100 to 1, and that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin."
How can this article claim to be neutral by having a key section such as the "Effects of circumcision" led simply by a sentence published by Brian Morris, known for his controversial pro-circumcision opinions, that the benefits outweigh the risks by 100 to 1 and HALF of uncircumcised males will require treatment for their foreskin? These claims are spurious and non-neutral. The sentence should either be removed, or the issue of undue weight towards this pro-circumcision individual must be addressed by adding something from the other side of the argument. I am sure there are anti-circumcision "reviews" that show far less than half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for foreskin problems. The presence of this sentence, especially in a prominent and lone position, shocked me, but not as much as the immediate reverting of my edit to remove it. --TBM10 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that says otherwise, I think we should absolutely include it. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The 2014 Morris "study" is clearly biased to the point where his absurd claims that the benefits outweigh the risks by 100:1 and HALF of uncircumcised males will require medical treatment for foreskin related problems are clearly so extreme that reasonably minded readers of this article will question the validity of the statement. Such a biased statement does not belong in what is supposed to be a fair and neutral article, and it should be removed. --TBM10 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

An old (2007) churned press release is not a reliable source. We have to use WP:MEDRS. Whatever the merits of Brian Morris, the 2014 review by him and colleagues is certainly one such. However, I would not object to its removal as it adds little to the article, and we have even better top-drawer sources that don't cause the same ripples, casting some doubt on whether it fully represents "accepted knowledge". Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I also think it can be removed. Many reliable sources claim that the benefits outweigh the risks, but as far as the "100 to 1" figure is concerned I'm not sure if that view is mainstream. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So removed. I still am ambivalent about this. The article is a MEDLINE-indexed Review article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, which is at the top of its class for impact factor--this journal is no joke! But the "100:1" analysis the authors came up with appears largely based on phimosis statistics in their own previous article in BioEssays, as journal which has as its focus "molecular, cellular and developmental biology" rather than something more directly related like pediatrics or urology. There's no bright-line Wikipedia medical sourcing guideline that would direct us not use the 2014 review but per my comments I don't find it a particularly strong source for the content it was supporting. Zad68 12:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that removal is a fair move, and restores some neutrality to the article. --TBM10 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Indigenous peoples" contradicts other articles

Regarding Mayans and Aztecs, this section contradicts other articles such as http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bloodletting_in_Mesoamerica#Early_European_reactions and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Circumcision_controversies#Middle_Ages_to_the_19th_century Ausíhar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

men's health category

Please do not remove the men's health category there, it was put there for a reason, in order to help our poor coverage of men's health issues on wikipedia. Pütting it in the sub-cat is not susfficient. The cat enables the article to be identified as a men's health issue. The sub-cat does not do so. What is your problem with that? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 02:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's redundant. See WP:SUBCAT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that the page says that no major medical organization has recommended a ban on the procedure. That isn't true. The Danish College of General Practitioners has already recommended a ban, and there was a discussion in the German government about banning it as well. Furthermore, the Council of Europe, which I understand like the German government is not a medical organization, has called circumcision a human rights violation, following up on the medical literature on the physiology and histology of the foreskin, which I don't see mentioned anywhere in this entire article. I merely see a reference to "theories" about the purpose of the foreskin. I am sorry to say but the science is there, and the medical literature is readily available on the internet. If we want Wikipedia to be an unbiased source of information for our readers, we need to be reflecting that science, not medical myths. The physiology and histology of the human foreskin is well documented and well understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zirojtan (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC) - Zirojtan

Ref please Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Danish College of General Practitioners. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Does not say they support a ban on the procedure just that it should only be performed when medically indicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should clarify which medical organizations have what kind of position regarding the practice. Please see suggested content further down the page. PolarYukon (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Medical Organizations around the World

It might be helpful to add a section like this. Paragraph form or country by country? Input is appreciated:

Major medical organizations which oppose the routine circumcision of infants include those from Australia, Canada, the Council of Europe, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends circumcision in high-HIV areas of Africa, while noting the unacceptable risks in certain settings, lack of adverse event reporting, and circumcision as a cause of unnecessary death. Organizations in the U.S. have taken a neutral stance. PolarYukon (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

No, because self-published web sites are not reliable sources and this is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia article and not a piece with an anti-circumcision angle to it amping-up certain aspects in an undue way. More generally, the lede is meant to be summarizing the article rather than having standalone content. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting to add this information in an appropriate section, such as Prevalence, or a new section. Better citations can certainly be located since these are the official positions of well-known organizations. PolarYukon (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've now edit-warred such unreliably-sourced content into the article which is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

With Australia as an example, are you happy with a source like this: https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/resources/circumcision-brochure.pdf or rather from a newspaper? PolarYukon (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

For example, here is an Australian newspaper article quoting the RACP position: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/citykat/male-circumcision-a-cutting-issue-for-new-parents-20130813-2rtqx.html PolarYukon (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

All this would be more suitable in the Ethics of circumcision article, where national positions are discussed in depth. But I am more concerned about your edit warring of unreliable content and advocacy editing in this article. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. I support a fair and balanced article with good sources. Looking at this article in other Wikipedia languages, the national practices and recommendations of different countries and regions are included in the main article. I think it is worth a well-sourced paragraph, or section, to show a factual view on practices and respected recommendations around the world. PolarYukon (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Speculation

I have removed an uncited assertion that the practice dropped off in the UK as a result of the NHS not paying for the procedure. I'm sure that if anyone has a credible citation that supports that assertion they will add it back. I could find no such citation. PRL42 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Found a citation here:

"In the UK, around one-third of men were circumcised just before the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948. But the newly-created NHS ruled that circumcision was not medically necessary, and therefore would not be covered. Rates plummeted after that, says Gollaher."

Would you like to add it back? Thanks http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19072761 PolarYukon (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Modern times: Weaseling

This section contained muddled weasel wording that appeared to be trying to imply that circumcision rates in the UK and Europe had dropped because of the decision of the UK health service not to pay for it as, with the general improvement in personal hygene, it was not a necessary procedure. Now changed to remove the implied (uncited) conflation. PRL42 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources / Articles from Brian Morris

The article contains at least three citations from Brian_Morris_(biologist), who is a known pro-circumcision advocate, with a pro-circumcision book and website. I would suggest we consider removing citations with Brian Morris as one of the article authors, or make it clear that this source is not impartial. PolarYukon (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that to maintain a sense of neutrality, any reference to an individual such as Morris who is so blatantly pro-circumcision should be caveated as such: e.g. "According to Morris, a circumcision advocate, the procedure...". Likewise, if citing a blatant anti-circumcision source, the same applies. --TBM10 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We would have to do the same for "anti-circumcision" advocates as well then.. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this guidance should apply to both sides. --TBM10 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Large Danish study links autism and circumcision

http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision

"According to the new study, which included 340,000 Danish boys, it looks as though circumcision increases the risk of developing autism."

This looks like a good study and there is mention that is has been replicated. If someone wants to work it into this article, go ahead. If nobody does it or object I might get around to it in a week or so.

Keith Henson (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That news article is pretty responsible and says that the study has not been replicated yet. Everybody quoted there also said that the study found a slight correlation and cautioned people from drawing causation conclusions: correlation is not causation. In any case this PMID 25573114 is a primary source and per MEDRS we wait to see how reviews treat it. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction Length

I think the introduction to this article is too long. It cites too many studies and details. This content is better left in the body of the article. For example, listing most common complications is unnecessary. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

The claim that "Prevention of those conditions, however, is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants." is a moral claim which violates NPOV. Multiple scholarly citations do not resolve this issue. It should be reworded to identify who holds this position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sondra.kinsey (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Adverse Effects: Sexual effects

Is there anything wrong with this? :

Male circumcision removes 33–50% of the penile skin, the tip of the foreskin, and some or all of the frenulum. This tissue contains a high concentration of the nerve endings that sense fine touch. After circumcision, the surface of the glans thickens like a callus. The glans is innervated by free nerve endings that can only sense deep pressure and pain. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. The loss of these receptors creates an imbalance between the deep pressure sensed in the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum and the missing fine-touch. To compensate for this imbalance, to achieve orgasm during during vaginal intercourse, the circumcised man must stimulate the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum by thrusting deeply in and out of the vagina. For women, as a result, coitus with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina, and decreases continual stimulation of the mons pubis and clitoris. --Tylermolander (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

References

The ref is an primary source by the looks of it [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit History Review

I think someone needs to do a thorough review of the history of this page. This looks like edit-warring to me. I fear that valuable contributions are getting lost in the process. I offer an example below, feel free to add discussions about more particular edits. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff 729123396

I am unclear why User:Seppi333 reverted User:Tylermolander's revision as shown here. User:Seppi333 listed unreliable sources (WP:MEDRS) as the reasoning, but JAMA and BJU International are reputable. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We do not typically use primary sources here per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff 729127640

I agree with User:Alexbrn's decision to remove User:Tylermolander's section citing uptodate.com because it is not sufficiently scholarly.

This content is not about side effects per say but but parents beliefs about them Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Frisch autism study

Why was the addition of the 2015 Frisch study reverted? --TBM10 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For starters see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@TBM10: Alexbrn is correct. I reverted because the edit contained medical information that had sources that did not comply with WP:MEDRS. If I understand MEDRS correctly, medical info should be from secondary sources such as state-of-the-literature reviews, topic reviews, textbooks, manuals, etc. The Frisch study was a primary source and the was accompanied by a news source. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There is the ancillary reason, that Frisch has a strong ideological position and churns out "Circumcision causes ${bad thing}" articles, often in out-of-the-way journals, with impressive frequency. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I wonder if you can support "churns out" or "out of the way journals"? I see only two articles and they both were published in respected medical journals. Keith Henson (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you're right - most of the journals are decent. But there is a lot of it (search PUBMED for "Frisch M[Author] circumcision"). As always, though, we look for WP:MEDRS on this topic and so far as I can see Frisch's work has not gained acceptance in the secondary literature. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Using your search terms, I see 10 articles over the last 20 years, 9 if you only count ones where he is the lead author, fewer if you take out responses to criticism. What is your threshold for "a lot of it"?Keith Henson (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

As an aside and as discussed in an earlier section on this Talk page, it would be preferable to caveat certain statements and sources in this article by stating whether the author is a perceived supporter or critic of circumcision. If these allegations against the author Frisch are true, if his study was to be included it could be prefaced by saying "Frisch, a perceived critic of circumcision, found that...". On the other hand, "Morris, a perceived supporter of circumcision, found that...", etc. --TBM10 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

references 16 and 17 do not meet the requirement of secondary sources why are they admissable? Why is the AAP used as a source for general information when it is alone among such bodies in its recommendations and has met considerable criticism from a large body of non US medical opinion (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896) which is not referred to despite being a valid secondary source? Tyreric (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ref 16 is this systemic review and meta anlysis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21965090 Ref 17 is a review article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21415373 So yes both are secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article

Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information, not propaganda for one side or the other of a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL and WP:NPOV generally. We present the published views with due weight, and that often means that one side of a controversy "loses" on Wikipedia (see e.g. our articles on creationism or climate change denial). Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We do not use the popular press for medical content so removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The article covers subjects beyond "medical content" such as history. Would a pointer to the Time article fit better under history, perhaps as recent history? Keith Henson (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are we wanting to add a pointer to a Time article? There is tons of popular press. We do not fill articles full or pointers to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

New edits

Global versus USA

This text is not about the USA "However, evidence for a health benefit against HIV for men who have sex with men"

Therefore adding "a demographic which accounts for 65% of all new aids cases despite only taking up a small portion of the sexually active US population, is less clear."

to the end of it does not make sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion awhile ago, but i did indicate that 65% of the US population- not the worlds. I think this should be stated because one of the primary reasons stated which are "pro" on this article is the HIV benefit, so i think its important to mention that many of the people who would get HIV and consider circumcision to prevent it would get no benefit from it anyway. However, I understand that perhaps it is not acceptable for a header, and in that case perhaps it could be worked into the HIV subsection of the effects section?Cirflow (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That sentence is simply not about the proportion of cases of HIV/AIDS that occur in the United States. It is a statement about the global evidence and in the global population HIV/AIDS is most common among hetersexuals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Refs

What ref supports "although due to the new circumcision programs by the WHO which aspire to raise the prevalence in countries with high rates of HIV to 80%(many of which are in Southern Africa) the rates there are likely much higher now."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not cite any sources for this because it is stated by the world health organization, but I could certainly put it if it seems disagreeable.Cirflow (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What refs supports

"After the rise of Islam and other religions which demand circumcision, the rates became higher as well, so religion has certainly had a factor in its spread." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I have discussed with alexbrn on my talk page, it should be "a given" that circumcision has been mostly spread through Islam. In many middle eastern countries the only groups which do not practice it are indigenous non Muslim ethnic groups like Armenians, Assyrians, Zoroastrians, Greeks, etc. And, as WHO sources indicate, 70% of all circumcised people on earth are Muslims who do it for religious reasons. Additionally, in my most recent edit, understanding that my claim should be backed up with a source, I supplied a source to back up this claim ([2]) in which an Armenian anthropologist states that it is not endemic to her people, but was spread amongst the people of the Middle East due to Islam. Therefore, I ask that you restore this portion of the edit.Cirflow (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay so "After the rise of Islam and other religions which demand circumcision the prevalence of circumcision became higher as well, so religion has had a factor in its spread, with non Muslim ethnic groups such as Armenians being some of the only groups in Muslim majority countries which do not practice it as a result." is a very sweeping statement that is not supported by the ref you provide.

Additionally that is not a major medical textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The source states that Armenians do not practice circumcision, and that it has been spread through forced conversion to Islam and assimilation. And like I said, it is honestly a given that it is spread through Islam. Would I need a citation if i were to write that 2+2=4? I don't think I would. As for the source, I dont see why it needs to be a medical textbook. it is simply idiotic if you think i need a medical source for information of that type. Its not even a medical procedure, and its in the history section, which has no scientific or medical significance which would require high quality medical sources. I refuse to acknowledge that you expect me to find medical sources for information on a religious ritual in a history section, it is simply not sensible or justified. If it were on information in the effects, technique, or side affects, than I could understand needing a high quality medical source, as any good medical article would need- but this is not a clear cut medical procedure like every other medically listed page, and therefore exceptions must be made for non MEDRS content in certain sections or for certain information.Cirflow (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of the source, it does not support the text you are trying to add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

But in the source it states it spread through Islam and assimilation, which is more or less what I stated. I stated that it spread through religion, and Armenians, an indigenous ethnic group who do not practice circumcision, picked it up when forcibly converted to Islam (along with ethnic assimilation).Cirflow (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That ref is awful - it doesn't even try to be a neutral work of scholarship but instead is rank advocacy - it is written by an "indepedent anthropologist". You cannot use that to make claims in WP's voice; it is not something we should use at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess ill have to find another citation than, but you and me both know it was spread through Islam. Every nation which is Islamic practices it, and preeexisting non Islamic minorities are the only groups which don't practice it, as they have not been assimilated and forced to follow it- which should be proof enough, and an Armenian anthropologist stating as such should be sufficient to back it up.Cirflow (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Until I read the Wiki article I was under the impression that the only religious group that promoted circumcision were the Jews. It seems far more likely that the practice was introduced into the U.S. by Jews than by Muslims. Presumably the habit was one that originated in Arab lands from whence both Jews and Muslims originate. It would be interesting to see the results of any research on the relative health benefits (if any) between areas with high and moderate to low mean ambient temperatures. PRL42 (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Sayre is generally attributed to mainstreaming circumcision in the US. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Medical Procedure" term?

This edit summary is also incorrect "It is only a medical procedure in America and a few other countries"[3]. It is a medical procedure all over the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"A medical procedure is a course of action intended to achieve a result in the care of persons with health problems." - Wikipedia. I think some people might understand the term to mean any procedure performed by medical professionals regardless of the intent of the procedure, such as cosmetic surgery. Furthermore, since we are comparing cultural perspectives on circumcision, we would need to look at various cultural concepts of what a "medical procedure" is. Therefore, I think in a controversial article such as this, we need to strive for clarity and precision. Thus I propose we avoid and remove the term "medical procedure" altogether from this article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We summary high quality sources. If high quality sources describe it as such so do we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree that the term "medical procedure" should be avoided as there should not be contradictions with non contraversial articles. The argument of high quality sources using the term in this regard is not valid since the same is the case for other articles which use high quality sources. The degree to which there is a consensus in the scientific field should be reflected in articles and more weight given to those with greater consensus. Since there is a greater consensus for the definition of a medical procedure (not controversial) than on circumcision (highly contraversial)the accepted definition must be accepted despite what some high quality sources may use when it comes to circumcision. Tyreric (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As talk has indicated, it appears consensus supports removing "medical procedure", because in most places circumcision is after all not a medical procedure, but a cultural or religious ritual. Only a minority of them are done for medical reasons, and considering that all the high quality sources are from medical sources then of course they would call it a medical procedure.Cirflow (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The term is used twice in this article. The source for the second time it is described as a "medical procedure" does not refer to it as a "medical procedure". I don't have access to the first source so I'm not sure whether it uses that term or not. I don't see how cultural circumcision is a medical procedure but if there are sources that refer to cultural circumcision as such I would like to see them. Otherwise, I think it would be best to just remove the term. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because some surgery is elective, or cosmetic, does not mean it is not a medical procedure. If the procedure can only be undertaken by a doctor or nurse practitioner, then it is a medical procedure. Otherwise it is not. If you allow that any process that mutilates living tissue is a 'medical procedure', then you are saying that tattooing, scarification and piercings are medial procedures. PRL42 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Grounding this in reality, the term "medical procedure" is used only twice, in the Circumcision#Modern times section. Otherwise it is referred to as a "procedure" or "surgical procedure" and the main article is Circumcision surgical procedure. I don't see any need to call it "medical procedure" - plain old "procedure" or "surgical procedure" are fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ref

This text appear to be unsupported by the ref provided "After the rise of Islam and other religions which demand circumcision the prevalence of circumcision became higher as well, because the people of Mesopotamia didn't practice circumcision prior to the coming of Islam, so religion could be considered a factor in its spread. https://books.google.com/books?id=oYearm8YobQC&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=mesopotamia+circumcision&source=bl&ots=YrSUmPsenp&sig=XrPp-lMsbSmTjk95PZ6TewQVK9w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikwsCtjdvOAhWJIsAKHf2HBE8Q6AEIKTAE" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

wow that is bad. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable article by Wikipedia standards

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441692.2016.1184292

It uses secondary sources in a critical assessment of recent evidence. Keith Henson (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Impact factor of the journal in question is 1.4. I guess the question is what do you want to use it to support? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Anon commented

I got this comment about the article in email commenting about this section of the article:

"The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) for areas with high rates of HIV), or banning the procedure.[7]"

The Danish medical organization Dansk Selskab for Almen Medicin have the following recommendation:

"at der kun må udføres omskæring, når der foreligger medicinsk indikation. Hvis der udføres omskæring uden medicinsk indikation, er der tale om lemlæstelse."

[That circumcision should only be performed when necessary to treat a medical condition. That when it is performed for other reasons it is mutilation.]

http://www.dsam.dk/flx/forsiden/nyheder/kommentar-til-vejledning-om-omskaering-af-drenge/

By adding this source the range can be extended:

..... as amounting to mutilation and having no benefit with significant risks......

Plus removing the "either" and the " or banning the procedure" in the following sentence since this position is equivalent to a ban - mutilation of children is a breach of children's rights.

^^^^^^^^

Within the context of Wikipedia, is this organization considered a "major medical organization"? Keith Henson (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, the board was commenting in Dec 2013 on a guidance that was issued in Jan 2014, which is here (i copied that into google translate, not sure if this will carry over - here). That national guidance takes no stance with regard to whether it is OK or "mutilation" - it just calls for consent. The board minutes recording the board's take on it, is here, and they did indeed say "only when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation"

So to answer the question.. The organization, Dansk Selskab for Almen Medicin or in English, the Danish College of General Practitioners is treated in this HuffPo piece as the mainline GP medical organization in Denmark, as does this OECD book. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why "No major medical organization recommends universal circumcision" was changed to "Most major medical organization do not recommend universal circumcision" What major medical organization recommends universal circumcision? The Danish ref also does not recommend a ban. Putting them in the lead is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Finland law

I'm not sure if circumcision is actually illegal in Finland. [4] Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@PRL42: Did you read the link I posted? I provided a source that contradicts the claim that Finland bans circumcision. Why do you think my source is not sufficient evidence that Circumcision isn't banned in Finland? If you disagree with my edit maybe you should try to refute the source I provided on this talk page. Thanks. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at it in more depth, it appears that your edit is reasonable (for the time being, at least). However, a few points:

1) Try not to use 'weasel words', even in comments and on talk pages. 'not sure if' and 'doesn't appear to' are great examples of weasel words and made it look as if you were not even sure, yourself, that the edit was valid.

2) It is far better to make a strong, substantive, statement, such as 'No longer considered in Norway illegal after appeal court decision'.

Nonetheless, I apologise for not checking the link, properly. PRL42 (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't all Mutilation?

Why is Female Circumcision called Female genital Mutilation on Wikipedia and yet Male Circumcision is not? By Definition Both Female and Male Circumcision are Mutilation. Either Both are called Genital Mutilation or both are called Circumcision. Wasabi,the,one (Talk Contribs) 21:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the public awareness of female genital cutting was in part due to the Beijing Declaration and the efforts of the UN and WHO to stop the practice as a formed of gender-based violence. But you might want to try asking on a WP:REFDESK if you want more info on that. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Wasabi,the,one, you might want to check the archives at Talk:Female genital mutilation and the logs there citing the move discussions for that article, since this has been discussed a number of times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's non-therapeutic, yes. The differentiation is due to bias. Duckartes (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You have to understand that foreskins are big business and there are powerful entrenched interests in the medical community who derrive a great deal of profit from MGM. So there is a deliberate attempt to paint it as a "medical treatment", since forsekins are such a big mostly-unregulated and hidden profit source for the medical establishment.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The misleading conclusion in the citation isn't supported by the data

This article cites

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/

If you read the actual data it finds Odds ratios of 1.13 for Premature ejaculation, 1.33 for Intervaginal ejacultaory latencency time, 1.12 for orgasm fiddiculties, so all of these sexual disfunctions are statistically associated with circumcision. This is the data from which this conclusion is drawn: "In summary, male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function or sensitivity when compared with uncircumcised men." (?!?!) This is highly misleading to the reader.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

We reflect reliable sources. We don't base content on the inexpert review of Wikipedia editors. If you want to take issue with a reliable source you need to contact the publisher. Alexbrn (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

what classifies this source as "reliable"? they have no data to support the conclusion offered.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217112014/http://islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf to http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213065752/http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html to http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Third paragraph states "Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants." Seems like an opinion/judgement call with partisan bias and cited sources don't support such a pseudo-definitive conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.17.35 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Danish Medical Association

Major doctors association comes out against forced circumcision of boys regarding medical ethics. Should we include something about this? [5] Prcc27🎃 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you proposing adding? The ref says "Danish Medical Association stopped short of calling for a legal ban, saying it would be difficult to predict the consequences."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Danish Medical Association

Major doctors association comes out against forced circumcision of boys regarding medical ethics. Should we include something about this? [6] Prcc27🎃 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you proposing adding? The ref says "Danish Medical Association stopped short of calling for a legal ban, saying it would be difficult to predict the consequences."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Antijewish/Anti-Muslim Stances in German Article on Circumcision

In this Article circumcision is said to have emerged from a Kybele ritual castration, based on a theory of some turkish Urologist but without other sources. Protesting against this leads to a discussion with someone (TrueBlue) speaking of "genitale Schnippeleien" common between castration and circumcision, which I see as POV - to express it an a very mild way. (Probably this will be understood without knowing the German language. Schnippeln means cutting but in a sarcastic seemingly-funny context.) Attempts to remove this in my opinion wild theory (something a bit similar is part of english article too, but its expressed in a less provocative manner, rather neutral) result in savinbg the article from editing bei IPs for 6 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.179.233 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the English article - if your comment is about the German article, shouldn't it be on the German wiki? sheridan (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Newer prevalence data

From 2016 from which to build a map https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772313/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on the prevalence map

Male circumcision prevalence by country, according to sources from Circumcision Reference and Commentary Service:

References

This newer map has now been added to the article 5+ times. My opinion is that it is not acceptable for two reasons: it does not draw on a reliable source (blogspot), and the colours are prejudicial. Given I and others have reverted the addition multiple times it appears the consensus is not appropriate. However, given the risk of being drawn into an edit war I would welcome opinions to establish the true consensus regarding this file. BW |→ Spaully ^τ  16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The blogspot source statistics are credited to 'Circumcision Reference and Commentary Service ', which as far as I can tell does not exist. We should stick with the older WHO source until some kind soul generates a new map from the data Doc James has linked in the section currently above this one. Also see Prevalence of circumcision, where a parallel edit war has been playing out. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No opinion on the map but there is a sock farm involving JimmyNeutron2016 and various IPs that has been edit warring this and other content over several articles. Just bringing it to your attention because the multiple accounts can create a false impression of support. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The WHO map is reliable. The data Doc James provided is from Brian Morris, a strong circumcision advocate, so I would be wary of bias there. There is little wrong, in my opinion, with the 2007 WHO map. --TBM10 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree maybe best to stick with WHO data until they update it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017

"Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants" This does not sound unbiased. 45.43.110.156 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please submit edit requests in the form of an "please change x to y per (explanation)" format. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No major medical organization bans the procedure.

This is simply untrue and easily verifiable. I've listed The Royal Dutch Medical Association and there plenty of others. First Doc James reverted this and then Sizeofint followed up saying the article doesn't even say that when it clearly does??? I'll put it in bold for you below "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) for areas with high rates of HIV), or banning the procedure." Now please revert yourself.  g@rycompugeek  talk 21:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

But the article body doesn't say that. It says the Royal Dutch Medical Association strongly opposes it. That's not the same as banning it. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

They do not ban the procedure. You need a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood the communication, thought you meant the article not the Dutch. I will look for a ref but was sure I read Sweden and Denmark had banned it.  g@rycompugeek  talk 22:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

They haven't. It is permissible for medical reasons, though these are not the same as what in the US is defined as medical reasons. (See eg. phimosis) Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"No major medical organization..." in lead

I feel the sentence that contains this statement is misleading as it compares recommendation of routine circumcision to an absolute ban. Does it mean that no major organisations ban routine neonatal circumcision? I have read the KNMG position which is pretty strong but stops short of calling for a legal ban on the basis that it would lead to 'underground' circumcision. No medical organisation is going to outright ban a medical procedure which is a legitimate treatment for several conditions. I will read around some more but does anyone know if there are reputed organisations that propose a ban on routine neonatal circumcision? |→ Spaully ^~talk~  10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

To answer my own question - as the article itself states non-religious routine circumcision is illegal in South Africa and Sweden. This to me seems at odds with the sentence in the lead No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all males ... or banning the procedure. I will remove it for the moment and work on a replacement. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  10:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Doc James reverted 2 changes suggesting taking it to the talk page, presumably without having read these comments as he left none himself. One of my changes was an unrelated fix of a broken link suggesting a lack of detailed reading in the reversion. As such I have reinstated both edits and invite discussion of it here. I have so far participated in the 2 key parts of WP:BRD, reverting my deletion of the sentence in question is perfectly reasonable but only if accompanied by some effort to engage in the discussion. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So yes we have "while non-religious routine circumcision is illegal in South Africa and Sweden" which means that religious routine circumcision is legal and thus the procedure is not illegal. Also South Africa and Sweden are not medical organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my first point which is that comparing in one sentence a recommendation of routine circumcision to an absolute ban is odd - no medical organisation is going to recommend an outright ban, or mandate it, for a procedure which is a key treatment for several conditions. The sentence in the lead in question in full is: No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) for areas with high rates of HIV), or banning the procedure.

I think this is also poorly worded - the long segment including parentheses between 'recommends' and 'or' makes it appear grammatically incorrect on first read, though I think it is technically correct. The current paragraph:

The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) for areas with high rates of HIV), or banning the procedure. Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and human rights have been raised over the circumcision of babies and children for non-medical reasons, for these reasons the procedure is controversial.

I think you could remove the sentence in question altogether without losing much, but I would also suggest this as an alternative:

The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. The only major medical organization to recommend universal male circumcision is the World Health Organization (WHO) for areas with high rates of HIV. Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and human rights have been raised over the circumcision of babies and children for non-medical reasons, for these reasons the procedure is controversial.

The opposing position to this would be a recommendation against routine circumcision, not an outright ban on the procedure. I don't think adding a comment about either is necessarily required. Hopefully we can move past the bumpy start to WP:BRD and engage in constructive discussion; I welcome your thoughts. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  12:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not correct "The only major medical organization to recommend universal male circumcision is the World Health Organization (WHO) for areas with high rates of HIV." Many medical organizations recommend the procedure in areas were prevalence of HIV/AIDS is high.

Many medical organizations call for an outright ban of FGM. None call for a ban of circumcision. This is why the ban is brought up as some try to compare FMG to circumcision.

This was dealt with in the next paragraph so trimmed it "aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) for areas with high rates of HIV" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Refs not about circumcision

The refs that support this content are not about circumcision so not sure why in this article?

"Childhood UTI is associated with kidney scarring (reflux nephropathy) which is permanent damage to kidney tissue. A systematic review of 33 studies found that among children with an initial episode of UTI, 15% (95% CI: 11-18) showed evidence of renal scarring" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The Philippines are marked incorrectly on the current map

On the current map, the Philippines are marked as having 20-80% of their male population circumcised, yet the article puts the portion at 93% as per its [different] source.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This is male genital mutilation

It should be called such, to reflect the FGM page and avoid any sexist allegations. Or, if that is preferred, the FGM page should be renamed Female circumcision. It's just plain weird to use so different words for the two, and just because a religion we happen to have here accepts (mandates, rather) male genital mutilation doesn't mean we should accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.187.96 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Danish source

My days of edit warring are behind me, but that does not mean I will stop editing here. User:Alexbrn, I invite you to discuss the proposed changes which you reverted. Cirflow (talk)

This stuff you want to add is at Ethics of circumcision where it may be apt; it ain't so apt here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Male Genital Mutilation"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is the female circumcision page called "Female Genital Mutilation", but the Male Genital Mutilation page is simply called Circumcision? Circumcision is mutilation of healthy tissue in both sexes, females AND males. Please, change the title, this is very unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.126.102.113 (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Short answer: to be neutral. Please read the Talk page archives, this has been discussed to death. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To be neutral? To be neutral would be to call it what it really is, and either call male circumcision "male genital mutilation", or female genital mutilation "female circumcision". This is not about being pro or against the practice, it's about calling the surgery what is really is: mutilation of healthy tissue. What you are displaying is not neutrality, but sexism and inequality.

It is quite ridiculous to see at the top "Circumcision: this is an article about male circumcision, for female circumcision see 'female genital mutilation'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.74.16.252 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Male genital mutilation" redirect

Male genital mutilation redirects to a section of a more general article about genital mutilation. Shouldn't it redirect to this article instead? It could be somewhat of a middle ground for the controversy.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Should go to genital mutilation as it currently does. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem with it redirecting to this article is that foreskin amputation is only one of the many types of male genital mutilation. Prcc27 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929080506/http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm to http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

New sources

I found 2 new sources that may be useful for this article and/or the Ethics of circumcision article [7] [8]. How should we apply the information from these 2 sources into the circumcision article if at all? Prcc27 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Appears the journal is not pubmed indexed yet. And impact factor is low. What do you want to use it to say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, we could bring up that circumcising for cosmetic reasons is an ethical concern. We could also bring up that the fact that circumcision is irreversible is also a concern. Both of these seem to mainly be ethical issues with regards to non-therapeutic infant circumcision and both claims are made in the second source. I guess we could hold off on using these sources to make medical claims if and until it is indexed in pubmed. Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

So would go in the Ethics of circumcision article anyway, if considered weighty enough to use. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That works. I was also thinking of adding that "a British judge found that nontherapeutic circumcision of male children is a 'significant harm'" to the Circumcision and law article. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that both articles can be found in pubmed I would like to add the "performing 100 circumcisions in an attempt to prevent one UTI will result in twice that number of complications" claim to the article. Prcc27 (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at them: they're just essays/opinion pieces; not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We do have at least one WP:MEDRS source that mentions the "performing 100 circumcisions to prevent one UTI" claim. Although I'm not sure how noteworthy that is for inclusion in this article without the remaining part of the claim. Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and it goes on to say "The degree of reduction [of UTIs] is between threefold and 10-fold in all studies". So, not what you are proposing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that the claim you just quoted is already in the article.. I don't see why we shouldn't add the 100 circumcisions for 1 UTI prevention information to the article. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"The highest quality evidence"

This wording can be interpreted as meaning that either the quality of the evidence is very high by general evidence quality standards or is the highest quality possible, or that the quality of the evidence is high relative to the overall body of evidence on this specific question, meaning it could be low quality evidence by most standards provided that the quality of the overall body of evidence on this specific question is even lower. To indicate the former meaning I suggest something like "strong evidence" or "high quality evidence", and to indicate the latter I suggest "The best evidence available" or "The highest quality evidence available". I suspect someone more familiar with standards of evidence could reword it more effectively, but those examples should at least illustrate the point.198.189.140.35 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Adverse Effects are Effects

We have a section titled "effects" and a separate section titled "adverse effects". That's just plain bonkers. Since the effects section only contains beneficial effects (because the adverse ones have their own section) we should re-title it "beneficial effects", or we could put all the effects into the "effects" section, and if we really need to subdivide it into beneficial and adverse we can do so there. Personally I favor the latter approach, while disfavoring the further subdivision of effects into beneficial and adverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.140.35 (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We should combine the two 'effect' sections for clarity. Sdm215 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)sdm215

mmm a "risks/complications" section is generally used for procedures per WP:MEDMOS, just like an "adverse effects" section is for articles about drugs. A place where MEDMOS is generally weak is "benefits" or "efficacy". When we have that content it generally goes in the "Medical use" section. ("It is done for X, and here is how well it works"). Makes sense. But circumcision is weird b/c most circumcisions aren't done for health benefits.. so this stuff like fewer UTIs or cancer are really "outcomes" that are not necessarily the intention of doing the procedure. So I think something like an "outcomes" section put in after "Adverse effects" would be good. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Wording

This is not appropriate encyclopedic tone IMO.

"Others like the Maasai people who live predominantly in Kenya and Tanzania, male circumcision is an obligatory rite of passage that is also used to distinguished age groups. This is usually done after every fifteen years where new “age set” are formed by elders. The new members of the Age-set have to undergo initiation at the same time. In doing so, they have proved themselves important in the community and will earn them respect, bravery and gifts(mostly cattle) from their family members. Whenever new age groups are initiated, they will become novice warriors and replace the previous group. In addition, they will be given a unique name that will be an important marker of the history of the Maasai. The initiation must be conducted by an experienced elder using a sharpen small knife. Most of the time the circumcision is done in a traditional way with no anesthesia. Young boys have to endure the pain or else he will be called olkaasiodi (flincher)."

Having trouble finding said book aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

References

'I think the edit can be correct appropriately instead of reverting. The sections "African cultures" is not Comprehensive. Africa is made of different countries. The countries themselves have different people with different cultures. So I think the edit above was better that mentioning only countries without talking about the cultures in them i.e. Sudan, Zaire and Uganda only. In addition, Sudan is 1.5% African traditional religion [9] rest being christian and Islam whom are discussed.

To [Doc James] Can you please specifically state how its not encyclopedic. Also, if you have problem doing a google search here is the link to the book https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Maasai_of_Matapato.html?id=oN27mAEACAAJ . Fntstic (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Where to write on "Forced circumcision of children"?

Abir Babu has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's an article "Forced circumcision" in Wikipedia categorized under "Violence against men". But the entire article talks about forced circumcision of adult men in different areas of the world. And the "Forced circumcision" article doesn't address forced circumcision of children. The Wikipedia article "Circumcision" categorized under "Surgical procedures" doesn't address forced circumcision of children either. Most of the forced circumcisions are committed against child, pre-teen and teen boys rather than against adults, where the children are either physically forced or are tricked to undergo the procedure. And in many cultures, these circumcisions are done by non-medical traditional operators with non-surgical instruments, and often with no anesthesia. Video evidences provided below- Video evidence 1 – Forced circumcision of Muslim boy in Asia by illiterate traditional operator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkyjZ1kTNU0&t=6s Video evidence 2 – Forced circumcision of child/teen boys in Africa by illiterate local operators: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jziT0kK_t-8 Video evidence 3 – Bangladeshi Muslim child boy try to defend physically but no luck to prevent his forced circumcision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMe7lTc8PQM Video evidence 4 - Forced circumcision of an Indian Muslim boy (boy screaming loud in extreme pain, but everybody surrounding is laughing, having fun): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISXDzw3DN5I Video evidence 5 - Bangladeshi Muslim boy can’t bear the pain of his forced circumcision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3JV1s61b4o Video evidence 6 - The scream of this boy seems to be very funny for Bangladeshi Muslims, so they were all laughing during the violent ordeal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTAlXGQoXkw Video evidence 7 - Video of forced circumcision being taken against the wishes of the Indian Muslim boy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWoUHZ_gX0Q The above videos are disturbing. Voices of the boys are clear. Attacks on them are brutal. Lots of forced circumcision videos have been uploaded to Youtube and many are being uploaded everyday. In Video 3, we see a child is trying to physically defend himself from forced circumcision, but his family members are shouting at him and physically forcing him to undergo the procedure. In Video 7, the boy who was being forcibly circumcised requested his family members not to take video of the violence. A female family member promised not to take video of the offense. But actually they filmed the entire operation and uploaded the video to Youtube. Even though it’s illegal to upload such video of a child in internet, the offenders made it clear that they are not afraid of law or court. About the “Video 1”, the title of the above video in Youtube is “Funny Khatna 2016”. In Islam, “Khatna” means “Circumcision”. And for “UBAID UR REHMAN”, a fundamentalist Muslim, the uploader of the video, the screaming of the boy during his un-anesthesized circumcision was so funny. So he titled the video as “Funny Khatna 2016”. Also, about the Video 6, Monoar Bin ahmed, a Bangladeshi Muslim, the uploader of the video, titled the video as "fun:......" Often in a forced circumcision case, we see a boy is screaming and people surrounding him are laughing. For example, in video 4 and in video 6, we see a boy is screaming loud in extreme pain during his forced circumcision, but everybody surrounding him is laughing and having fun with this. Now the question is that where to write on "Forced circumcision of children" in Wikipedia? 1. Is it appropriate to create an additional article titled "Forced circumcision of children"? Or, 2. Is it appropriate to write on "Forced circumcision of children" in the Wikipedia article "Forced circumcision"? Or, 3. Is it appropriate to write on "Forced circumcision of children" in the Wikipedia article "Circumcision"? Abir Babu (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Please see WP:NOR. Also, Category:Violence against women includes girls, so I think it's safe to assume Category:Violence against men includes boys. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) content about health in Wikipedia is sourced per WP:MEDRS; other content is sourced per WP:RS. These youtube vidoes are not reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, I know about Wikipedia’s “NO Original Research” policy. I will be providing references for my writing. About other references apart from the videos, I am providing some news references as well. “Boys scream in pain as they are circumcised with NO anaesthetic in Turkey” (Dailymail, British newspaper): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4650152/Turkish-boys-circumcised-no-anaesthetic.html And have a look at this photo of a Turkish boy undergoing circumcision: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/~/article-4650152/index.html#i-13daa357f063a8b The person holding the boys' arms are known as kirve, and after the ceremony will become a godfather figure and considered part of the child's family (Dailymail, British newspaper). “Ouch! More than 300 pre-teen boys go under the knife on school tables in a mass circumcision in the Philippines” (Dailymail, British newspaper): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545835/300-boys-undergo-mass-circumcision-Philippines.html Documentaries on "forced circumcision of children in Africa by illiterate traditional circumcisers, generally with no anesthesia": https://oddafrica.com/?s=circumcision About your suggestion to write on this under “Violence against men”, my question is that, under what article can I write on this? Can I create a new article “Forced circumcision of children”? Or can I write on this in existing “Forced circumcision” or “Circumcision” articles? As you can see, currently neither of the Wikipedia articles, whether “Forced circumcision” article or “Circumcision” article talks about forced circumcision of children. Abir Babu (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Daily Mail Seriously? that source is banned because it's unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Well, consider reviewing these documentaries on "forced circumcision of children in Africa by illiterate traditional circumcisers, generally with no anesthesia": https://oddafrica.com/?s=circumcision You will find that many African child and pre-teen boys are forcibly circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers and generally with no anesthesia. Videos of these offenses are also provided by oddafrica.com Consider looking into this news published by "Deccan Chronicle", an Indian English language daily newspaper - "Over 300 pre-teen boys undergo horrific mass circumcision in Philippines school": http://www.deccanchronicle.com/world/asia/210416/over-300-pre-teen-boys-undergo-horrific-mass-circumcision-in-philippines-school.html Consider reading this article "Forced circumcision of men" published by "Journal of Medical Ethics": http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101626 7 videos of forced circumcision of children (most of them are un-anesthesized and carried out by illiterate traditional circumcisers) are provided above in the 1st comment. And consider looking into this reference: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa The news published by British daily newspaper "The Guardian" which reads, "This week 200,000 festival-goers are gathering in Mutoto, Uganda, where they will enjoy the music, dancing, party atmosphere and the traditional ritual circumcision without anaesthetic of at least 1,000 teenage boys." "A recent report by South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities calculated that in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces alone at least 419 boys have died since 2008, and more than 456,000 initiates have been hospitalised with complications." "Deaths commonly occur through dehydration, blood loss, shock-induced heart failure or septicaemia. And there are estimated to be two total penile amputations for every death. Countless numbers of participants are left with permanent scarring or deformity. Urologists describe seeing patients whose penises have become so infected and gangrenous they literally drop off." "One young South African who spoke out after his penis was amputated following a botched circumcision was severely beaten as punishment for shaming the ceremony." About your suggestion to write on this under “Violence against men”, my question is that, under what article can I write on this? Can I create a new article “Forced circumcision of children”? Or can I write on this in existing “Forced circumcision” or “Circumcision” articles? As you can see, currently neither of the Wikipedia articles, whether “Forced circumcision” article or “Circumcision” article talks about forced circumcision of children. Abir Babu (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Abir Babu I agree. This should be brought to attention under circumcision and male circumcision. In the case of females, it shows under Female Genital Mutilation, and thus, what you are suggesting should come under Male Genital Mutilation, since it's a procedure without the child's consent, and thus forced. However, if you check the history of this page, any attempt to bring out MGM, is instantly deleted without any justification. Check this histroy of this current page, and other pages such as http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation. Muffizainu (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC) The daily mail is not a reliable source for anything in WIkipedia per WP:DAILYMAIL. This will also need sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Jytdog, it is already mentioned by Alexbrn that Daily Mail is not a reliable source. And I have already replied to his comment. Read above. And I have provided other references such as "Deccan Chronicle", an Indian English language daily newspaper, "The Guardian", British Daily newspaper, "Journal of Medical Ethics" (doi link), documentaries on "forced circumcision of children in Africa by illiterate traditional circumcisers, generally with no anesthesia" by oddafrica.com including the original videos (https://oddafrica.com/?s=circumcision). EvergreenFir told me that I should write on "Forced circumcision of children" under Category:Violence against men. But my question is that, under what article should I write on this? Should I create a new article “Forced circumcision of children”? Or can I write on this in existing “Forced circumcision” or “Circumcision” articles? As you can see, currently neither of the Wikipedia articles, whether “Forced circumcision” article or “Circumcision” article talks about forced circumcision of children. Abir Babu (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Ethics stuff belongs in the Ethics of circumcision article, not here. And then we'd be looking more for academic publications on the topic, rather than newspaper pieces. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Alexbrn sir, the Wikipedia article Ethics of circumcision is categorized under Category:Men's health and Category:Medical ethics. But, the cases we have seen in the videos posted in my 1st comment is not medical practice and has nothing to do with Category:Men's health and Category:Medical ethics. Wikipedia already has a page Forced circumcision which is categorized under Category:Violence against men and not under Category:Men's health and Category:Medical ethics, but the page only represents forced circumcision of adults in various regions of the world and not forced circumcision of children. In the videos, we see child and pre-teen boys are being circumcised forcibly with illiterate circumcisers and often with no anesthesia. The news posts published by different newspapers and the articles published in medical journals also describe how the child, pre-teen and teen boys are being circumcised forcibly by illiterate circumcisers often with no anesthesia. oddafrica.com publishes full documentaries with videos on such un-anesthesized forced circumcisions of African children by illiterate circumcisers. As EvergreenFir sir said, this directly falls under Category:Violence against men. However, the current Circumcision article is not categorized under Category:Violence against men. As EvergreenFir sir asked me to write on this under Category:Violence against men, what he asks me to do is to create a new page regarding this issue under Category:Violence against men. However, EvergreenFir sir didn't indicate any title for the new page. I consider Forced circumcision of children to be a relevant title. So my question is that, can I create a new page Forced circumcision of children for this issue or can I write in any existing pages such as Forced circumcision or Circumcision on this issue? Abir Babu (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC) It sound to me like you want to have sensation campaigning material. Wikipedia isn't the place for that at all. Maybe start a blog? Alexbrn (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia already has a page Forced circumcision which is categorized under Category:Violence against men and not under Category:Men's health and Category:Medical ethics, but the page only represents forced circumcision of adults in various regions of the world and not forced circumcision of children. But the fact is that only a minority of the forced circumcisions are committed against adults. The vast majority of the forced circumcisions are committed against children, where the children are either physically forced or are tricked to undergo the procedure. And in many cultures, these circumcisions are done by illiterate circumcisers with non-surgical instruments, and often with no anesthesia. As we have seen in the videos posted in my 1st comment, the boys were physically forced to undergo ritual circumcision performed by illiterate circumciser under no anesthesia. The voices of the boys were clear. Attacks on them were brutal. And as EvergreenFir sir said, such forced circumcisions of children directly fall under Category: Violence against men. As such, there is no reason the article Forced circumcision should only talk about a minority percentage of forced circumcisions committed against adults and ignore vast majority of forced circumcisions committed against children. If Wikipedia has scope for those few cases of forced circumcisions committed against adults, Wikipedia has also scope for these millions of cases of forced circumcisions committed against children. This is what EvergreenFir sir suggested. Abir Babu (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure what your point is, but if you think there are shortcoming in Forced circumcision the place for discussion is that article's Talk page, not here where it is a waste of time. In any event, decent sources will be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Oooh, yes. Feel the hostility! Get rid of that contributor at all costs. WP:BITE. --Nigelj (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

New content

User:UnethicalSurgery the refs you introduced in this diff and this diff are not OK, as I noted in this diff, and see also WP:MEDRS and the note about MEDRS Doc James left on your talk page here and as I also mentioned in the similar section here. If you don't understand MEDRS after you read it, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Needs discussion first

Wondering peoples thoughts on this

"There is evidence of PTSD following circumcision of boys in the Philippines."

It is not exactly a medical textbook. Not sure what book is actually being cited.

References

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The following was posted in the article Filipino experience of ritual male circumcision: Knowledge and insights for anti-circumcision advocacy: "Proquest online database (searched using the term ‘circumcision’) reveals that of the 61 materials, just one lone article discussed the Philippine ritual custom (and this was within the context of the Western medical concept of post-traumatic stress disorder) (Ramos and Boyle 2001)." So it does appear that the book does in fact address PTSD. Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Which source is primary? The Ramos source, the article I mentioned, or both? Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Ramos source. Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion to publishers or writers or researchers of this article

There should be some sort of note included in this article to suggest to readers to visit some sort of Health Organization website for healthy tips for safe sexual practices in order to prevent STDs. I assume this method is not 100% safe for preventing all types of STDs. Or perhaps a note indicating it is always advised to take appropriate safety measures, other than just depend on circumcision to prevent STDs.

There is a phrase: Steroid creams are also a reasonable option

This suggests there has already been an option offered earlier in the text, but this is not so. I would propose: Steroid creams are a reasonable option — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmsinnz (talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

HIV and men who have sex with men

Regarding this, this and this, what does the new meta-analysis state? And should we prefer it to older reviews simply because it is newer? WP:MEDDATE does note being cautious of recentism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't read the new meta-analysis, but I do know that before it was added to the article we had several sources that stated reduction among MSM is unclear. I would love for others to weigh in on why this new source supercedes the others instead of adding it without discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment after you have read it, and please stop changing content based on it, since you have not read it. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My edit had nothing to do with HIV. I was restoring a sentence that was removed without explanation regarding MSM and non-HIV STDs. Prcc27 (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

In "effects" --> "Sexually transmitted infections" --> "Human immunodeficiency virus" section, Change "areas of the world where HIV rates are high" to "areas of the world where HIV prevalence is high" --> this is more precise language. 130.132.173.123 (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with this but can you tell me why this term is preferable? I'm a layman and to me, the meaning of "rates" is a little more clear than the meaning of "prevalence." CityOfSilver 20:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. It's been hours and no response so this request is declined because there's been no reason given to do it. CityOfSilver 17:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Rates" and "prevalence" have different meanings. "Rates" is an ambiguous term that can refer to indidence rates or prevalence rates.Petersmillard (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction needed on Key associated with "Rate of male circumcision by country" Chart

I am unsure how to make this edit, but the key below the Rate of Male Circumcision by Country chart does not match the image. The image has a built in key indicating that Blue colored countries have a rate between 50% - 100%, while shades of pink/red indicates rate of <50%. The color key under the image states that Red >80% prevalence, Orange 20-80% and Yellow <20%. There is no yellow or orange on the image. As stated, I do not know how to make this edit, but as it currently appears can be confusing if reader doesn't expand the image to see the built-in key 199.52.13.133 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Julianne

I see the issue you're referring to and will try to fix it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent change in circumcision map

Global Map of Male Circumcision Prevalence by Country

We have switched from a WHO ref

To a blog. Not sure this is an improvement.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Has now been restored to the prior one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This may be a little off topic but what is the point of having 20% prevalence and 80% prevalence being the same color when there's a huge difference between the two..? Prcc27 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong colours?

There is a mismatch between the legend and the colours on the 'Rate of male circumcision by country' map.

Hotblade6 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Anesthesia

From the first paragraph of the article: "Topical or locally injected anesthesia is used to reduce pain and physiologic stress", I think the word "usually" or "commonly" should be included, the research I found about anesthesia usage on circumcision mentions that only 45% of physicians use anesthesia (at least in the US).

Kinda related: "Overall, 26% of programs that taught circumcision failed to provide instruction in anesthesia/analgesia for the procedure." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscouzo (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Royal Dutch viewpoint

I fell like the Royal Dutch viewpoint is somewhat miscategorized. Our article says that the Royal Dutch Medical Association "does not call for the practice to be made illegal out of their concern that parents who insist on the procedure would turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals." This isn't necessarily false information, but the association also said that "there are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation". Also, see my proposal I made regarding the Royal Dutch viewpoint and gender equality in one of the sections above. Prcc27 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Bias in a debated issue, sexual implications

I think the circumcision article is quite biased in favour of circumcision.

It does not mention any negative sexual implications. It does not mention that outside of the US it is a rare thought that such an operation should be done routinely on newsborns even if it had some health benefits. (For example newborn with genes indicating possible breast cancer are not operated on.)

The original idea behind modern age non-religious circumcision was to curb masturbation and sexual desire. See the article "History of male circumcision": Maimonides, the jewish philosopher said 900 years ago that the only reason for circumcision should be faith. Quote from that article: Maimonides reasoned that the bleeding and loss of protective covering rendered the penis weakened and in so doing had the effect of reducing a man's lustful thoughts and making sex less pleasurable.

The article does not mention the modern age foreskin restoration movement and efforts by Foregen to recreate the foreskin.

It is hard to find US medical studies that are not biased from the start in this topic one way or the other. See: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-earp/does-circumcision-reduce-_b_9743242.html

In the much quoted 2013 study, the age of participants was 18-37 years, while circumcison opponents claim that the loss of sensitivity is gradual but intensifies after age 35-40 and may cause erectile dysfunction. See http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction

I will search and quote reliable secondary medical reviews to support these claims.

There are no medical studies on foreskin restoration, so how can that me mentioned in the article? If I find foreign language studies or books on the subject, can they be quoted?

I hope its not a problem if I include some excerpts of foreign language wikipedia articles to show that they are much more balanced in this controversial issue.

The German language circumcision article states this (google translation): Circumcision as a routine procedure is particularly controversial among minors, though not nearly to the extent that would be comparable to that of the universal proscription of Female Genital Mutilation. Child protection associations and doctors' organizations reject the non-medically-based circumcision, because it irreversibly alters the body and is not in harmony with health protection and well-being of unwitful boys. [6] In the Anglo-Saxon area, there has long been a social debate between groups opposing it ("intact activist" movement) and groups advocating circumcision. Particularly controversial are medical benefits and risks, in children also ethical and legal aspects as well as the assessment with regard to human rights, especially the right to physical integrity.

The French article states (google translation, AAP standpoint omitted): Conversely, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the Swedish Paediatric Society or the British Association of Pediatric Urologists temper the medical benefits and highlight the risks of complications as well as the problems associated with ethics and right to physical integrity. These are the subject of controversy and legal debate around the world. For example, the Council of Europe regards religious circumcision of children as a violation of their physical integrity.

The Spanish article (google translation): Sexual pleasure The effects of circumcision on sexuality are the subject of much debate and there is no consensus in the scientific community. Thus, a study conducted in Denmark in 2011 indicates that circumcision is associated with difficulties in reaching orgasm, while a study conducted in Uganda in 2009 suggests otherwise. The same occurs in relation to the question of the change in the sensitivity of the penis glans, when some studies indicate a loss of sensitivity, others refute these observations. Some scientists claim that circumcision has no effect on erectile function and the possibility of prolonging the sexual act. Circumcised men have the same problems with premature ejaculation as uncircumcised men. Proponents of this practice argue that circumcision does not seem to decrease penile sensitivity, impair sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction. The detractors affirm the opposite and argue that during the intervention a large amount of erogenous tissue located in the foreskin is eliminated and on the other hand the glans and the residual foreskin are exposed to constant rubbing, which triggers a process called keratinization. This causes that over time the penis lose sensitivity and generate problems to reach orgasm. A study in 2013 found that circumcision does not seem to adversely affect sexual desire, pain during intercourse, premature ejaculation, ejaculation time, erectile dysfunction or difficulties with orgasm, however there are other studies, as well as testimonies of some circumcised men, that suggest the opposite.

TheOdor (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The article follows reliable sources, the "debate" about "negative sexual implications" stems largely from the fringe and from advocacy groups and primary studies have not been validated in the secondary literature. If there are WP:MEDRS we don't use, however, bring them forth. Alexbrn (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well there is this[10], and this[11]. If fact, this reasent editorial[12] (in Icelandic; nice summary of the current medical consensus about the lack of evidence for any benefits of the non-medical procedure) has loads of good references on the subject. Surely some of the meet the WP:MEDRS guideline.

An editorial, a primary study and an old review (when we have newer); not useful for WP:Biomedical information though maybe the editorial has something non-medical in it? Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand. It seem like it is impossible to correct this article. It obviously has a bias, statements that run contrary to the current medical consensus. Any sources presented seem to be insufficient. Yet, the biased claims have sources that are at best controversial, and quite possible wrong. The presented sources to get this article corrected are enough for the majority of practising medical experts. Why is it not enough for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1180:C85:E523:D0D:7FA0:EC12 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's biased - it's true to the sources. If you have a source for "the" medical consensus at odds with what we say, produce it. Do please make sure medical sources are WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Like previously said: Any sources presented are disregarded, yet sources for the biased claims are not. Here [13] over 400 Icelandic doctors endorse the 2013 study claiming the studies finding any medical benefits are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1180:C85:E523:D0D:7FA0:EC12 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates according to its WP:PAGs. Did you not read WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that the ethics and law section of the article can be improved, especially since circumcision is increasingly undergoing ethical and legal debate. I see nothing in either this article or the Ethics of circumcision article which mentions the gender equality debate behind circumcision. I think we should mention that the Royal Dutch Medical Association talks about female genital cutting vs. male genital cutting and how removing the female prepuce (clitoral hood) is akin to removing the male prepuce (foreskin): "there are also much milder forms of FGM, in which only the foreskin of the clitoris is removed." Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors - KNMG Viewpoint. We have used the Royal Dutch Medical Association as a source in the past so I assume it complies with WP:MEDRS. But even it isn't WP:MEDRS, I think the source would be reliable enough when discussing the ethical context of circumcision, as long as it isn't coming from something like huffington post (no offense). Prcc27 (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I found these studies that may satisfy wp:medrs:

1, Belgian study. Review: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-male-circumcision/male-circumcision-tied-to-less-sexual-pleasure-idUSBRE91D1CO20130214

here is the primary study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11761.x/abstract

2, Psychology point of view https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

3, "Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence" from 2016 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441692.2016.1184292?src=recsys

4, Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark, 2011 https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/40/5/1367/658163

WP:MEDRS also says this "Wikipedia represents viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the reliable sources, especially the secondary sources."

The decision on leaving newborns genitals intact is quite a majority viewpoint in the world thus it deserves a fair representation in this article. TheOdor (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

These sources are:

1. A press release
2. An opinion piece
3. An "original article" whose lead author is anti-circ advocate Morten Frisch
4. A survey.

None is WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

209.93.133.204 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)== This is a bad article ==

Following the proposed criminalization of male circumcision by the Icelandic parliament, I navigated to this page to find more about the prevalence and history of the practise. However I was greeted by bogus claims that there are evidence that circumcision prevents HIV and other medical benefits. This threw me off guard as I am unused to see such obviously wrong claims on wikipedia. Therefore I must conclude that this article is biased and not be trusted by any means.

Can this please be fixed. I would very much like to know more about the subject from a trusted medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1180:C85:E523:D0D:7FA0:EC12 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do you say that's wrong when medical research has found otherwise? Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say - that is its basic function. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand why these claims must be here at all. Surely people aren’t doing this for medical reasons. There must be cultural or historical reasons why. Why not emphasis these so people like me can trust this article. If you must talk about any medical benefits (real or claimed) do so in an isolated subsection, perhaps point to a main article. Since this is apparently a controversial issue, why use such determined wording. For example: why claim there is strong evidence, when the evidence is at best weak? Instead you can say that “Some scientists say there are so and so benefits”. There is no reason why this article must take a stand on an issue that is being debated. I as a layman should be able to educate my self on the history and culture on this practice without feeling propagandised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1180:C85:E523:D0D:7FA0:EC12 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I found it worrying too. It's clearly biased and only talks about it in favorable terms. As it stands currently, the article essentially tells the reader all studies previously conducted have concluded that there are no adverse sexual effects which is clearly untrue and misleading. There needs to be a far better balance between the studies. For example there is no mention in the adverse effects section of the peer approved study which concluded that circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis. The British Association of Urological Surgeons clearly list in their information disclosure to adults who are about to undergo the operation the possible side effects, one of which listed and effects "Almost all patients" - "Permanent altered or reduced sensation in your glans penis (head of the penis)". - http://www.baus.org.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/Patients/Leaflets/Circumcision.pdf 209.93.133.204 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Are the medical benefits claims wrong?

This article claims that “There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of men acquiring HIV infection in areas of the world with high rates of HIV” and points to two sources that backs that claim. However, following those studies another study was published that claims those studies are biased—and furthermore—that there are no benefits, to male circumcision.

The 2013 study has been endorsed by over 400 Icelandic doctors following the proposed criminalization of circumcision of male children. I have also read that the many doctors throughout Europe refute the claims that there are any benefits to this procedure (however I don’t have source for that).

But I have reasons to believe this articles has false claims that are backed by questionable sources and should subsequently be altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1180:C85:E523:D0D:7FA0:EC12 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There's also this source (although it's probably too old to use). Regardless, the use of the word "strong" blatantly violates WP:NPOV since whether or not circumcision significantly reduces HIV is still debated, and the source that used the word "strong" is pretty old. Also, none of the sources say that HIV reduction among MSM is strong. I would change the word "strong" to "some" and maybe even mention that there is some evidence that circumcision does not significantly HIV rates. Prcc27 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources. We have WP:MEDRS in our Circumcision and HIV article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Which medical reliable source said there's "strong" evidence that circumcision prevents HIV among MSM? The evidence is substantially weaker in that respect than among MSW. Prcc27 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The ones cited.Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: Where did it say the word "strong" or at least imply the evidence was strong..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Like the 2013 study claims. Those studies sited are believed to be have cultural biases, and are indeed questioned by a significant number of practising medical doctors in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1180:C85:E523:D0D:7FA0:EC12 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the OP's question, we wait for the next WP:MEDRS source ( a review or statement by a major health/science body) as discussed in WP:MEDREV. We don't "overthrow" content sourced to MEDRS refs with content from primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a statement [14] signed by over 400 Icelandic doctors endorsing the 2013 study[15] claiming that previous studies claiming any benefits are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1180:C85:E523:D0D:7FA0:EC12 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for asserting anything about health. Please read WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the 400 Icelandic doctors should be noted in the Ethics of circumcision article, or any other article that may be relevant.. Prcc27 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I cut the sentence "Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants" (and accompanying footnotes) for being conclusory and failing NPOV standard. The edit has been undone. The accompanying footnoted article does not make this claim. It offers a lot of data that could be cherry-picked to argue for or against circumcision. I'm not interested in an edit war so I'll just note my objection again here and leave it to others. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. Give people the facts and let them argue conclusions elsewhere. Dannykauf (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

This is not an edit request.......I have a question that pertains to one of the photo's on the circumcision page. The photo shows 2 flaccid penises - one intact and the other allegedly circumcised. The caption below reads: "The foreskin is removed after circumcision and the glans is exposed even when the penis is flaccid" While the "circumcised" penis in the photo does have the glans exposed it seems to have an abundance of foreskin bunched up just below the rim of the glans. To me it gives the appearance of a penis that is uncircumcised and has the forseskin retracted. It shows no circumcision scar. I myself am not "cut" but the "cut" penises I've seen don't have enough foreskin to bunch up when flaccid. Generally the glans is exposed and there really is no foreskin to speak of. So the area in question is clearly visible, badly scarred or no real scaring at all.. If the photo is of a circumcised penis then I'm very confused. 209.145.110.183 (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mention debate and weblinks?

• www.instagram.com/intactutah
• www.twitter.com/shadow_of_wb
• www.twitter.com/gregory_malchuk
• www.twitter.com/circumcrippled (warning: graphic content)
• www.twitter.com/massbayintact
• www.facebook.com/BrotherK
• intactwiki.org
• Circumstitions.com/

But circumcision supporters:

• circtruth.org
• twitter.com/ukcutguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.205.134 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:5P and in particular WP:RS. Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force Technical Report

This article currently contains a citation to The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision "Technical Report" (2012). According to WP:MEDRS, "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge".

First of all, I question whether the AAP Report qualifies as "third-party published". As far as I am aware the AAP have self-published this report.

Second, I question that it "accurately reflects current knowledge", in light of published rebuttal such as this from Brian Earp & David Shaw, "Cultural bias in American medicine: the case of infant male circumcision", in the Journal of Pediatric Ethics.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316527603_Cultural_bias_in_American_medicine_the_case_of_infant_male_circumcision

I believe the above link qualifies as a third-party published secondary source. In light of this, I request that the citation to the AAP 2012 Task Force on Circumcision Technical Report be removed from this article. Especially since it is used as a citation for sexual function and sensation, a subject that was hardly studied or addressed at all by said report.

If the citation to the Task Force Report is not to be removed, this rebuttal should at least be included alongside it to provide a more balanced view.KhazWolf (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The APP report is by a major medical body; one of our main sources for content about health. The research gate is from the first issue of a new journal that, because it is new, has no impact factor or reputation as yet. It is not something we would generally cite as a source of accepted knowledge, much less use it to "knock out" a MEDRS source. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

What threshold of "acceptedness" does a particular publication have to have in order to stand against an authority like the AAP that, while respected, is in this instance unequivocably factually incorrect as proven directly by experimentation (see recent page history). I don't understand how we can allow an article to go on stating something that is obviously factually incorrect simply because a (frankly irrelevant) authority said so, after reviewing ONE study on sexual function (that, if I recall, was of terrible quality!). How do you propose we proceed here? How can we meet this standard to get this article brought up to the current medical reality? Could we at least tweak the wording down a notch? I don't think it's fair to have the wikipedia article say "The highest quality evidence says" just because one source cited claims to know what the highest quality evidence is. If that's their assertion we should quote it as such, not state it as impartial fact.KhazWolf (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand from this diff that the sentence you are objecting to, is the first one in the "sexual effects" sectoin. There are three citations on three citations there. Everything in that section points in the same direction. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me just skip straight to the elephant in the room. The AAP Task Force was extremely biased by, if not solely motivated by, political and economic factors, not medical. Their "Technical Report" was fatally flawed throughout and failed to qualify its assertions on many levels. You have supporting sources authored by and citing a career pro-circumcision activist BJ Morris, who has managed to artifically create "valid" secondary sources by personally reviewing his OWN (innately flawed) primary research, and somehow managing to get it published in journals. The facts of the matter are plain and simple. The foreskin contains a high density of nerve endings. When those are removed, the sensations they provide are lost. That is how biology functions. To say there is "no loss of sensation", is frankly insane in light of the fundamental nature of circumcision - removing flesh that is rich in sensation. Religious scholars and medical experts across the past millenia have understood this obvious truth - until the modern era where "damaging sexuality" suddenly became problematic as "medicine" and it became necessary to hide those facts.

What we're looking at is a medical conspiracy by a few bad actors, designed to construct a false narrative within the literature and snowball it from a handful of poor "studies" with false findings into accepted opinion on wiki. By incessantly citing one's own work repeatedly, from primary to secondary to tertiary sources, one artifically inflates the citation numbers of everything they publish, which in turn increases their "influence factor"... All with the purpose of deliberately obscuring the original, fundamentally flawed, unscientific source of these conclusions.

Right now wiki is declaring "the highest quality evidence says" one thing when in reality, the REAL highest quality evidence says the exact opposite. The evidence stating there is no effect is of extremely poor quality, but that poor quality research meets WP:MEDRS and the real research doesn't (according to Doc James and yourself), so here we are.

I re-state my request that the phrase "the highest quality evidence states" be removed from Sexual Effects, unless it is properly put into context as a quotation from one of the cited sources. While wikipedia may have been populated with only one side of the argument to date, to pretend the opposing views are not also supported by a wealth of legitimate research is dishonest. To frame the assertion that it is "the highest quality evidence" as Wikipedia's opinion and not that of the source is also inserting bias that is totally unnecessary.KhazWolf (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Circumcision Scar in Adverse Effects

Circumcision almost always creates scaring at the site where the two skin types fuse together. This is visual and a potential addition for the Adverse Effect section. There is a circumcision scar article on Wiki that could be linked to, or incorporated. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Circumcision_scar --209.93.180.234 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree --79.241.205.253 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ref discussing this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this one, "The prepuce" by C.J. Cold and J.R. Taylor, BJU 1999: Looks complaint with WP:MEDRS to me, mentions "circumcision scar" several times, including

"Histology of the male circumcision scar shows amputation neuromas, Schwann cell proliferation and the bulbous collection of variably sized neurites. Amputation neuromas do not mediate normal sensation and are notorious for generating pain."

Personally, I would love for that quote to be included in the article in full. What do you think Doc James?

P.S. Do you know where I can find the full text of Folia Morphologica 1988, which is cited in the following sentences? I need to know what they did to that poor pig's clitoris. (Sorry, forgot the signature)KhazWolf (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Circumcision Scar in Adverse Effects

Circumcision almost always creates scaring at the site where the two skin types fuse together. This is visual and a potential addition for the Adverse Effect section. There is a circumcision scar article on Wiki that could be linked to, or incorporated. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Circumcision_scar --209.93.180.234 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree --79.241.205.253 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ref discussing this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this one, "The prepuce" by C.J. Cold and J.R. Taylor, BJU 1999: Looks complaint with WP:MEDRS to me, mentions "circumcision scar" several times, including

"Histology of the male circumcision scar shows amputation neuromas, Schwann cell proliferation and the bulbous collection of variably sized neurites. Amputation neuromas do not mediate normal sensation and are notorious for generating pain."

Personally, I would love for that quote to be included in the article in full. What do you think Doc James?

P.S. Do you know where I can find the full text of Folia Morphologica 1988, which is cited in the following sentences? I need to know what they did to that poor pig's clitoris. (Sorry, forgot the signature)KhazWolf (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Euphemism detected

WP:Euphemism | Euphemism.

"Removal" of the foreskin is euphemistic. It should be "amputation", but I have no editing privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.203.173 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No removal is perfectly fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

An Conclusion

So, Circumsion is just a way the Juda (Jews and the inner tribes) try to mocking the Creator for imperfect (error) design, not because religious reason or cleaning purpose, or avoiding masturbation behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:4800:509F:1F24:68FE:7FE5:8DEC:A909 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

American Circumcision Documentary

Any chance of adding an "In popular culture" section or similar, perhaps under "Society and culture", to mention the recent film American Circumcision? I would think an entire award-winning feature-length documentary exclusively on circumcision with a 9.1 on imdb should merit some mention?

If one wanted to flesh out the section a bit there's also Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision (2007). Not sure it's had as much impact on audiences but it's there. KhazWolf (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Is circumcision mutilation?

why is male circumcision not called male genital mutilation?

i found this video of eric clopper at harvard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7akHWHm8w --84.147.34.75 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Because according to political correctness, males can never be victims, and the usage of 'mutilation' in this connection insinuates victimization. Which they of course also are, victims, that is, as any male infant who has anything cut of from him without his concent for either religious or other ideological beliefs (Including "medical" beliefs" is per definition also a victim. Okama-San (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm read the archives here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Before you facepalm anyone link to the discussion. If Wikipedia is going to advocate mutilation as you claim it does at least direct people to it Cls14 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm or even bother to read the top of this page, which directs you to the FAQ. Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

ISRN Urology

This journal Van Howe, Robert S. (22 January 2013). "Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". ISRN Urology. 2013: 42. doi:10.1155/2013/109846. Retrieved 24 July 2018.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Has no impact factor per http://www.chercheur.tn/urologie/. Thus do not think it is appropriate for use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The journal is dead and was only in print for a few years. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there precedent for, or a relevant rule regarding, the disallowing of meta-analyses on the specific basis of the publishing journal having ceased operations or not existing long enough? KhazWolf (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup. We do not use journals that do not have a history of reputable publishing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you did not point to WP, you just asserted your subjective interpretation of reputability under the banner "we". Chercheur.tn is not the authoritative source of Impact, nor is Impact scoring a consolidated Wikipedia policy under MEDRS. Here is a good read on the subject. Just the usual cherry-picking I have observed for at least 7 years by the two crusaders gaming this article. I really hope Doc James and Jytog will grow a conscience, disclose their WP:MEDCOI and stop suppressing legitimate non-primary sources that clearly pass WP:MEDRS. Unfortunately is more likely they will rush to archive the talk page, as usual so as to bury the conversation itself thus and yet again suppressing speech. MRhizza (talk)

I agree, using Impact scoring is not policy here on wikipedia. Mazudarzu (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference

This ref Cold, C.J. (1999). "The prepuce". British Journal of Urology. 83 (S1): 34. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1034.x. Retrieved 26 July 2018.

Is from 1999 and from a journal that is not pubmed indexed. As such I do not believe it is a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The British Journal of Urology, aka. BJU International, was established in 1929 and was given an impact factor of 4.387 in 2015, ranking it 10th of 77 journals in the category. This very same journal is already cited in the article multiple times. (citations 13, 23 and 77). Citation 23 is also from 1999.

Please cite me a part of wikipedia regulation that requires a medical source to be pubmed indexed. If there is no such requirement, I submit that there is absolutely no remaining reason to contest the use of "The Prepuce" from BJU 1999.KhazWolf (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you also intend to remove the existing 3 citations, 13 - Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HIV Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis, 23 - Religious circumcision: a Jewish view, and 76 - The psychological impact of circumcision, or just refuse to allow new content. BJUI is already an accepted source for this article, and either all existing content from that source must be removed as insufficient, or additional content from that source must be allowed. As it has been accepted into the article for three citations already, and has a high impact factor for its category, the latter seems much more reasonable.ReyosB (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that BJUI has the highest impact factor given by http://www.chercheur.tn/urologie/ which you yourself Doc James cite in another point in this talk page as an authority on impact factor. If it doesn't meet source criteria, nothing does. ReyosB (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with their points Doc James, what KhazWolf and ReyosB are saying sounds reasonable to me. Mazudarzu (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This article was pubmed indexed.[16]

As was this one.[17]

As was this one.[18]

The last two I agree could use updating.

Wonder why this article does not show up?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine, but a lack of indexing on its own is not a reason to disqualify a source from a reputable well-established high-impact journal. I believe the others contributing to this thread here also show a consensus so far, the final criteria you asked me to obtain.

How much more is it going to take to get the wiki page updated with this most basic of information about circumcision? What would you like me to demonstrate next?KhazWolf (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The 1999 source is advocacy-ridden and hopelessly out-of-date, so there is a WP:REDFLAG. Even if it was better, copy-and-pasting chunks of it into Wikipedia is a big no no. I have added something on scarring from an up-to-date, solid NHS source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the copy-paste, I was unaware it was not permitted. I will be more careful next time.

The 1999 source may be almost 20 years old but it's not "advocacy-ridden", it's a factual discussion of the functions of the prepuce, information that needs to be taken into account in any cost-benefit analysis of circumcision. I'd appreciate if you could take a moment and point to specific quotes in the text you feel are "advocacy" and not science.KhazWolf (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

In any event we're not going to be using out-of-date sources in a area where there are many recent/quality sources per WP:MEDDATE. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

NHS source is decent and from 2016. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Misleading result related to HIV

The study cited stating that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV had trials limited to Sub-Saharan men. This does not mean that the same observations are applicable to men around the world.

Secondly, the trials did show a correlation between circumcision and HIV risk. However, it doesn't explain why this is true. I mean, correlation is not same as causation.

It was an RCT so not correlation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, "Compelling evidence suggests that trials stopped early for benefit systematically overestimate treatment effects, sometimes by a large amount". The three major circumcision-for-HIV-prevention RCTs that are constantly cited for their "60% reduced risk" finding were all aborted early. Between this and other confounding factors such as the recovery period following surgery in the test group, it's safe to say that the finding in those RCTs was extremely likely to be correllation and not causation.

I'm too busy defending other edits right now to support this with WP:MEDRS sources, but just on the off chance you weren't already aware.KhazWolf (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I was just told in another thread a source from 1999 is "hopelessly out-of-date". The african RCTs on HIV prevention from circumcision seem to have started in 2006. That gives us 6-7 more years before they too become "hopelessly out-of-date". Clock is ticking. I'm setting a reminder in my calendar for 2025 to come back here and remove every reference to them from the article.KhazWolf (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We have this Cochrane review from 2009.[19] as well as more recent reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Regurgitating and chewing the very same RCTs with the very same problems in ever more reviews is not particularly useful. Not to mention that suggesting the generalization of data collected in countries of low to middle human development index is highly frivolous. And I'm not sure what you mean with "RCT so not correlation". --2A02:810C:380:1DEC:342B:5D98:158D:3FDD (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Illegality of Circumcision made by MP which is in Hansard (UK)

I was thinking of adding the following comments made by Philip Davies, MP., to the Backbench Business Committee concerning the possible illegality of circumcision in the UK. I simply don't know if such an edit is acceptable by WP. The actual quote he made is: - According to a barrister’s opinion, carrying out circumcision on males when there is no medical need—non-therapeutic circumcision—is a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, being at least actual bodily harm if not grievous bodily harm. The Hansard source is here - I would appreciate any advice - thanks. Musicwaves (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Would need a good secondary source to establish due weight for this opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Alex. Musicwaves (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Penile Cancer

I'm a little concerned about how adamantly this article suggests that circumcision prevents penile cancer, especially considering the American Cancer Society doesn't even agree, writing in a medical letter:

"As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers."

The Cancer Society then doubled down on this statement in a followup two years later, claiming:

"...the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis."

References

BookDive (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Those sources are from the last century! Our article says any preventative effect is "not a justification for routine circumcision of infants" in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these sources are from the 90s, much like several others in the same article. If that's a problem you should probably just remove every citation from before the 2000s, and then 22 years from now delete the whole article.

Either way, claiming that genital cutting prevents cancer is misleading; whether the wiki thinks it justifies the practice or not. BookDive (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't be so crass. We use the best sources we can (sometimes they are older; sometimes not). If you have a good source, produce it! Editorial advocacy is unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Article Contains Opinion

Remove the statement “Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants.”

Despite citing a source, this statement is an opinion, not a fact, therefore represents a bias. Wilsonahrens (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It's not a seriously contested opinion, so it is fine that it is asserted. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Controlled Studies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do we have controlled studies of adult men who have voluntarily received circumcision to report their sexual and biological function before and after making it easier to clean? Not yet? Jakewayd (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voluntary Adult Circumcision Versus Compulsory Infant Circumcision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What are the statistics on the fraction of adult men without circumcision, namely those in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Latin America, and Asian nations outside South Korea, who voluntarily undergo circumcision in adulthood and what the before and after experiences are reported as? Without this data, it is clear, the scientific publications on infant circumcision are crackpottery, and the medical practice is quackery. Jakewayd (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Male Circumcision vs Male Genital Mutilaiton?

I'm curious as to why the male circumcision article is not called male genital mutilation, and/or why the female circumcision article is called female genital mutilation. If both are essentially the same practices, why do they have different names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.157.41 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page? Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a knowledge lack of society. --84.147.43.235 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

With respect, I don't find it satisfactory for Alexbrn to be quite so dismissive of the question raised here. Searching Wikipedia for Male Genital Mutilation we get either Genital modification and mutilation (Redirected from Male genital mutilation) or we get the Circumcision Controversies page (Redirected from Male genital mutilation controversy). The latter, also linked to from the article here, says "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation." This seems to be a clear case of a supposedly POV free encyclopaedia supporting serious sex discrimination. 86.159.122.129 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

When the article states: 'Some men who were circumcised as infants described their feelings about the procedure using the terms "violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault"' surely this is evidence enough that male circumcisions is every bit as much genital mutilation as female circumcision. The common factor is adults forcibly restraining young children whilst cutting part of their genitals for "religious reasons".

Most male circumcisions in the U.S. aren't really performed for religious reasons, it's just the common medical practice to circumcise male babies. And most men who were circumcised in this way don't describe it in any negative way. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to be discussing our own views here - especially, Rreagan, when not supported by citation. However, since you mention your experience in the U.S., I will say that in the U.K. while there is widespread outrage that it is taking too long for practitioners of infant FGM to be prosecuted, there are protests that to criminalise infant MGM on a similar basis would be anti-semitic.86.159.122.129 (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed times before, which is why there is a "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above that addresses the article's title. Check the archives. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 86.159.122.129 (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of impact on sexual function

On a "Neutral point of view" issue, Wikipedia "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." And "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements"

The following statements violate the aforementioned principles of Wikipedia: Statement #1: Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[19][20] -- "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."

Statement #2: The highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[19][73][74] A 2013 systematic review found that circumcision did not appear to adversely affect sexual desire, pain with intercourse, premature ejaculation, time until ejaculation, erectile dysfunction or difficulties with orgasm. However, the study found that the existing evidence is not very good.[75] Another 2013 systematic review found that the highest-quality studies reported no adverse effects of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation or satisfaction.[20] -- "Articles must not take sides", "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."

The reasons, disputed by each citation: [Citation #19] The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision:

In 2012, the Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reviewed the many current claims of benefit for circumcision and published a position statement that concluded that “the health benefits outweigh the risks.”

However, in this same statement, they admitted no less than four times that the rates of complication, morbidity, and mortality are unknown.[p. e772, e775]

In a follow-up editorial published in Pediatrics, in May 2016, Andrew Freedman, a member of the AAP’s 2012 Circumcision Task Force, referring to the literature review his committee undertook, conceded that “[d]ifficulties with this approach included the lack of a universally accepted metric to accurately measure or balance the risks and benefits. In particular, there was insufficient information about the actual incidence and burden of non-acute complications.”[Freedman AL. The circumcision debate: beyond benefits and risks. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5). Epub 2016 Apr 6.]

It is astonishing that, given such an admission, a leading professional organization would declare any net benefit for an amputative procedure upon children, a failing for which the AAP has been soundly – and rightfully – criticized by a group of 38 Northern European pediatricians, doctors, surgeons, ethicists and lawyers. Stating that they found the AAP's technical report and policy statement suffered from cultural bias, and reached recommendations and conclusions different from those of physicians in other parts of the world.[Frisch M, Aigrain Y, Barauskas V, Bjarnason R, Boddy SA, Czauderna P, et al. Cultural bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):796-800]

A possible explanation is found in Freedman’s further admissions[Freedman AL. The circumcision debate: beyond benefits and risks. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5). Epub 2016 Apr 6.]: - that the practice is “cultural” and “non-therapeutic,” - that “for the most part, parents [in ‘the West’] choose what they want for a wide variety of nonmedical reasons,” including “religion, culture, [parental] aesthetic preference, familial identity [i.e. to make the son match father or brothers], and personal experience,” and - that part of the goal of the task force was to protect the parental option to circumcise a child for any such reasons, irrespective of medical factors. Tellingly, Freedman also states that while, as physicians, “we claim authority in the medical realm, we have no standing to judge on these other [cultural] elements”[173] – though, as he himself admitted (above), that is exactly what the Task Force did.

[Citation #20] Morris, BJ; Krieger, JN (November 2013). "Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?--a systematic review". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 10 (11): 2644–57. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.693.6628. doi:10.1111/jsm.12293. PMID 23937309.

Morris and Krieger claim "no conflict of interest", Morris is co-founder & chief spokesperson of a pro-circumcision lobbying organization which petitions for government insurance to cover medically unnecessary circumcisions. This directly financially benefits several board members (see below).

Global Public Health (Volume 13, 2018, Issue 5): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441692.2016.1184292 4. It appears that such expansion of coverage would be of direct financial benefit to several CAA board members, including the organisation’s inaugural president, Dr C. Terry Russell (Russell Medical Center, ‘Trusted Australian Circumcision Since 1993’, link removed), along with board members Dr Mojtaba Athari (Melbourne Vasectomy & Circumcision, Link removed), Dr Luke Bukallil (who has performed ‘over 2000’ circumcisions, link removed), Dr Mohamed Hajoona (Victoria Circumcision Clinic, link removed), Dr Colin C.M. Moore (The Australian Center for Cosmetic and Penile Surgery, link removed), and Dr Anthony Dilley (who ‘conducts up to 40 circumcisions per week’, link removed). The group’s political petition to ‘restore elective male circumcision to public hospitals … increase the Medicare rebate [and] ensure [that] Medicare applies to prophylactic circumcision not just circumcision for medical problems’ can be found here: (link removed). A similar petition posted separately by Brian Morris is available here: link removed.

In their systematic review using SIGN criteria the high-quality studies "uniformly" showed no negative effects of circumcision, whereas all studies that DID report negative effects were of low quality. But SIGN guidelines require that quality ratings be done by a multidisciplinary panel carefully assembled to minimize any possible bias among raters, whereas Morris and Krieger did all their *own* ratings.

Letter to the editor: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.12852

Boyle noted several of the ratings M&K assigned for quality seemed to track the results of the study (that is, whether it supported their conclusion or not), rather than the actual quality.

Rebuttal: didn't like the link I had, reference here (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1079164114784714752.html)

There are *many* other slight-of-hand tactics used: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1079164114784714752.html

There are credible journal publications indicating a loss of sensitivity and other harm that is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article: Sorrells, ML (Aug 2007). "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis". BJU Int. 100(2): 481. D, Kim (March 2007). "The effect of male circumcision on sexuality". BJU Int. 99(3): 619–622.

Ten Beard (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Start at WP:5P to understand how Wikipedia works. We reflect accepted knowledge in reliable sources. Also WP:NOTAFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the material is biased and is stating seriously contested assertions as fact. The topic should include the other point of view as well. I believe I've given ample evidence from reliable sources for this to be clear. Ten Beard (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ten Beard, do the sources you propose using meet WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDDATE? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose removing the sentence "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function" if there are no sources that are 5 years old or more recent claiming one way or another 129.130.18.101 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not. If there is no newer RS, the view is simply settled. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Text

Were does the ref support this

"Opponents cite the importance of the foreskin in various biological processes."

Doyle D (October 2005). "Ritual male circumcision: a brief history". The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. 35 (3): 279–285. PMID 16402509.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

____

Hi Doc_James (talk · contribs),

Thank you for uncovering this error. It would appear I had inadvertently used the citation twice. The other citation by Author Steve Scott is more informative. For example, the foreskin (also referred to as the prepuce) is said to serve all of, but not limited to the following functions: 1) This tissue serves to accommodate the corpora cavernosa (the sacs that fill with blood during erection), the veins facilitate the flow of blood into and out of the penis before, during and after an erection as well as offering a mechanical gliding motion which improves lubricity of the penis. I will add additional sources and revise my earlier changes.

I will also remark that the removal of the following paragraph: "Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa.[10][11] Consequently, the WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV such as sub-Saharan Africa.[12] There is also some evidence for circumcision reducing HIV infection risk for men who have sex with men.[13] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[14] Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[15][16] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[4] Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants.[1][17] Studies of other sexually transmitted infections are suggestive that circumcision is protective. A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications.[18] Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[18] Complication rates are higher when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or in older children.[18] Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[19][20]"

Is merited not only due to its verbosity in the introduction, but also its redundancy.

The main points can be pilfered into the following:

1) HIV benefits discussion

- This point is redundant and discussed in detail in the effects section.

2) HPV

- Also redundant, discussed in effects.

3) UTIs

- Also redundant, discussed in effects.

4) General STD prevention

- Redundant, see effects.

5) STI

- Redundant, see effects.

6) Complications

- Redundant, see adverse effects.

7)Sexual Function

-See Sexual effects

Minimally, this entire paragraph needs re-writing, but it seems more efficient and informative for this information to be read with context, rather than be summarized. Therefore, I will again remove it. I expect no less than line by line refutation for any points of disagreement.

Hotpass105 (talk)

The question is what wording in what reference supports the text? Please quote the wording and provide a url to the source.

The other paragraph is perfectly fine as it is excellently supported by references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc_James (talk · contribs),

You may have noticed I am quite new as far as edits go, so thank you for being patient with me. Rest assured, I am reviewing this source and will offer greater detail in the next hour or so. I'll also add a bit of my subjective thoughts here, so you better understand why these changes were made.

EDIT: I am still unsatisfied with the quality of my edits. I revise and rework the entire paragraph to better integrate with the entire article.

Best, Hotpass105 (talk)

@Hotpass105, please review WP:LEDE; material in an article's lede should summarize material in the article. Unique material should not be introduced into the lede. Also, please review WP:BRD: an editor here has objected to your edits, and removed the material and brought it to the talk page; therefore you should discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus, before attempting to reintroduce the material to the article. Please revert your edits, and develop a consensus here with other editors, before making any changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk · contribs),

I appreciate your concerns. I have reverted and am undergoing a MAJOR rework. Currently this page does not reflect the format or character of an article meant to represent a medical procedure. Please stand by as this may take some time.

I will be meticulous in observing WP:LEDE. I understand it is very important.

Thanks for your help,

Hotpass105 (talk)

Thanks User:Hotpass105, I'm sure that will make the discussions here go much more smoothly. Regarding a medical article like this, I strongly recommend reviewing WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS; it is unlikely, for example, that a source from 1999 (which I see you attempted to introduce), will meet those standards. Also, Wikipedia has conventions regarding Talk page formatting, which make it easy to understand and follow conversations; please review WP:THREAD. Wikipedia is a complicated place, so there's a lot of reading and learning required to get up to speed, but once you do that, I'm sure you'll find editing here rewarding. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Also note that this is a well developed article that has passed peer review. Changing will likely require discussion before you make them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

N Someone please add the "Torture" category to this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am asking someone else to do it since the article is protected so that logged out users cannot edit it. I just learned that I was forcibly circumcision as a baby, and it has been responsible for various spurts of pain in my life for years at this points and still sometimes ongoing. This article really deserves the category. 71.179.173.156 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're going off of personal anecdotes, then here's mine: after learning that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men who have sex with men, I was grateful my parents had it done years before I came out. None of the pain, but all of the benefits. Thus I propose this article be placed under the "medical miracles" category. Clearly, personal anecdotes and "I don't like it" aren't reasons to change an article's category. ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help finding a citation

As part of my edits to the "positions" paragraph (which I mistakenly/embarrassingly referred to as "ethics" in my last series of comments), I came across this sentence: "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children to have modest health benefits that outweighs small risks[7], to having no benefit and significant risks.[citation needed]". At the time, neither claim was sourced, however as a part of my edits I had already located a source which backs up the "beneficial" claim (source [7] is a CDC publication). However, I don't know of a source which claims that "circumcision has no benefit and has significant risks". I know that it is a major view/position, however I haven't located a source for it (yet). At the moment I am only seeking one citation, so that I can finish polishing the lead, however I may need more for when I go to re-write the "Elective" section (which discusses those who oppose it 4x as much as it mentions its proponents). ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes a reference supports two sentence in a row. There is no rule that a reference must occur after every single sentence when two subsequent sentence are supported by the same ref.

I have added the ref in question to clarify for you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thank you! ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Text in question

Not sure why

" However, a 2014 literature review found that there are significant gaps in the current literature on male and female sexual health that need to be addressed for the literature to be applicable to North American populations."

Was replaced by

"Also in 2014, health economists and other experts from Johns Hopkins warned that a decline in neonate circumcision would lead to more disease and could lead to billions of extra health care costs."

Discussion now needed.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Err...I explained this in my revert. You should be able to read the reasons in edit history, but again, the reasons are that 1) I gave a source that is valid for Northern America/US (--->The Johns Hopkins Study). And more important: The removed/replaced source talks about sexuality and not about (health) economics. I really cannot see what is unclear about this and why you and Alex are frustrating my change without giving a valid reason. Talking about edit wars... Yuri7474 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The source in question[20] refers to policy makers. Economic effects depend on benefits and risks. And the ref says "At present, however, the majority of the literature on circumcision is based on research that is not necessarily applicable to North American populations," Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading both options the status quo appears more balanced. The text above this sentence makes the economic case for circumcision, and the last statement is one of caution in interpreting the literature. You linked to a press release, not the article, and the literature review in the current text is dated after your Johns Hopkins paper was published. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The last statement is based on a source that does not talk about gaps in the knowledge concerning the economics of circumcision. So it is not relevant in this subsection of the article that speaks about economics.

Doc James, you state: "The source in question[16] refers to policy makers. Economic effects depend on benefits and risks." 1)Because the source refers to policy makers, it doesn't mean the source talks about the economics of circumcision. 2) Your assertion that the economic benefits depend on benefits and risks is your own addition and has nothing to do with the source. The source does NOT talk about economical issues but merely about immaterial issues like sexual functioning, penile sensitivity, the effect of circumcision on men's sexual partners etc.

Yuri7474 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Text in question 2

I changed text in the article as follows:

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that effective pain management should be used.[3] Inadequate pain relief may carry the risks of heightened pain response for newborns.[33] Newborns experiencing pain during circumcision have different responses to vaccines given afterwards, with higher pain scores observed.[74] For adult men who have been circumcised, there is a risk that the circumcision scar may be tender.

In the older text it was not clear that the cause of heightened pain relief is pain experienced during the procedure. This more precise wording was reverted without reason. I would like to ask @Doc James: and @Alexbrn: to refrain from childish games, read first and then revert someone's edit with a valid reason if you think it is still necessary. Yuri7474 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

One does not need "The American Academy of Pediatrics states that". Lots of people say this so it can be stated as fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with that change you made, James, but Alex COMPLETELY reverted my edit for no good reason, check for yourself. Can you please put back my change, of course with your edit? So that it reads:

"Effective pain management should be used.Inadequate pain relief may carry the risks of heightened pain response for newborns.[33] Newborns experiencing pain during circumcision have different responses to vaccines given afterwards, with higher pain scores observed." Yuri7474 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Press releases from Johns Hopkins or pieces in the Huffington Post are unreliable/undue. Any sourcing in the space needs to be of a much higher quality. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please learn to put your comment under the right header. Here the topic is pain during circumcision and heightened pain response afterwards. I added precision:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics states that effective pain management should be used.[3] Inadequate pain relief may carry the risks of heightened pain response for newborns.[33] Newborns experiencing pain during circumcision have different responses to vaccines given afterwards, with higher pain scores observed.[74] For adult men who have been circumcised, there is a risk that the circumcision scar may be tender."

James just removed the AAP mention (but left the AAP as source) which is ok, but you, like a dictator, reverted my whole edit without any reason. And still you give no reason for reverting my whole edit (about pain and heightened pain response). Yuri7474 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverting problematic edits is part of collaborative editing, with WP:ONUS being on the one proposing the change and WP:CONSENSUS usually starting with the status quo (and evolving through these discussions). This is fine, because it is being discussed. Wikipedia has no set publishing deadline, its articles are always work in progress. You're doing the right thing by participating to this discussion, but please avoid deflecting it in relation to specific editors (WP:AGF, WP:FOC). —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, if you Paleo, came with a constructive contribution on the "issue" at hand instead of twisting things.

Reverting a "problematic" edit is not what happened here. What happened here is the reversion, for no valid reason whatsoever, of a more precise wording. There is no ground for assuming circumcision per se leads to a heightened pain response. Rather the problem is circumcision without (adequate) anesthesia. I would like to see that reflected in the article. Yuri7474 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Risk - boy dies following circumcision

Not that uncommon - shouldn't it be mentioned?...

The article currently states: "Severe to catastrophic complications, including death, are so rare that they are reported only as individual case reports."

However, in the following news article significantly different information is cited from "so rare". "A two-year-old boy has died from blood loss following a failed circumcision at a migrant centre in Italy." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46671457

"The main risks of the surgery are bleeding and infection.

In the UK, the chance of these occurring is between one in 10 and one in 50, according to the NHS website, although that is a figure for older boys and men, not newborns."

CDC [21]: "Severe complications are rare in all age groups and occur in 0.23% of all circumcised males overall." That's significantly less than 1 in 50. In fact, it's closer to 1 in 500. In fact, for infants, it is 1 in 500. Perhaps that isn't a great statistic, but that does mean it occurs far less than sexual assault. I would also like to point out that a "migrant center" could/does have a lower standard of care than a traditional hospital does. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Death from circumcision is very, very, very rare. When it is performed in a medical setting. You are confusing two things: Bleeding is not uncommon after a circumcision, but is almost always a minor problem. It is easily treated. It seems you are concluding that because bleeding sometimes occurs after circumcumcision, that the death rate must be higher, too. Well, that is not the case because generally the bleeding is easily controlled. Does this mean things never can go wrong? No, of course not, things can go wrong, but driving a car, a bike - these things are MUCH more dangerous than getting circumcised by doctors. The tragic deaths you are talking about took place during a home circumcision in suspicous circumstances. Yuri7474 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I submit for your consideration the following publication:

Earp, Brian; Allareddy, Veerajalandhar; Allareddy, Veerasathpurush; Rotta, Alexandre (October 2018). "Factors associated with early deaths following neonatal male circumcision in the United States, 2001-2010". Clinical Pediatrics. 57 (13): 1532–1540. doi:10.1177/0009922818790060. Retrieved 2019-06-24.

The publication of this journal renders the article as written, ie/ "they are reported only as individual case reports", explicitly false - a correction is necessary.

This is also not the only research that has investigated a connection between circumcision and death. The following publication has shown evidence of a connection between circumcision and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome:

Elhaik, Eran (2019). "Neonatal circumcision and prematurity are associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)". Journal of clinical and translational research. 4 (2): 136–151. doi:10.18053/jctres.04.201802.005. Retrieved 2019-06-24.

Please work with us to update the language on this page regarding deaths as relevant new developments have occurred since this wording was originally written in 2012.KhazWolf (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDASSESS, are either of those papers a systematic review or meta-analysis? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDASSESS, is Complications of Circumcision, one of the existing citations on that line, a systematic review or meta-analysis?

Regardless of whether the citations I have posted are appropriate for direct citation on wikipedia the fact remains that they have been published, and therefore the statement "Severe to catastrophic complications, including death, are so rare that they are reported only as individual case reports" is now explicitly false. While this statement may have been true at the time the AAP's 2012 Technical Report (from which it was paraphrased) was published, it clearly is no longer. The Technical Report itself gleefully admits that it has now "expired", per the footnotes I quote:

"The guidance in this report does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. [...] All technical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time."

Unless you have a source explicitly stating that the AAP has "reaffirmed or revised" this technical report during or before 2017, I Modestly Propose that it be struck from this article entirely.

Or we could compromise and just not quote it on obviously obsolete information.KhazWolf (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If a poor-quality source makes a claim that contradicts what a high-quality source says, then we only care what the high-quality source says. The key is in using the highest quality sources available, which are typically recent systemic reviews or meta-analyses. If you think the quality of the citations you have brought exceed the ones currently used in the article (per WP:MEDASSESS) then you should make that case to the editors of this article, explaining what text you want to change, what you want to change it to, based on which sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?

"Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants.[1][17]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: That's why the first paragraph states: The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on babies and children, for religious or cultural reasons. The article already states that it's elective, which is a position that is supported by the CDC AUA and AAFP. Inclusion of this second sentence is redundant, and worse, this sentence passes a moral judgement on "routine circumcision". If you changed it to something like "John smith does not consider this to be justification for x", then it would at least abide by WP:NPOV. However, its placement would still violate WP:DUEWEIGHT and the rules of English grammar/style. While it's true that my sources don't state that "it should be a routine neonatal procedure" they also list major advantages to the procedure, and don't state that "it shouldn't be a routine procedure". 3 > 1. In fact, 5 > 1; there are 5 sources that favor infant circumcision (with or without calling for it to be routine), you include WHO and UNAIDS recommendations, which are listed in this very article: Circumcision. To this end, I have an idea of moving it conceptually to the preceding paragraph on ethical concerns. Something along the lines of "some/x believe that the benefits of the procedure do not justify it being routine"? Perhaps? Thoughts? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: WP:SYNTH. Source 17 [22] neither supports nor states that it is "not a justification for routine circumcision". In fact, source 17 mildly supports the claim that there is evidence of circumcision preventing cancer (the sentence prior to this). Source 11 does not appear to support the claim that there is a "lack of justification" either. Furthermore, the sentence is out of place with with respect to the sentences surrounding it. In that sentence the tone of the entire article is flipped (from neutrality to condemnation) but then the tone reverts following the sentence. When doing a read through of the article (top to bottom) this particular sentence stands out as being jarringly out of place. Perhaps if the statement were properly quoted and attributed to an individual, and the article stated something to the effect of some people such as Jax Doe believe that "this does not provide a justification for routine circumcision", then it might be acceptable where it is (as it no longer breaks WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SYNTH), but even then it would still be better suited for the ethics sections. Moreover, the statement that the "prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants" is directly contradicted by the WHO and UNAIDS reports and recommendations, given they recommend it be routine (in areas with a high prevalence of HIV) due to those very reasons. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The other source says "Although routine neonatal circumcision is still common in some Western countries such as the USA, the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited and no national or international medical association currently advocates routine neonatal circumcision."

Trimmed the cancer.org source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Ok, but if that's the only source for that sentence then it is redundant to the better sourced paragraph on ethical concerns that precedes it. In fact, it should be moved entirely to the ethical concerns section, else we risk creating redundancies within the article (stating it the same in both the leading section and the ethical concerns section). On a more fundamental level, there is also the matter of maintaining a Neutral Point of View.

Per WP:NPOV we are to:

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

In this case the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, make assertions that conflict with it. Given that the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, are generally considered to be reliable sources, that would mean that claiming that the listed medical benefits to circumcision are not justification for it being routine, is, in fact, an opinion.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Stating that "these medical reasons are not justification for ..." is does exactly the same thing as stating that "genocide is an evil action". Even if most people believed that routine male circumcision was a moral wrong, or unjustified, we still could not claim that "those reasons do not justify routine circumcision". At its core, the problem is that, as it stands, the sentence is still presenting as fact that which is actually an opinion. One that the CDC (one of, if not the, largest national health organization in the Western World) disagrees with (per [23]).

Are there ethical concerns about routine male circumcision? Yes. Is the second paragraph, and an entire subsection of the article, dedicated to those very concerns? Also yes. Since we already dedicated a paragraph to ethical concerns, before the paragraph on health benefits, and we have an entire section dedicated to them elsewhere in the article, there is no neutral reason to include this "counter claim" as fact. Furthermore, seeing as it (the sentence) uses the voice of Wikipedia to pass a moral judgement, it violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, the official policy guideline for WP:5P2 states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Even if I wanted to, whether I like it or not, I'm not allowed to violate this guideline. Furthermore, WP:IAR does not apply to this policy because it's "non-negotiable". It's what Wikipedia is, and we all have a duty to uphold it. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide the ref that supports this "In this case the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, make assertions that conflict with it."? Ie can you provide a ref that says routine male circumcision is supported for medical reasons in the Western world?

Scientific American quoting Reuters quoting supposedly a US Federal Draft guideline is NOT the CDC. We do not base Wikipedia on drafts. When the final document comes out we can definitely consider it. I agree the CDC is an excellent source but we would use them directly.

@Doc James: Reuters is considered a reliable source via WP:RSP, that is why I stopped when I got to the Scientific American article.

You have not provided any evidence that this breaches NPOV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I did, but you deleted it in this revision and I don't know why. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn and Doc James: In any case, here are a few more as well: The American Academy of Family Physicians [24], the actual CDC [25] (77% reduction in penile cancer rates), and even the American Urological Association [26] (re-affirmed in 2018, I'd say that's recent). ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The first ref by AAFP says "The decision whether to circumcise a newborn male is affected by parents’ values and beliefs and should be made by parents after a discussion of the benefits and harms." It does not say that we should be recommending routine circumcision based on potential health benefits.

The AUA also does not recommend routine circumcision. "When circumcision is being discussed with parents and informed consent obtained, medical benefits and risks, and ethnic, cultural, religious and individual preferences should be considered." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: that's a far cry from "prevention of these... is not a justification". This isn't a mathematical proof, one cannot just claim that "x isn't justified" here. Furthermore, at least one of my sources stated that it should be covered by insruance

A recommendation that something be covered by insurance does not mean that it is recommended for potential health benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Doc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn and Doc James: First off, Doc James inexplicably removed the link I had provided to a source that refutes the disputed sentence in this revision to the talk page. Perhaps he could explain how this action was justified, and not an attempt to remove content that contradicts his source? Secondly, to me, the fact that the contested sentence uses Wikipedia's voice (rather than the author's voice) to assert a moral stance, it clearly violates the NPOV guidelines. For this reason, I ask if either of you prove that the contested sentence doesn't violate WP:NPOV? ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Link to scientific america was removed in error. You still have not provided any source that says routine neonatal circumcision is recommended in the Western world for medical reasons.

@Doc James: Hence why I put (mistake?) in my responsorial edit summary. Secondly, did you read the CDC source? It makes it quite clear that it is a recommended/beneficial practice, and that it is best done on neonates rather than later on in life. What part of "The potential health benefits from circumcision justify it being a covered medical service by third-party payers" doesn't conflict with stating "the reasons don't justify it"? With all due respect, we are giving undue weight to the notion that it isn't beneficial, given that there are dozens of listed benefits, and its only drawback is a small risk of a surgical complication. To boldly make the claim, in Wikipedia's Voice no less, that "it's not justified in the Western World", is as misleading as it is factually incorrect. The cancer data includes stuff from the United States, and a 77% drop in cancer risk is, well, extremely statistically significant, given the massive sample size. If that book you cited had claimed that "cleft pallet correction surgery is not justified in the western world" (it has a similar ratio of benefits to drawbacks) I think we would all agree that it isn't a reliable source, and should not be included at all, let alone keeping a psuedo-quote of it passing judgment on the procedure. Frankly, the sentence reads as an attempt to pacify "Intactivists" that visit this article. In fact, they probably point to that sentence and say "see, it's right here on Wikipedia, even they have passed judgement on your mistaken judgement to have your child circumcised". The key problem being: judgment. We. Aren't. Allowed. To. Judge. If we can't even judge genocide how on God's green Earth are we supposed to judge circumcision. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You could try a RfC if you like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• What we have seems in line with the source quoted ("Although routine neonatal circumcision is still common in some Western countries such as the USA, the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited and no national or international medical association currently advocates routine neonatal circumcision"). I see no problem WP:ASSERTing this. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: "the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited" is patently false. At least, per the American Academy of Family Physicians [27], the CDC [28] (77% reduction in penile cancer rates, in America), and the American Urological Association [29]. While it is true to assert that "no national or international medical association currently advocates mandatory neonatal circumcision" (emphasis mine), it is not true that they assert that "routine circumcision isn't justified" or to assert "the arguments... have been discredited". All of the American sources indicate that circumcision is to be viewed as elective and routine. Routine, because they are a standard/common medical practice with low risks, elective, because the pros and cons should be evaluated before making the decision. Moreover, it makes more sense to move the sentence in conflict to the "Ethical concerns" paragraph that precedes it, rather than leave it in the middle of the "medical benefits" paragraph. It doesn't fit the paragraph that it is in, but it would complement the ethical concerns section and summary paragraph. The way it's laid out currently, it synthesizes the analysis of the CDC, WHO, and others, and draws a conclusion as to whether it is justified as being a routine procedure. It's also hard to say that it's not a "routine procedure", given that colonoscopies and wart removal are both "routine procedures". The data I have linked to does, in fact, establish that it is best to get circumcision done within the first 9 months after birth (lowest risk of complication, greatest amount of benefit). If it's not a "routine medical procedure", then what exactly is it? An invasive medical procedure? An emergency medical procedure? An intensive medical procedure? It's categorically routine, especially in the Western Hemisphere. In closing, I have changed my mind on completely deleting the sentenced, but I think it should be moved to the "ethical concerns" paragraph (of the lead), rather than remain in the "benefits/drawbacks" paragraph (of the lead). I also disagree with reclassifying it as something other than routine. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, we go by what reliable sources say, not by what some random editor (i.e. you) asserts is "patently" so. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: So, the CDC, AUA, and AAFP aren't reliable? [30] [31] [32]. To quote Flonase, "and three is greater than one". ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A New Way Forward

To whom it may concern, particularly @Doc James, Flyer22 Reborn, and Alexbrn: I have a new idea! ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

• Move "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world.[1]" to the preceding paragraph about ethical concerns.
• And rewrite it as: "Some believe that the modest benefits are not justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world.[1]". "Some" could be swapped for "Others", and I am open to other suggestions.

Reasoning

• The first paragraph states: "The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on babies and children, for religious or cultural reasons." That is to say, the article already notes that it is elective, and not mandatory, particularly in the Western World.
• Multiple RSs ([33] [34] [35]) support it being an elective, and benign, procedure.
• It's more of an ethical concern, than a true assertion, given that any net benefit would technically be sufficient justification for doing something.
• Moving it, and rewriting it so that it's not stated as "the dominant medical view" eliminates the WP:NPOV concerns (which led me to this article in the first place).
• Rewriting as such would clear up the WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns.
• Moving it would correct the interruption of flow in the third paragraph. As it sits now, I could easily see an uninvolved editor boldly doing this as an attempt to improve the readability of the article.
• This proposal wouldn't eliminate a source, and it wouldn't remove a dissenting opinion.
• This proposal prevents the deletion of an ethical view from the lead.

Thoughts?

• Not an improvement, and deviates from the source with editorial weasel-wording ("some believe"). I'm not seeing anyone agree there's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I came here from WikiProject Neutrality, so yes, there are at least some people who do agree that it's a problem (and yes, I know it's considered "defunct", but I wanted to see what the result was). Furthermore, the (single) "source" deviates from established fact because there is at least one international organization that calls for it to be routine. Stating "prevention of these things [(HIV)] is not justification for routine circumcision" goes against every source that says it should be elective (which it is, in all Western countries, thus making the "not routine" part a moot point). You also seem to be missing the point that we don't have to quote that source. Just because we did, and I made a change that annoyed (offended?) someone, doesn't mean that a sentence (which should have been in quotes, if included at all) has to remain in an article unchanged. All three of y'all have failed, for over a week, to support your assertion that the original sentence didn't violate WP:NPOV, and that asserting it as being "unjustified genital mutilation" was totally in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary

User:ElectroChip123 you do not have consensus to remove "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world." In fact three of us have opposed you removing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Based on the diffs and revision history, the three of you are also the ones who most closely watch and frequently edit this page. You may be right about a consensus, but for that I would like to see an RfC involving editors other than those who frequently edit this page. It's great that there are people looking out for this page, but that can lead to the "everything is fine the way it is; no touching" philosophy displayed. Over time, I gradually compromised on a course of action, rather than removing the sentence, I can move it to a better paragraph, and with more sources, I can frame it in the context of the debate over circumcision in the West, thereby giving the sentence more relevance. Meanwhile, the three of you haven't even agreed that "maybe it could be phrased better", and you haven't even conceded that it's actually a direct quote, rather than an assertion, and you haven't even considered how the sentence is redundant in the context of the other paragraphs and sentences, especially The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children as having no benefit and significant risks, to its having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks.[7] No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure.[7] Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for justification as to keeping it unchanged and where it is. Why is a position in the section that is clearly labeled as "benefits and side effects"? Can any of you give me even 1 reason? or is it just "we think it should be, and we are the Supreme Cabal of Wikipedia"?.

This is a WP:GA and your proposed changes would worsen it by taking us away from decent sourcing. With your cabal references you have gone over the line into stupidity. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole debacle crossed that line a while ago, when none of you could justify the inclusion of that sentence with anything other than "my 1 RS said so" (I have three+ for my edits) and "the others are ok with it, why aren't you" (that's not how it works here). Furthermore, how does "Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure.[5][10][11]", which has WP:THREE sources, not improve the article? How do the changes make it less readable? How do they make it any less of a Good Article? Moreover, I didn't even remove your source, I merely put it into its proper context. It relates to the positions of national and international organizations, so I moved it to the paragraph on the positions of national and international organizations. Since the CDC clearly promotes it as a beneficial, but elective, procedure, stating/WP:Asserting that "it isn't justified as a routine procedure" is actually very contestable. I would like to see more sources before we go about asserting "not justification" in the "Evidence and Side Effects" paragraph. If we fix stuff like this, we could probably bring this article up to "featured" status. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You want to replace:

"Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world."

With:

"Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure."

You have not developed consensus to do so. Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.

Do you have a source that recommends it as a "routine procedure" in the Western world? None of the 3 sources you mention do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Routine just means "commonplace" (at least that is how I learned its definition). To that end, the sources I provided do establish it as "routine" rather than "invasive, extraordinarily, intensive" or any other classification. The way it's phased is ok, if routine is taken to mean "mandatory", however I don't believe that routine means "mandatory", and I don't think that most people do either. You can opt out of "routine cancer care" because it's not mandatory. That said, it is still called "routine" because it is commonplace, well-established, and standardized. Regardless, do you agree that this sentence is referencing a position on circumcision? ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I want to replace

Circumcision is also associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[15][16] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[3] Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world.[5]

With:

Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure.[5][10][11]

...Circumcision is also associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[17][18] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[3]

@Doc James: I no longer desire to "remove" the sentence in its entirety. Through these discussions I have come to agree with the initial reversions you did (when I completely deleted the sentence). That said, I strongly believe that it works better in the paragraph on positions (which currently does not highlight the increased debate in the West), than in the paragraph on evidence and side effects. Currently, my problem is that it is in the wrong place, not that it exists. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes so you want to remove "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world." and add "Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure."

And a bunch of use have opposed that.

Do you have any source that says it is an essential procedure anywhere? Your new text appears to be trying to imply that. It is a recommended procedure but not an essential one is subSaharan Africa. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I wasn't sure if the opposition was to any change or to deletion. For the most part, it seemed that the three of you were still trying to convince me to not delete the sentence, however I had already moved on from that idea (I do see that it, or something like it, should be in the article/lead somewhere). Scrolling through the archives, it would seem that I'm not the only editor who had a problem with this sentence. Although, it would appear that I am the only editor that actually to the time to look into it and come up with something other than "delete it and its source". I would also like to note that I re-arranged some of the sentences on HIV, that is why I included more of the paragraphs in my comment. That said, they may have been a bit large for a single comment. I was trying to give a direct view of my idea, because it would seems that I kind of suck at describing things. I also don't know what you mean by "essential". The CDC doesn't class it as "essential" but the AUA or AAFP did imply it was "routine". Yes, the WHO recommends VMMC (voluntary medical male circumcision) in sub-Saharan Africa, but that I don't think that implies it is an "essential" procedure. Does routine = essential? I didn't think so, and I don't think that's the norm in the United States, but I could be mistaken as far as international perspectives go. Since the re-wording seems to be an/the issue, would it be ok to move the sentence, as is, to the paragraph on positions? I mean, it's certainly a position, and it would merit inclusion in that paragraph. Thoughts? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No I do not support moving it. We list a number of things that circumcision reduces slightly like cancer of the penis and UTIs. Than we say that prevention of these is not a reason for routine or population wise circumcision. As the sentence in question is in reference to the sentences immediately proceeding it moving it would not be an improvement.

The AUA or AAFP and do not recommend it as a routine or universal surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, may I chime in? We now have this sentence: "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world." I think that is rather strongly worded because who decides what is "just"? If the benefits outweigh the risks, some people might see enough justification. Therefore I think the following wording, closer to the AAP statement would be preferable: "These benefits of circumcision are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns but are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for those choosing it." I purposely use "those" and not "families" as mentioned in the AAP statement to prevent the minors/adults discussion. By doing so, the stances of all Western medical bodies are covered: those who think "non-medical" circumcisions should not be performed on minors and those who think, like the AAP that it is justified if the parents choose so. What do you think? Yuri7474 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

IMO what we have is more to the point "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world."

We need to reflect the sum of the literature not just one position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I agree that "We need to reflect the sum of the literature not just one position". However, that means we need to re-write that sentence, because it is a direct quote from a single individual's paper on the subject. A highly knowledgeable individual, yes, but nonetheless, it's still only one position and not a summary of all positions in and of itself. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ref

Ref says "There is evidence that it was common practice in the Arabian Peninsula from where, in the fourth millennium BCE, two groups of people migrated into what we today call Iraq." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RE: Economic Considerations

Hi @Alexbrn,

Please note, the text quoted below does not comport with Wiki guidelines in WP:V. SEE: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an ***inline citation*** that directly supports the material."

Please amend citations for the following text, or it WILL be removed.

1. "with cost savings estimated in the billions of US dollars over 20 years."

2. "A study by the CDC suggests that newborn circumcision would be societally cost-effective in the United States based on circumcision's efficacy against the heterosexual transmission of HIV alone, without considering any other cost benefits. " Hotpass105 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

References

An ***inline citation*** is present User:Hotpass105. Did you read it? And if so what is the issue?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

______

Hi @Doc James,

Neither of those citations use language that supports the quote statements.

1. "with cost savings estimated in the billions of US dollars over 20 years."

Here, nothing in the source references cost savings in the US, only a cost-benefit analysis for developing countries.

2. "A study by the CDC suggests that newborn circumcision would be societally cost-effective in the United States based on circumcision's efficacy against the heterosexual transmission of HIV alone, without considering any other cost benefits. "

Here, the citation links to another article where, again, the US is not studied or researched in the materials. It solely focuses on third world countries.

I expect you to demonstrate how either of these claims is supported by the material.

Hotpass105 (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

References

You don't appear to be able to understand English. Just because a figure is given in "US dollars" does not means it's about the US. Alexbrn (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

________________

Hi @Doc James,

Thanks for addressing my first concern. ("You don't appear to be able to understand English. Just because a figure is given in "US dollars" does not means it's about the US.)] I have edited the text for clarity and to follow [Active_voice].

Please answer my first concern, the linked citation does not at all address the statements in the Article. You are required to observe WP:V and WP:Neutral_point_of_view.

Hotpass105 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

_________________

Hi @Doc James,

If these changes are revered or undone again I will tag with WP:Verifiability and research my options for making the changes permanent.

Hotpass105 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The text you're removing is very clearly supported by the attached reference. There's no cause to tag or remove anything here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The quote is "The CDC study suggests that newborn circumcision performed in the United States to prevent HIV infection is cost-effective without consideration of other health benefits." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Medical organizations

I really can't see this statement being objective: "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure". The source for this is a page that requires a subscription to view, so I, and the vast majority of people on this page, cannot read it. Seems like a pretty bad source to use in general for wiki if it requires a subscription.

But really, there are many medical organizations that want to ban the procedure. I literally have no idea what qualifies as "major". Just to name some that are in favor of banning child circumcision:

Swedish Pediatric Society

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

The German Association of Pediatricians

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan

the Saskatchewan Medical Association

The Central Union for Child Welfare

South African Medical Association

Norwegian Medical Association

the Norwegian Nurses Organization

the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children

The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners

The Danish Medical Association

I could go on. But really, what is considered a "major" medical organization? Not to mention, these are only the ones who are calling for a ban. There are a lot more that are just strongly opposed to it, but don't call for a ban. Most health organizations in the world with statements on circumcision are opposed to circumcising children. This wiki page is somewhat deceptive in my opinion, while not being objectively untrue due to the "major" in the statement. Is it not important on a wiki page to show that a lot of medical organizations want to ban it, and that most with statements on circumcision are opposed to it? I can provide sources for all of this, and I think it is very important that it is mentioned on this page. Even if you for some reason disagree, I hope you can atleast admit that the statement "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure" shouldn't be there when the source is something that requires a subscription. Madsenanders (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that Alexbrn, this has made me 100% certain that line should not be there. I wrote an email to the author of the paper and requested to be given a copy and received a pdf roughly 40 hours afterwards. I'm saying this so anybody can go and check it to make sure I'm not making this up. Anyways, the source sited for the quote "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure" says this: "Our goal here is to review the major arguments in favor of and opposed to neontal circumcision that are put forth by medical organizations, to outline the current reccomendations from the major medical organizations in western medicine, and to provide a consensus of these views that may be put into practice". It makes no attempt to define what a "major" medical organization is. It does imply it has looked at all current reccomendations but the rest of the paper suggests otherwise. The medical organizations it goes on to mention, are the following: American Academy of Pediatrics American Academy of Family Physicians American Urological Association Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Canadian Pediatric Society British Medical Association British Association of Pediatric Surgeons Royal Dutch Medical Association World Health Organizations

So, unless I have completely misunderstood the paper, it defines all of the mentioned medical organizations as "major". Now it never actually directly says that it has cited all "major" medical organizations, so one could argue that alone is enough for the quote I am disputing to be removed. However, What I really want to look at here is the size of these organizations that are defined as "major". The Canadian Pediatric Society has roughly 3400. Now, the German Association of Pediatricians have roughly 5600 members, and they have want to ban circumcision for children. Is this not by that papers definition a "major" medical organization, simply based on the size? Both of them are exlusively about Pediatricians, so they should be completely comparable in that sense. Now this is the only medical organization of an identical type to the ones in the paper that call for a ban and surpass the size of the one mentioned in the paper that I have been able to find, but if you exclude that they have to be of the exact same "type" there are a lot that straight up surpass the ones cited in the paper in size. Just for example the South African Medical Association is in favor of banning circumcision for children, and they have 17500 members. You could compare this to the Canadian Pedaitric Society if you ignore type, or if we include type there is the American Urological Association, which has 18000 members and is cited in the paper. It is not bigger but it is the same type and extremely close. I can come with a lot more examples of ones of the same type that are almost of the same size if needed, but the Canadian one is the only one that I have found a straight up bigger organization.

Based on all of this, I do not think that the statement "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure" is backed up by the source, as it does not define "Major" in the paper, and and there are organizations of greater or (almost) equal size to those in the paper that are in favor of banning male circumcision for children, which makes me assume that they would also be considered "Major" by the paper. This means that the statement is not accurate and I will put in a edit request for it in 1 week (as I do not have permission to edit currently) if I do not receive a convincing reponse as to why that statement is actually true due to the source given. I admit that it is completely possible that I missed something, which is why I will wait 1 week until I put the edit request forward, but I am almost certian that that statement should not be on this wikipedia page as the source does not back it up, and technically states the opposite due to it's loose definition of "Major". Madsenanders (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"there are many medical organizations that want to ban the procedure"

What one of those organizations states they want to ban the procedure? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the article. I think the logical route here is 1) check that the article Ethics of circumcision is correct and complete 2) check that the section Circumcision#Ethical_and_legal_issues is correct and reflects the Ethics of circumcision article 3) check that the lead reference reflects the article. 4) Propose the exact changes you want to any/ all of the above. Jontel (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to cite the one that specifically disproves the statement of "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure" German Association of Pediatricians: https://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/news-archiv/meldung/article/europaeische-paediater-kritisieren-aap-stellungnahme-zur-beschneidung/ But I am really confused about how to format stuff on the wiki and correctly link it. Should I just edit despite the formatting + adding a source being bad, and someone else will fix it? Also should I just delete the "no major" statement since it is wrong, and not add anything else? Madsenanders (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not entirely agree. Your reference says "Doctors and doctors' organizations should therefore discourage their parents from having their healthy boys pruned." That is about doctors expressing their view to patients. It is different from banning, which would presumably make the procedure illegal. The position of the GAP is covered in this sentence "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children as having no benefit and significant risks, to the procedure having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks" However, I think it would be clearer to replace "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure." with "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or making it illegal, though some recommend that doctors advise parents against it for healthy boys. Jontel (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added the official position statements from the national medical associations and human/child rights authorities. A couple of them may be a bit too long. Please feel free to sculpt them down to essence (don't just go on reverting willy-nilly). — Guarapiranga (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Maimonides quote

Alexbrn You reverted the quote I added from Maimonides, acknowledged by Jewish scholars since his death as among the foremost rabbinical decisors and philosophers in Jewish history, explaining in his Guide to the perplexed that the main purpose of circumcision in Judaism is to repress sexual pleasure, with the strongest reason being that it is difficult for a woman to separate from an uncircumcised man with whom she has had sex. I've added this text instead, which is directly lifted from the articles on Maimonides and Brit Milah. I'm hoping you don't turn this into an edit war. — Guarapiranga (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You are already edit warring by repeatedly trying to insert your favoured content (failing WP:V to boot). This is undue here, which is only meant to summarize the Brit milah article. Alexbrn (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your justification for reverting the quote was that it was too long, Alexbrn. Fine, I just added one single sentence about it worded exactly as it is in Brit milah. Not sure what you want to say with WP:V to boot, but if it's the citation to Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed, that can be easily added in. In fact, you could've done that, instead of trigger-happily undoing other editors' contributions. — Guarapiranga (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It is undue, and you added unsourced editorial. The Judaism section is too long - I would support it being reduced in size while remaining in WP:SYNC with the Brit milah article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What unsourced editorial?? You saw the quote! You pulled it down yourself And the wording is precisely the same as in the Maimonides and Brit milah articles! Not a single one is mine!

But, ok, let's try that again: there it is, reduced, referenced, and the whole section reduced by omitting the whole paragraph on whether women can or cannot perform Brit milah. Unless, of course, you have a dog in this fight, and you're purposefully pulling down anything that might denigrate circumcision. — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No source cited verifies "Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical decisors and philosophers in Jewish history". This article is a GA and this blundering is not welcome. You have now been warned for edit warring. I am also warning you for personalizing the dispute, and for adding unverified material to Wikipedia. Continue doing this, and you will likely end up facing sanctions. To be clear, any mention of Maimonides sourced to primary sources here is completely undue (his article on Wikipedia does not even mention circumcision). Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, now it does.

No source cited verifies "Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical decisors and philosophers in Jewish history"

Is that why you reverted the whole thing?? I literally transcluded this wording from the Maimonides article (I assume it's consensual). If you don't like it, why don't you challenge it there? You've reverted me twice here already for good faith edits that have taken your criticisms onboard every time to reshape the content. One more and you risk being blocked under WP:3RR. You've been warned. — Guarapiranga (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I gave my reason clearly, and underlined a key aspect for emphasis. Alexbrn (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't. First you said the quote was too long. Then you said the whole section was too long. Then you said the claim that Maimonides is "one of the foremost rabbinical decisors and philosophers in Jewish history", which is consensual (or at least unchallenged) in the Maimonides article, is unsourced. As you said, you just don't want Maimonides' views on circumcision being mentioned here (or even in his own page!). You're clearly not acting with a WP:NPOV. — Guarapiranga (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV is one reason your edits won't stand. Multiple policy violations in evidence here, topped off with personal attacks. Alexbrn (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, I see this in favor of Guarapiranga. Without these edits the article currently fails WP:NPOV. There is significant mention of Brit shalom and Reformed Judaism on the Brit milah page. Please cease your reverts and destructive edits Alexbrn. Both sides of this issue must be presented. Hotpass105 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Best to pay some attention before mashing the revert key, Hotpass105, as you have just added material to the encyclopedia dishonestly claiming to be from a Chicago UP source, when in fact it's from some random web site. Naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So your problem was with the citation? Ok, fixed. — Guarapiranga (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That was one problem, and the new ref is good for its purposes. However, this content is not due here (though it is due at the Maimonides article), and framing it as something that is "explained" is POV at odds with the source. Alexbrn (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to reword it.

If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. (WP:QUO)

— Guarapiranga (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Large quotes

Am moving these here. We already summarize much of this. Maybe on a subpage?

One of the issues is that of copyright though. Not sure we can allow all these very large quotes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from NTMC (non-therapeutic male circumcision) is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for boys undergoing circumcision. In addition, some of the anticipated health benefits of male circumcision can be realised by other means – for example, condom use. … There are clearly risks inherent in any surgical procedure: for example, pain, bleeding, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia. With NTMC there are associated medical and psychological risks … The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a child or young person, either with or without competence, who refuses the procedure, irrespective of the parents’ wishes. … Parental preference alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for performing NTMC on a child unable to express his own view. … Furthermore, the harm of a person not having the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised or choose not to follow the traditions of his parents must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession, if he feels harmed by an irreversible non-therapeutic procedure.

—  British Medical Association

The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male. … With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established. … In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.

—  Canadian Paediatric Society

After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. … Since circumcision involves physical risks which are undertaken for the sake of psychosocial benefits or debatable medical benefit to the child, … The option of leaving circumcision until later, when the boy is old enough to make a decision for himself does need to be raised with parents and considered.

—  Royal Australasian College of Physicians

* There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.

• Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
• Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
• Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.
• There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation.
  —  Royal Dutch Medical Association

From a medical point of view, there is no reason to remove the intact foreskin of underage and non-consenting boys. … The tip of the foreskin is richly supplied with blood by important vascular structures. The foreskin serves as a connecting channel for numerous important veins. Circumcision can contribute to erectile dysfunction by destroying these blood lines. Their removal can, as the accounts of many sufferers show, lead to considerable restrictions on the sexual experience and mental stress. The frequently cited AAP opinion (DOI: 10.1542 / peds.2012-1989 Pediatrics "originally published online Aug. 27, 2012) contradicts earlier statements by the same organization without being able to invoke new research findings. This AAP opinion is now considered scientifically unsustainable by almost all other pediatric societies and associations in the world. … The WHO recommendation on prophylactic circumcision also applies only to sexually mature sexually active men in low-hygiene countries and can not be used as a basis for the prophylactic circumcision of unacceptable underage boys. … Worldwide, no medical professional society, not even the AAP, sees such a significant advantage in the general circumcision of young boys that it generally recommends them. … Religious regulations must not influence doctors in their care for their patients - and underage children deserve our very special care here. According to our sense of justice, boys have the same constitutional legal right to physical integrity as girls; they must not be disadvantaged because of their gender (Article 3 of the Basic Law). Parental rights and religious freedom end where the physical integrity of a child who is under the age of consent is not affected (Article 2 of the Basic Law) without a clear medical indication.

—  German Association of Paediatricians

There are no known medical benefits to the (circumcision) intervention on children. … Therefore, there are strong reasons to wait for the intervention until the person who is the subject of the measure has reached such age and maturity that he can give informed consent. … The EAR believes that the goal is to cease non-medically justified circumcision without prior consent.

—  Swedish Medical Association

To be circumcised should be an informed, personal choice. It is most consistent with the individual’s right to self-determination that parents not be allowed to make this decision but that it is left up to the individual when he has come of age.

—  Danish Medical Association

The Ombudsman for Children is opposed to having children circumcised when they are so small that they are unable to express their views on it. Being circumcised is something that cannot be changed. Then we think it is right to wait until the children are old enough to decide for themselves.

—  Norwegian Ombudsman for Children

The Deputy Ombudsman took the view that circumcising young boys, who are unable to give their consent, without a medical reason is highly questionable from a legal standpoint. … On 31 March 2016, the Supreme Court adopted two decisions that complement a previous precedent in which the Court found that the non-medical circumcision of boys constitutes an assault offence but is not punishable when it is considered to be in the best interests of the child. … In 2013, the Nordic Ombudsmen for Children adopted a joint statement stating that boys should be given the chance to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be circumcised. In 2015, the Finnish Ombudsman for Children Tuomas Kurttila proposed that Finland should enact an act prohibiting the non-medical circumcision of young boys.

—  Finnish Ombudsman for Equality

As circumcision is irreversible and therefore a radical operation, we find the physical integrity of the child takes precedence over the belief system of the parents.

—  Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics

Circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons is a violation of children's rights. … The ritual circumcision of boys for religious reasons in our country is unacceptable for legal and ethical reasons and should not be performed by doctors.

—  Slovenian Human Rights Ombudsman

____________________

I am confident that these statements can be condensed and integrated. Although, it will involve reworking the relevant parts of each of the pages. Copyright claims would not pertain to material which is cited and used for educational purposes. Further, copyright claims are determined by the copyright owner - not third parties who do not hold the copyright. Therefore, it should be permissible to use the information, for educational purposes, and when it is properly cited. Hotpass105 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes copyright applies. Yes agree that the copyright is determined by the copyright owner. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on public policy statements?? You must be kidding, Doc James (or have no idea of what you're talking about).

The issue is not just of incompleteness of the article by purposefully omitting the position statements on circumcision from these national medical associations and authorities, but that, as it is written, the article is blatantly lying when it says no major medical organization calls for banning it either. They clearly have. — Guarapiranga (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes everything is automatically copyrighted (even public policy statements). You need to find a statement by an organization calls for banning the procedure. Not a popular press peice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Popular press lol. Are you saying the 102 years-old Jewish Telegraphic Agency is not an RS??

You need to find a statement by an organization calls for banning the procedure.

No, I don't. But you can. If that ref was from the NYT, would you still say that? Course not. You're just making demands from the comfort of your chair to stall content you don't like. — Guarapiranga (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet more personal comments. This is getting disruptive. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an undigested collection of long copy 'n' paste quotations; we are meant to be summarizing accepted knowledge. Law is treated in more detail at Circumcision and law. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I would say the exact same thing about the NYTs. Not a suitable medical source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The information being sourced is not medical. It's just reporting the position statement of a professional organisation. — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

____

References

Map

Guarapiranga, regarding this, why are replacing the WHO-sourced map here and at the Genital modification and mutilation article?

When you reply, I ask that you don't WP:Ping me. This talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Because that WHO data is not current, Flyer22. It's from TWELVE years ago; it doesn't accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. In this interim, prevalence of circumcision in the US, UK and Australia, for instance, have decreased substantially. — Guarapiranga (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Flyer22, how come you reverted my edit about Maimonides with no explanation here or in the edit summary?? — Guarapiranga (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking here, I can't see what you replaced the WHO-sourced material with. The image isn't displaying. Also, what WP:MEDRS-compliant sources support the replacement material? As for up-to-date material for medical articles, you should point to the WP:MEDDATE guideline, not the WP:SCIRS essay.

Alexbrn and Doc James, any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't see what you replaced the WHO-sourced material with.

Open the source and you'll see. In fact that's precisely the purpose of using Template:Graph instead of an image only the owner can edit.

The image isn't displaying.

Because you took it down. But you did see it before pulling it down, no? Put it back on, or copy it onto your sandbox. Just don't go on reverting stuff you don't understand. Ask for clarification first in the talk page.

Also, what WP:MEDRS-compliant sources support the replacement material?

All sources are listed in the referred article as main.

As for up-to-date material for medical articles, you should point to the WP:MEDDATE guideline, not the WP:SCIRS essay.

As you wish:

In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources… Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. (WP:MEDDATE )

— Guarapiranga (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Prevalence of circumcision by country amongst boys younger than 15 years-old Main article: List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting

Here, let me help you… This is what you erased just bc you didn't understand it (as your questions clearly demonstrate):

— Guarapiranga (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"All sources are listed in the referred article as main" <- What does that mean? Readers must be able to WP:VERIFY the source of material in articles, so where can I see which sources were used? Alexbrn (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do cease the condescending tone. It doesn't help you at all. You stated, "Open the source and you'll see. In fact that's precisely the purpose of using Template:Graph instead of an image only the owner can edit." I can see the map now. However, I could not see it here. And an image only the owner can edit? In what way is it true that only the owner can edit the current image? And what source? Why don't you just link to it? But to go back to your condescending tone, I don't understand, you say? What is it that I don't understand? Given that I've been editing this site for far longer than you have and knew to point to WP:MEDDATE rather than some essay, it's certainly not a misunderstanding with regard to using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and up-to-date ones at that. You stated, "All sources are listed in the referred article as main." Point to the WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that specifically support this map. Per WP:Verifiability, readers and editors should know that the material is verifiable rather than someone's WP:Synthesis. Using that image and pointing to List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting is not how WP:Verifiability works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you just link to it?

It is linked! It's right there indicated where the sources are linked:

Main article: List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting

— Guarapiranga (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

And, yes, the sources are WP:MEDRS. (If any of them isn't, please feel free to challenge it there.) — Guarapiranga (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you not understand about what Alexbrn and I stated regarding WP:Verifiability? I'm now concerned about your edits to the List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting article, which SlimVirgin has often taken care of, and to other articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at WT:MED about this. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually wonder what you do not understand about WP:V. Just saying WP:V, WP:V doesn't mean anything. All information I've contributed to this article—and to any other article for that matter—have been backed by RSs. Including the map! And I have addressed all the objections you and Alexbrn have raised. Unless you can point to a specific requirement in WP:V that is being transgressed or not satisfied, your rant about WP:V is moot. — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Alexbrn has it right. All information you've contributed to this article—and to any other article for that matter—have been backed by RSs? Um, no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Rate of male circumcision by country

  >80%

  20–80%

  <20%

  N/A

It is not really that different than the current one except the current one represents overall circumcision rates not just that before 15 years old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Sexual effects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. The foreskin, not the glans, is the most sensitive part of the entire penis, and removing it takes away three quarters of the pleasure a man has during sexual intercourse. He can no longer „glide“ but has to „thrust“ — which causes friction and makes it less pleasurable for his partner as well. Neurologically, the most specialized pressure-sensitive cells in the human body are Meissner’s corpuscles for localized light touch and fast touch, Merkel’s disc cells for light pressure and tactile form and texture, Ruffini’s corpuscles for slow sustained pressure, deep skin tension, stretch, flutter and slip, and Pacinian corpuscles for deep touch and detection of rapid external vibrations. They are found only in the tongue, lips, palms, fingertips, nipples, and the clitoris and the crests of the ridged band at the tip of the male foreskin. These remarkable cells process tens of thousands of information impulses per second and can sense texture, stretch, and vibration/movement at the micrometre level. These are the cells that allow blind people to „see“ Braille with their fingertips. Cut them off and, male or female, it’s like trying to read Braille with your elbow. Physiologically, the clitoris is richly endowed with thousands of these specialized pressure-sensitive nerves and the clitoral foreskin is virtually bereft of them. The ridged band at the tip of the penile foreskin is richly endowed with thousands of these same specialized pressure-sensitive nerves and the glans is virtually bereft of them. 79.219.94.75 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

References

This has been discussed at length before. We follow reliable sources, and they find no effect. Alexbrn (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, Sorrells et al. should be mentioned in this WP-article (Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. Sorrells ML1, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, Van Howe RS.). 79.219.94.75 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

An old primary study is far from being WP:MEDRS, which would be needed for this subject matter. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The study may be old or not old ... the facts are: "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." Another study ... what about Frisch et al.? Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Frisch M, Lindholm M, Grønbæk M. "Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment." 2003:E8:5F15:9216:45B4:683D:67DA:6971 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

We need much stronger sources: see WP:MEDRS. I suggest also consulting this Talk page's archive, where this subject has been debated to death. What we have at the moment accurately represents accepted knowledge on the subject as published in the strongest sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexburn, would please stop your campaign against the truth. To all Wikipedia-users: Year after year Alexburn is boycotting the issue (the countless negative consequences of male circumcision). Alexburn is denying negative consequences of crcumcision for every boy or man - the quality only (!) of the English WP for circumcision is therefore shameful bad. Let us prevent such users from censoring the english (!) WP Circumcision. 2003:E8:5F15:9216:9925:462F:29B6:C0D5 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.